goodvsevilandreproduction1

[feelo...@yahoo.com]

REPRODUCTION Consider the concept of supply and demand; as applied to
human beings. If there is a shortage of humans, then they will have a
higher value and will be treated better. But if there is a surplus of
humans, then their value will be low, and they will be treated poorly,
according to their low value according to supply and demand. So that
when women are considering how many humans to produce in terms of how
large a family to have; collectively, they have quite an impact on how
we all are treated by those economic forces that rule over us all. And
then there is the conservative, religious rules over our sexuality.
But first let us consider sexual reproduction in itself. Sexual
reproduction produces offspring that are not exact copies of their
parents, but who are different from their parents to some degree. So,
sexual reproduction generates differences between each of us. Now, if
we were all to have sex with each other in unrestricted sexual
reproduction, then those differences would be spread all back among
our population and we would not build on or accentuate those
differences. But that’s not the way sexual reproduction works in our
world. Sexual reproduction is restricted to one man one woman and to
form a family grouping to raise the offspring produced. People of like
interests and skills tend to hand around with each other; and that is
where they are likely to meet a mate. So that the differences
generated by sexual reproduction are preserved and compounded over
each successive generation; so that different groups of people are
developed each being good in one particular area, while not so good in
the other areas. So that as individuals they cannot function well, but
only as a group can they work together to combine their good areas to
make a complete and competent societal whole. Thus the rulers of a
society have at their beck and call, all the humans of the society to
do their bidding, because as individuals they are all unbalanced in
their skills, incapable of being self sufficient as individuals, who
can only survive and excel by joining as a group each to contribute
their best skill. So that what the conservative rules over our sexual
reproduction do is to breed individuals who are slaves who are easily
molded by the rulers of a society, who are incapable of much
independence as individuals, so that we are more so a commodity to be
used by those who rule over us. Human sexuality doesn’t stop, but
continues to generate differences in the offspring; and with the
conservative rules remaining in place, this results in ever increasing
specialization in an individual’s best skill area, while the rest of
the individual’s areas lag further and further behind; so that
individuals become more and more unbalanced so that eventually the
individual becomes a commodity (which is their best skill), and is not
so much alive anymore in any of the other areas; as generation after
generation of sexual reproduction under conservative rule progresses.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxIn a world where the force of destruction is a
problem, we shall see that being at medium ability, not at barren,
neither rich ability; is the solution. Concerning the unbalanced
individual; being at barren ability in all the other areas, is not
good; and the other areas, although lagging behind, need to be
advanced too, eventually; otherwise it doesn’t work out. However,
outside the considerations of dealing with destruction; what is the
best configuration to have, concerning the societal entity (which is
made up of the best skills of each individual); and also concerning
the individual entity? The societal entity, and the individual entity,
are both areas (of value) that can be grown into and improved. To
leave a vacuum in any one of these areas, represents an improvement
that can be made and grown into. To act so that either of these areas
is to be sacrificed, is destructive, and is against the directives of
growth/goodness and love, which God purportedly is. Also there is the
consideration of coordination. As unbalance progresses in the
individual, the individual looses sight of where its best skill fits
into the other societal areas, as its own ’other areas’ are so feeble.
Eventually the societal entity becomes the individual, as the
individual entity no longer exists. What was the individual entity, is
now like cells of the body -incapable of any life or action outside
the body -there is no longer any intelligent life at this level. The
result of all this, is the causation of a rich area (the societal
entity); and a barren area (the individual entity); from what used to
be a medium ability situation. What has occurred is a polarization to
absolutes, by using sexual reproduction and conservative rules over
sexual reproduction; over the generations. Note that neither of these
absolutes is capable of dealing with the problem and force of
destruction; whereas the medium ability environment is. And since we
live in a world still with the problem of destruction, we will need to
bring back these medium ability environments. And this means we at
some point need to interrupt this conservative breeding program that
has been cornering the effects of human sexuality; and violate it.
Otherwise we will be in hell. (// Note that to actually obey the
command to die to yourself for Christ's sake; that when you take into
and part of yourself (so that it becomes part of yourself), this
action to die to yourself; that you must also die to this dieing to
yourself; so that an incomplete dying to yourself actually results;
which provides the medium environment needed, not these absolute
polarizations.//) The religious exhortations to be like a seed and die
to yourself so you can be part of the great big religion in the sky;
so that you can be part of the body: an arm, a leg, an eye or an ear
or a hand maybe; so that you can die to yourself and be one(in the
(societal)body): are all leading you down the wrong path; it seems to
me. Because the appeal of Jesus Christ, and need that he fulfills, as
being part of humanity; as being in between the absolutes of highness
and lowness, representing humanity and the in between: is not found
here. And the creation of a barren area in what used to be the
individual entity, is against the directives of growth and love. Now,
in response to a totally evil environment, this would be a good
response. But life is no longer so much so. Yet the controls are set
on autopilot in this direction, and need to be changed. A little bit
of this unbalance is OK, because it causes the individual entity to
also share with the societal entity, so that both entities can exist
and grow. But too much unbalance forces the individual entity to death
so that only the societal entity remains. But then I am reminded of
the idea that if high good ways exist, we as individuals should seek
to give up our individual ways, because individual ways are fraught
with more destruction and are not as good as the higher ways (of a
societal entity). But wait a minute: this is not that situation. The
directive to bring the individual entity to nothing as a means of
solving the imperfections of the individual entity/position; is a
different solution than the solution of having a robust individual
entity lay aside its ways and let the societal ways fill its needs
(with the medium level Jesus Christ entity as facilitator); because in
this solution, both the societal entity and the individual entity
EXIST and are well grown into. (Not all of the individual’s actions
are defective; some are wholly good and evil free.) Now then, not all
evils are based on need. The ones that are, are eliminated by both
these solutions, dealing with the neediness of the individual
position. But other evils that pop up, well, if there is no individual
position, then they must be dealt with by the only remaining position -
the high and rich societal position. And as we shall see, when an evil
is put into a rich environment, a firestorm results and the whole
thing is burnt down. Better to let evils be worked out in the
individual position, so that the societal position, (which is made of
the best parts of the individuals collectively and is very rich) can
know how to avoid these evils, having learned from its individuals.
Once again, I reiterate: we are screwing ourselves if we continue down
this path to death of the individual entity through conservative
running of our sexual reproduction! Get off your ass and fuck
different people (while trying to avoid a venereal disease, which is
the weakness of this directive). And have some, but not too many kids
from this. Otherwise, if you insist on being good and morally,
sexually conservative; you along with the rest of your kind will be
the cause of the end of the world scenarios that religious
fundamentalists predict. Because when hatreds are worked out on the
individual levels, it is with guns and knives and clubs. But when
there is no more individual level, and there are still hatreds to be
worked out; the societal entities work these out with atom bombs. And
who wants to be responsible for blowing up the whole world? Who is
the biggest terrorist now? Why it is the conservative
fundamentalists. So, in the war on terror, we ask you to loosen your
morals a little.
GOOD VS EVIL:
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Let us Consider
that goodness, growth, and being kind to one another, is a superior
force over the force of destruction, death, decay, and being mean to
each other. (To do this, we consider all possibilities) -Considering
what’d happen if in a universe with only the force of goodness-and-
growth: -If in a universe where only the force of death/destruction
existed: -Or if we were in a universe with both forces. Here on earth
we’re in the situation where both forces exist. But that doesn’t mean
this is the only way, -that other situations aren’t possible.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Let’s
consider a universe of only the force of destruction and death. As
death /destruction progress, they take whatever is alive, and kill it,
so that where life once was, now exists (is produced) nothing and
nothingness. Ashes to ashes, and dust to dust. Pretty soon, life
becomes in scarce supply, while a whole lot of empty space and
inanimate material is left behind. After awhile, all the life is
killed, and then what? With no life left to kill, the force of
destruction comes to a stop (no more destroying can be done), because
from nothing, this force can go no further from there. Here is a
definite bottom to the universe.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Now consider
the force of good-and-growth as being the only force around. As this
force acts, it takes nothingness/lifeless matter (dust), and creates
life in its place. Soon everything starts to come alive. Pretty soon
we begin to run out of improvements to make. Emptiness and undeveloped
raw material (dust) starts to come into short supply. If everything is
alive, then no more growth can be done, and thus the force of good is
stopped, right? Well, there’s not so much an absolute ceiling, as
there is an absolute bottom. You see, life forms can advance/be
advanced and become ever more capable and alive; and this thus
continues the force of good. And, a universe that is alive (full of
life), is very capable -able to do lots of things, (unlike a barren
universe consisting of nothingness). And with that life/capability, it
can bridge barriers and reach raw material (dust) that had previously
been separated from it by a barrier. Hence, the force of goodness and
growth can survive by itself much better than the force of destruction/
death can. This is an advantage: -When the force of destruction can
be escaped from; (the good separated from the destructive); that which
is destructive, when alone, burns itself out, finds itself boxed in by
barriers, and ceases to exist; Whereas the good alone, survives,
bridges barriers, and continues to grow. Of course when both forces
are around, the force of good generates life for the force of
destruction to feed on and destroy as it survives. (and the force of
death/decay generates voids, which the force of good uses as its
starting material.) This is the way things are here on earth. And both
the forces of; good, and destruction, have an easy time finding
material to work with (compared to if they were alone).
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ALSO, it takes life-and-
capability to do or be either the force of good-and-growth, or the
force of destruction. The lack of life can’t do/be either force. Since
what the force of good produces is life, such life can continue to do
forces. But since what the force of destruction produces is death and
nothingness and voids in life; since this cannot do or support either
force, then the force of destruction alone is destined to a quick end
while the force of good and growth alone is destined to continue.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ALSO,
since only life can do-be either force: When destruction experiences
what it produces, or is applied to itself, it doesn’t grow, but
instead shrinks to nothing. xxxxxxxxxx But when goodness experiences
what it produces, (when goodness is good to itself) it does not die,
but instead, grows. So, the force of destruction needs something other
than just itself to exist (is a parasitic force), while the force of
good does not and is self sufficient with just itself. So that when
alone, good survives while destruction self eliminates and vanishes.
From this we can see that good and growth, is a superior force to the
force of death and destruction.
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Let us consider some situations, while keeping in mind these truths: -
that it takes life and ability to do/be either goodness, or
destruction (and that lack-of-life is unable to cause either of these
forces); Inputs and outputs: -that the force of destruction takes in
that which is alive as its input/raw material; and produces voids-in-
life and inanimate material as its output, as what it produces. -That
the force of goodness/growth takes in voids-in-life and inanimate
material, as its input/raw material; and produces -life- as its output
and what it produces.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx With these
concepts in mind let’s consider the situation of the force of
destruction in a rich environment. Not only does this force have
plenty of its raw material or input (life), present here in the rich
environment; -destruction also has what supports what either force is
made of (which is also, life). Thus here the force of death-and-
destruction can grow rapidly and become quite large here, in a rich
environment.
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
(In this tangent, please consider that since enforcing rules over the
gray areas of living life causes a patchwork of rich and barren
environments: my question is, why do we scrap together these rich
environments where there is the force of destruction nearby -(as
destruction is inescapably a part of all gray actions at our level of
ability)? This will just result in successive firestorms where the
gray actions’ destructiveness burns down the rich parts of the
patchwork. All this does is feed evil/destructiveness. As for myself,
I do not wish to succor and feed the force of destructiveness. End
tangent.) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
(Here is another important tangent: Here on earth, we live with what
is destructive and also that which is good and growing. In this
respect, we often do actions which contain both goodness and growth
and also destructiveness in the same action. These actions I would
term ‘human actions’ (also referred to as ‘gray actions’ ). These
human areas are hopelessly a mixture of both goodness and destruction
(at our level of ability we‘re unable to separate the forces), and
there is no purity of action in them, as they contain both goodness as
well as destructiveness inescapably intertwined in the same action.
These mainly center around human hungers and needs. So that whether or
not a human action is done, partially done, or refrained from; some
destruction is always present, just in different areas. Like when we
eat, this is good for our survival, but at the same time, destructive
to some other life form’s survival as a plant or animal had to die to
provide this. And if we don’t eat, this is good for the surrounding
plants and animal’s survival, but destructive to us as we starve.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx However, in our human world,
not all actions are these ‘human’ or ‘gray’ actions. Some actions CAN
be divided up completely (or much more so), into all good vs. all
destructive parts. And it is here, with these non human areas, there
can exist a purity of action as is not seen in the human actions.
Areas of all-good exist, as well as do areas that are all destructive,
exist. However, when areas of purely all destructive exist, they soon
self consume and disappear. So that only the areas of all-good exist
with such a purity of action. Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Still, if that which is all-destructive can find a human action to
join with, it can feed off the good in the human action, and it won’t
have to self consume. -(It can continue to exist and not disappear.)
So, when the all-good casts off the all-destructive: -to achieve
purity of action; the all destructive actions become as ravening
wolves seeking to prey upon human actions, feeding off the good in
human actions, so that they can survive and won’t self consume/die.
And who is going to save a human action from being preyed upon by
these all destructive actions? It is true that the all destructive
action can be separated away from the human action, unlike the
destructiveness within the human action that is part of the human
action; but who is going to do it? The all destructive action is
desperate, as its life depends on preying on a human action, and so
has apparently overpowered the human action. An all-good action might
intervene and separate an all-destructive action from a human action;
but if it did so it would spoil its purity of action and it would no
longer be an all-good action. So that all-good actions are reluctant
to intervene to separate an all-destructive action from its prey human
action, as they loose their purity of action in doing so. So it would
seem the all destructive actions (although since they've mixed with
the human actions, are no longer purely all destructive), have found a
way of survival and a continued food source by preying on the human
actions and human hunger satisfying; thus making the human world more
towards the destructive side; towards barrenness (which preserves the
togetherness of the good and destructive within that human action, as
we‘ll see later). Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx However, what about
this plan: What if the all-good actions split a small part of
themselves off to come and deal with this situation, while leaving
their major part of themselves behind, still separate and still
maintaining their purity of action. (The smaller part that split off
would loose its purity of action through it’s intervening.) The
smaller part that split off would come and separate the all-
destructive part from the human part so that the all destructive part
would finally self consume and die; leaving the human action no longer
preyed upon by the all destructive action; so that it tended not
towards barrenness, but towards medium ability. Thus evil/destruction
would be lessened and much eliminated by this plan.xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Now, in the human areas; when the smaller, split off, all good part is
generating/creating something (to medium ability), in the vacuums
(where there is nothing and barrenness) caused by destruction, even
the destruction of rules over human areas,(and even the destructions
that are part of the human actions themselves): it is wise for this
split off part to limit its exposure to only the human part it is
presently creating/generating, and not the rest of that human area;
even if this generated material is eventually for the rest of that
human area. This is because this smaller, split off, all good part can
limit the loss of purity and exposure to destruction, to just what is
in the human part it is generating. Once it is done creating a piece
of this material, it can then withdraw itself and then allow the rest
of the human area to have possession/use of it. So that the split off
all good parts of us can act to generate material in isolation, and
then shortly, to also act to release pieces of that material away from
itself and this isolation, unto the rest of this human area. In these
coordinated set of actions that build parts of human actions/things;
once a certain part has reached medium ability, this part is no longer
generated in isolation, but other parts are, as the split off all good
does move onto these other parts that are in need of being brought
from nothingness to medium level. The parts at medium level that are
no longer being generated, are still participants in the rest of this
human area, and do receive what is released from isolation; its just
that they do not keep on being generated; so that they do not move
then from medium level to high ability, (as a result of this
generating in isolation and then release).
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Note that even if, for the
sake of argument say, it turns out that Christianity is a fraud and
that Jesus wasn’t anybody special: note that the structures of
Christianity still exist in our human world and in our universe and
within us, anyway; as some areas are more easily all good vs all
destructive, while other areas have the destructive and the good
hopelessly intertwined in the same action.
Where does Jesus fit in? If we take the Biblical account, Jesus was
from God, and is therefore rich. But Jesus also received God's
punishment for our sins, unto death. But he survived it as he was
resurrected. So we can't say he is as high as God because he also
recieved God sized punishment. But we can't say he represents the low
point either, because being of God, he survived the punishment and was
resurected. Somewhere in between the high and the lowest points, I
would say. Here we see an entity often in between the highness of
God, and the lowness of death and nothingness or hell: -who
longstandingly represents humanity and the in between; better than any
other mortal human ever could.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx It is our (smaller split off part
from our all good areas) that then acts to separate destructive parts
away from human areas that can be separated away, and to fill vacuums
in the human areas to medium ability; and not our main high all good
parts which are separate and kept away from the human area. So that if
we are waiting for God almighty to step in and do this. No. It is the
meek and smaller Jesus representations that are here with us in the
human area, that do this
instead.xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Then there
are the times when our smaller split off part is in a lull, where not
much is going on in the generating of human/gray area parts. It then
may turn its attention on generating all good parts, to the best that
it is able. (Those all good parts are more pure and more all
encompassing of every good thing than it is). As the all good is
generated, it is generated as also devoting a part of its new self to
also generating new all good parts, so that eventually, the smaller
split off part has to bear less of the load of generating all good
parts. But then, all of a sudden, the lull is over, and new action in
the human/gray area appears that is needed. It is the purpose and
function of the smaller split off part to deal with the imperfect
human gray area, not the all good area. In this imperfect, impure, and
non absolute area of the human/gray areas; there is one absolute: and
that is when a new, lull breaking human need appears, the smaller
split off part (which had been distracted into generating the all
good), then removes all (not just part, all) of the young all good
material that is destined for all good, but which had not matured into
that yet, away from the human area and human generating; to the best
of its ability. -However, it must share this directive with also, in a
reasonable time frame, to generate in the human needs area. -Just that
this smaller split off part itself, doesn't at all mix the new
generating of human needs, with its distraction generating of the all
good, especially the immature all good that just happens to be caught
when the lull is broken. -It ejects this away from itself before
beginning the lull breaking human need generating. Xxxxx Note that the
newly generated mature all good can break a small part of itself off
to be its contribution to the smaller split off part, and thus add
material to help this situation here.
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In this insert, we see that in contrast to our stagnant universe that
doesn’t grow well; that in an all-good universe with lots of growth,
no one is left behind, but are all advanced to high levels, in good
time. (Note: FogoHC means Force of good of High Capability. )When the
joint venture of GROWTH and gripping, does growth and gripping on
itself; there's a circular feedback created that produces tremendous
quantities of growth. When forces of good are producing capability;
they can either produce new forces-of-good; or new neutral-capability.
Forces of good are made of capability. And for one force of good to
produce a second force of good; is a force of good producing a force
of good. A force of good can also be a force of good, by producing
neutral capabilities. There are great advantages for forces of good to
produce more forces of good, as opposed to neutral capability. For one
thing, the newly created force of good can in turn produce force of
good of its own; and an exponential increase in the production of the
force of good will result. Whereas, with the increase of neutral
capability, only a flat rate of capability increase is achieved, and
no new force of good is produced. For another thing, the forces of
good are protected by the fogoHC, while neutral capability is not.
Thus forces-of-good producing forces of good, is more advantageous
than forces of good producing neutral capability. However, before
something can be a force of good, it usually has to have some minimum
level of capability. Like, it might help if something were alive, so
it could reproduce itself; or that it be intelligent, so it could rise
above random action, which produces decrease(destruction) as well as
increase(growth). Thus even though the forces of good may want to
increase force-of-good capability right away, they have to go through
an increase of neutral capabilities to reach a minimum level, before
forces of good can start increasing forces of good. (And, a neutral
capability cannot be gripped before it exists/-before it is produced.
›But when it is produced/created; who says it has to be a separate
entity from the fogoHC? Isn't the fogoHC in contact with it to create
it? Yet this is not necessarily so, if only a f.o.g. (especially if
not together with the fogoHC), creates it.›) When a force of good that
is able to do gripping- (that is, a fogoHC), comes in contact
(together) with neutral-capability produced by forces of good; that
neutral-capability becomes a part of the fogoHC, and is thus
protected. We see a picture of the fogoHC going about gripping forces
of good and gripping the neutral capability that all forces of good
initially produce. With more neutral capability being produced; those
forces of good who can do gripping (that is forces ogoHC), have more
neutral capability to grip, and thus turn into force of good
capability. As we can see, there is always more and more neutral
capability (to grip) that is being produced. But where does the
capability go after it has been gripped and is a marginal force of
good? Well, there are 2 possibilities: A) it goes no further and
serves to produce neutral capability for the fogoHC. it remains at
about its original level of capability and fails to advance: being
frozen at some level of advancement so that it is useful to the
fogoHC, but that it advances no further. or possibility B.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx B) it could advance in its abilities to first become
alive; then advance in intelligence; and finally become a fogoHC. it
continues to advance and eventually becomes a fogoHC itself. With
possibility A, more and more neutral capability is produced. The
amount of it increases exponentially. But the fogoHC becomes no
larger. There is no growth in the fogoHC because no lower capabilities
are allowed to become fogoHC. For the fogoHC to produce more of
itself, it can replicate itself. But this is taking lower forces of
good and advancing them to be a fogoHC. This is not example B, so the
fogoHC doesn't do this. It finds itself with an ever growing supply of
neutral capability to make contact with. It might get swamped by the
size of it. It needs to grow in size to match the growth of the
neutral capability. It could try and make itself more powerful and
become of higher capability within itself. But whether it could do
this or not is uncertain; whereas the creation of itself has been
proven possible by its own existence. The fogoHC must increase its own
power at an exponential rate just to keep up with the neutral
capability. But this is unlikely as the fogoHC would be increasingly
more busy trying to handle the exponential growth of the neutral
capability, that it would have less and less time to work on its own
advancement. Also, it is into uncharted areas, as it has never been
that powerful before. It is a driven and desperate fogoHC, that is
forced to keep up a growth output and is driven by growth needs, if it
can keep up at all. In this picture of a universe, it is easy to see
how a fogoHC could become overextended and how the marginal force of
good and neutral capability could overgrow a fogoHC, and eventually
become unmanageable. It could cease contacting the neutral capability,
but that would make it vulnerable to evil. Thus the force of evil
would step in and stagnation would result after some point of
expansion. Possibility B: Now let's observe a universe where the basic
forces of good produced, do advance to finally become a fogoHC. With
possibility B, there would be more and more fogoHC to keep up with the
more and more neutral capability being produced. There would be no
problem of the fogoHC getting swamped. Here, the contacting of the
ever-growing neutral capability is provided by a fogoHC that is also
growing exponentially. Also, the fogoHC isn't forced to grow in
uncharted areas; only in the replication of more of itself, which by
its existence, has already been proven possible to do. So it's very
probable that not only does the fogoHC contact neutral capabilities
and turn them into marginal force of good capability; the fogoHC also
advances these marginal-good capabilities to be very intelligent,
capable, alive; and finally to be forces ogoHC. (Growth plus
advancement.) End important inserts)
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
When one person kills another; that is often referred to as murder, is
considered wrong, and the person is considered a criminal. But when a
soldier kills for his country in war, he is considered a hero, and
that is considered OK and right.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Then,
when a man has sex with a woman, that is either considered OK and good
(an holy estate ordained by God); or something terribly wrong,
depending on whether the pair share a marriage license or not. Even
so; whatever the case, a man and a woman having consensual sex is
common to all these (both right and wrong) cases.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Yes,
with just the change of a little window dressing, reality can change
from being absolutely right, to being absolutely wrong. (Well, if
reality is so easily changed, why haven't we eliminated suffering?)
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx With reality being able to be changed from
right to wrong and vice versa, with the change of a few details, is it
any wonder that reality does change often from right to wrong and vice
versa? xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx With the world
changing so often, is it any wonder that we might crave something
stable; something that is like a rock and unchanging; something that
is absolute; someone like God?
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Perhaps, however, we
might consider that reality doesn't actually change that much with the
change of a little window dressing. (This is the position taken by
eastern religions -that "good" and "bad", "right" and "wrong" are
human judgments, and have little to no effect on actual reality, the
cycle of life (and death).)
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx We
might consider that there are aspects inherently within the actions of
sex and violence that are inherently good or bad, and that do not
change based on a change of some window dressing. -that killing,
whether done for one's country, or for personal passion, has some
things that are inherently bad. And that consensual sex between a man
and a woman has attributes of positiveness and/or negativeness that
persist irregardless of whether the pair is married, not married,
cheating, etc.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
There is however, one example of reality changing 180 based on a
change in details concerning the act of killing. Killing is so
negative because it is so destructive of life. But when destruction is
turned back on itself, a 180, about face is achieved. When a murder
kills, we as society feel the pain from that destructiveness. But when
a policeman kills a murderer in preventing other murders, that is a
destruction of destructiveness, which results in stopping destruction
to society in actual reality. So that in this case, killing is OK; and
actually makes quite a difference in the amount of overall destruction
done.
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Let us consider the concept of destruction and destructiveness. Let’s
consider it as an elusive concept; -an unknown quantity. (how much
destruction is there in a given situation?) -That in a twinkling of an
eye, it can go from almost nothing, to double trouble; (so that we
never really know (without being really smart) how much destruction
there is or that one has). Like when the English police
(destructively) kill a terrorist before he can (destructively) blow up
a train, then the result is the public is saved with little overall
destruction resulting. But when the English police mistakenly
(destructively) kill an innocent man who they thought was a terrorist,
but wasn’t in reality; and while doing that, the real terrorist eludes
detection and (destructively) blows up a train, then overall, a whole
lot of destruction has resulted.
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
But before we explore the concept of destruction any further; here are
some out of place tangents: Speaking of destructiveness, what would we
have done if Hitler would have won? Well, mankind’s history is full of
examples where cruel despots did win. In fact, Hitler loosing seems
more the exception than the rule. Take the roman empire for example.
They conquered and conquered till they were ruler of the whole area.
Nobody could stop them. And they hung around for a long time and made
life miserable for the slaves that did all their dirty work. But
eventually they fell. Some say it was their immorality and wantonness
that did them in. Others say it was their infighting that did them in.
But I think it was their women that pulled the plug. I think that once
there was nobody else to conquer and take slaves from, that they had
to make slaves of themselves. And that life for the underclass which
did all the work to build their extensive building projects to make
life sweet for their elite: -I think that life for these underclass
got so bad that the women who were part of that society thought that
their world was too bad to bring offspring into, or that they lacked
the resources to raise children as they were being taxed so heavily. I
get this from the history channel’s mention of how the emperor of the
time noticed how birth rates of his subjects was declining (and Rome
was famous for taking census'), and that he in response attempted to
bring morality in and encourage family structure, in order to bring
governmental emphasis onto raising offspring for the empire. And of
course as we know, the Romans first persecuted Christianity, then
adopted Christianity (Catholic Christianity) as the state religion -
reportedly in response to a vision in battle, but I also think,
conveniently to bring emphasis to morality and harnessing the sex
drive to raise offspring for the roman empire. But it didn’t work out.
Where all others had failed to overthrow the roman empire; when things
got so bad, the women said collectively that they had had enough, and
they brought it to an end. -by not having/raising sufficient offspring
to support that empire. Admire the awesome power possessed by women
who I say brought the roman empire to an end, where no other was able.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx But we do have one relic
from the defeated roman empire -catholic Christianity. Under this
religion, birth control is severely restricted and its members just
pop out child after child, thinking this is what God wants. (But
there’s nothing in the Bible even mentioning being against birth
control. -totally a roman’s catholic invention.) A ready source of
human labor is the result, but with no roman empire to put it to work.
Just a little too late to save the roman empire. -so busy raising
children trying to catch up with their population decline, they didn’t
have resources to keep up their war machine. The rest of history is
stuck with this relic -roman’s Catholicism, that keeps its population
popping out children so that the world is so overpopulated for the
resources available, that when the little ice age hits, it
precipitates disease and the black plague that wipes out a third of
the (over) population. If humans won’t control their reproduction,
nature will do it for them.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx In Mexico,
they are predominantly catholic, and it is so crowded there that they
leave their country to come over here for better conditions as illegal
immigrants. But just think. If those that come over here continue
their traditional ways and overpopulate over here, the standard of
living over here will become just as poor as where they left, so
what’s the point? (of coming over here?)
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx This
is why our govt (at least in border areas) needs to pay women a few
million dollars for having one or 2 kids, but nothing if they have
more. -At adult age, the govt could pay women every month the monthly
fraction of 2 million dollars if they had one or 2 children, but the
day they had 3, the payments would end. This would insulate our
society and our standard of living from those who do not restrict the
offspring that they have, (in a world that is not free of
destruction).
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
In today’s society, consider yourself a poor young woman or a poor
young man. Perhaps you have been passed over for the more favorable
positions in your world, and all you have left to expect is a life of
drudgery. And you say to yourself, there is nothing else for me to do
but to raise a family and get involved in the life of our kids. This
was how I thought when I was young, but now wish to sound a warning to
this path. Consider that we live in a material world, and that
everything including ourselves as persons is given a value, which is
why they call it the ‘human resources’ department at work. Consider
the economic law of supply and demand: -If there is a surplus of a
commodity, then its value will be low; whereas if there is a scarcity
of a commodity, it will have a high value. Consider that if men and
women in a family structure spit out child after child after child,
that the supply of people will be in a surplus, and that they will be
treated as of low value in this economic system we are in. As a human,
if there is something I can do which will improve the treatment of my
fellow man, I would consider it. And that if we collectively can limit
the number of offspring we have, then the ruling system that we are in
will be forced in some respects to treat us better. But you may say, I
am young and I am lonely, and I need some children to make my life
complete. And I say, OK, have one child, or at most, two; but please
avoid having a large family -when you are in a system whereby doing
this collectively would substantially lower everyone’s standard of
living. However, even I have violated my own advice due to my
ignorance of youth. xxxxxxxxxxx Consider that if women didn't supply
such a ready supply of humans, then perhaps the governments that are
over them wouldn't be so wasteful of the human resources that they
have: that they wouldn't be so easy to send them into wars where they
are destroyed (wasted). Governments are often wasteful of the
resources that they have, and this seems to include human resources.
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
If we apply the concept of seeking a medium environment when evil is
present; to whether a woman should have children: I see this: woman
who are in an absolutely evil society with no goodness, may act to not
have any children, and thereby put an end to this destructive society
similar to the doing destruction to destruction concept. And men who
are supposed to work, can do no work and also thereby not feed evil.
But in a society that contains some evil, but also some good, women in
this society can have a limited number of children (not an excessive
number of children (rich environment)), and so help create a medium
environment, where the evil can separate away. And also, men who are
supposed to work, can do a little work (not an excessive amount) and
thereby help create the desired medium environment. And of course,
women in a totally GOOD society can have many children and men can do
much work; as here, the rich environment won’t be burned down by evil.
So that the catholic or other religious way of having many children
and not using much birth control does actually have a right place. And
that place is in a world of all good where there is no evil, where
love reigns supreme. Here in this kind of world, this is the right
thing to do. But we do not live in perfection yet, so we need to act
differently with our offspring production. Also, as the world becomes
ever more populated, the specter of overpopulation looms. If the world
becomes too overpopulated (and it can be calculated when the world
will become this way at our present pace), then life will be
unpleasant for most of us. -until we find a way to support even more
people, or join us all together as one.
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
In another tangent: Some ask the question do you believe in the
existence of God? And to these people especially I would ask: do you
believe that humans exist? Yes, in a world made of only winners and
losers; rich and impoverished; where people are either extensions of
God, or extensions of the devil; where everything/everyone is seen in
either black or white, and absolute judgments are applied to everyone;
where there is no middle ground, or middle class anymore: -humans may
have existed once in the distant past, but I’m beginning to doubt that
they still exist today. (because humans are in between God and
nothingness; and it seems anything in between is not allowed or
tolerated anymore.)
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Unfortunately for
us who are actually human (due to the fact that much of what we do
contains/produces both goodness and destructiveness (cursing and
blessing) in the same action): but who aren’t allowed to express this
humanness (due to the fact that the goodness and destructiveness that
they produce are segregated into separate areas; so that the absolutes
of total richness, and total bareness are generated (instead of a
medium result in between rich and poor)): then this whole system is
destined for eventual self consumption into total nothingness and
bareness (as explained later). Fortunately, I take heart in the laws
of God over human sexual expression. As a human comes naturally, they
usually have an attraction for the opposite sex, so that left to their
own devices they usually have sexual relations with members of the
opposite sex. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Well, God’s
rules over a couple’s sexual expression are anything but absolute. I
state that at this level (that of an intact human), that God’s laws/
rules over human sexuality are not absolute -that God’s rule neither
always approves nor always disapproves of a couple’s sexuality. As we
know; if that couple is married, then that couple’s sexuality is
approved: but if that couple isn’t married, then that same couple’s
sexuality is disapproved. And that it is then at this level where
God’s rules then do become absolute, as always approving, or always
disapproving the item in question. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx As
we shall see, it is important for us who must often do both
destruction and good in the same action (formerly known as humans), to
be in a MEDIUM environment between rich and barren. In the sexual
area, this can be achieved by humans just being themselves as how they
are naturally, and then receiving God‘s judgment for that. So that
when one has sex with a member of the opposite sex who they are
married to, then they receive approval and the richness of God; and
then when they later have sex with someone who isn’t their spouse,
then they receive condemnation and punishment from God. Receiving both
good reward and punishment at the same time, results in a medium
environment, which is just what the human needs to live in. This is
what the soldiers in trouble in Iraq are trying to accomplish also.
Our government rewards us for killing for our country, but punishes us
for killing for personal reasons. The soldiers in trouble in Iraq have
done both, and thus they should receive both good reward, and also
punishment. They hope this will provide them with the medium
environment they need as humans. The government however, favors
absolutes, and wishes to thwart this attempt at human expression by
condemning these men to the death penalty. ‘Ha, they didn’t get to be
human after all, the govt. laughs‘. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx But
let’s look at the bigger picture: we have Jesus, who took upon himself
the sins of us all and received the punishment for it. Now, it is this
scapegoat-ing and segregating of the negative, destructive,
punishments into one area, while segregating the positive, rich,
rewards to another area, that is something the lovers of absolutes
just love to do; and it is par for their course. So Jesus, who is
(rich) of God, takes on and receives this punishment (assumedly from
God) for sin. And of course the wages of sin is reportedly, death. So
Jesus received the punishment of death: but Jesus lived through it. So
it is then Jesus who by combining richness (because he was of God),
with bareness (from the absolute condemnation from God (for sins));
who has successfully generated this medium environment, that we humans
(formerly humans, excuse me), so desperately need to allow our human
ways to expire before we join God; and also to provide in earthly
life, a medium environment over barrenness in a world with evil where
the ways of God aren‘t present at that time/place. Even if these
soldiers do not achieve the humanness they sought, they needn’t worry,
because Jesus already has, and they can just join Him. Consider that
the persona of Jesus Christ, as portrayed in the Bible, is not an
absolute. That at one end of the scale, is God the Father, who
represents the absolute and extreme of richness: and that death and
the devil represents the other extreme and absolute -that of
barrenness and poverty. But consider that Jesus never fits either of
these absolutes or extremes, but is somewhere in between, representing
humanity. This ends my out of place tangent. Now we continue with the
force of destruction:
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
If there's no basic difference between good and evil, then it doesn't
really matter whether you do right or wrong. -The natural consequences
would be the same. The only people it matters to are the 3rd parties
who say what's right or wrong. Well, my definition of good vs evil
does have a basic difference. -One destroys life and shrinks; the
other increases life and grows, (in separation). But when another
definition of right and wrong that does not have a common thread of
basic difference between right and wrong, appears, it's just a
diversion from the basic differences that do exist. It's a
frustration, a GAME!, a waste of time. I mean, why bother making
distinction between right and wrong if they're both the same or of
similar make-up? We don't all like the same things. Some of us like a
little cruelty. Some don't go for this lovey dovey stuff; and want a
little more discipline and strictness. -What about these people? Why
should God have a personality more to my liking, while leaving these
people at odds with God? Why shouldn't God be more like these people?
What makes me so special; to have God more on my side? Well, God could
be cruel, harsh, and demanding. Or he could be something else. But we
have already covered this. We've shown that a benevolent God is the
most powerful; and that a non benevolent God has a weakness and can
eventually be replaced by a benevolent God. So what can I say? Those
who like to be mean, are going to be at odds with the most powerful
God. I'm sorry that this is the way it is, but it is from the effects
of meanness itself; that meanness does not provide the power to
support the most powerful God; while love and kindness do. In other
words, let us emphasize that which is destructive vs that which is not
destructive, is growing and loveing, as opposed to other criteria.
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Let’s consider what can be done and how we can respond to the problem
of destructiveness/destruction. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
We can use destruction against itself as a way to solve this problem.
When there is destructiveness, we all suffer (from the poverty and
bareness it brings). But when a policeman or lawgiver uses
destructiveness against itself, (by doing destruction to criminals
(who are themselves destructive)), then society is relieved, as the
destruction from criminals is prevented. Hence a legitimate
organization of police and lawgivers can grow up around this concept
(of doing (measured) destruction to those who are destructive (in a
destroying of destruction)). Police and law enforcers are destructive,
yes, but when that is applied to destructive criminals, it works out
to lower overall destruction. But when laws grow beyond punishing the
destructive, to punishing people for non destructive crimes, then the
concept falls apart, and the police and lawgivers themselves become
the agents/sources/instigators/perpetrators of destruction, thus
increasing the destruction in society (taking on the role of
‘criminal’ themselves). -When destruction is applied against itself
(as when police are destructive to destructive criminals), a net
reduction/lowering in the overall destruction results. -But when law
enforcers enforce laws against non violent, non destructive criminals;
THIS PURPOSE ISN’T SERVED; because in this case, destruction wasn‘t
used against itself: -there wasn‘t a destroying of destruction. -So
there’s no lowering of overall destruction but instead, increased
destruction, with police being the perpetrators of this increase in
destruction; as the result.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx This method of
lowering overall destruction (by turning destruction upon itself) is a
precarious balance. If one doesn’t get it right and know exactly where
the destruction is (like where are the WMD’s) ; and only destroys what
is destructive, then they themselves -the police, the good guys, then
become agents of destruction and it no longer works that overall
destruction is lowered. Hence this method to deal with (that is, to
lower or eliminate) destructiveness (by turning destruction against
itself), although in theory it can work; it requires one to know in
depth just where the destructiveness is, and to only do destruction
there. Otherwise, if one doesn’t get it right, then they haven’t
solved the problem of destructiveness, and may well have made it worse
by increasing the amount of actual destructiveness done.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx But when someone is mean and
destructive to you, what else can you do but do destruction back to
them, so as to destroy destructiveness? It would seem your choices are
to do nothing: or to get back at them. What else is there? Well, there
is another response, and that is to be a ‘sorter’. In the Bible there
is talk of how God at the end of the world will sort and separate the
good from the evil, the goats from the sheep, the weeds from the crop
plants. And of course the bad will be burned in a fire while the good
will receive heaven. (but that here on earth the ‘tares’ and the
‘wheat’ will not be separated and will live together).
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx What I say is, why wait
till the end of time before this sorting takes place? Or, let us
precipitate the end of time by doing this ‘sorting’ now. And do this
sorting in a non destructive way, so that the sorting itself won’t be
sorted together with what is destructive. Yes, each should be sorted
and separated unto its own kind. The mean and destructive people
should be separated from the not-mean and not-destructive people. The
sex offenders should be put together so they may sexually offend each
other; the murderers should be put together so they can kill each
other; the thieves should live together so that they can steal from
each other. Who are we to say that these things are wrong and make
laws against these things and impose our morality on others? If that
is what these people want to do, let them prove the rightness or
wrongness of these things themselves, by actually doing these things
(to each other). Who are we to say what is right or wrong outside of
the actions speaking for themselves -outside of actually proving it
with the actions themselves? How can we know for sure? How can you be
sure that your version of right and wrong is correct? If we are to
come up with a version of right and wrong outside of actions speaking
for themselves; we need to come up with a true version of what is
right and wrong; and what if we’re in error and come up with an
inaccurate version of what’s right and wrong? -then our version of
right and wrong becomes an instrument of destruction, just like the
wrongdoers we’re making these laws against.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx But the action to sort
and separate like people into groups together (according to their
actions), itself, makes no judgment as to the rightness or wrongness
of their actions. -It sorts and separates the good people together
just as well. -These good people must put up with the goodness that
each does to each other. We must put up with what we produce, when we
are sorted unto our own kind; whether that be destructiveness; or
goodness. Because of this, we need NOT otherwise come up with a second
system of accurate laws of right and wrong outside of the actions
themselves (so that the actions will speak for themselves).
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx So that
yes, I am prejudice and I discriminate (against mean people). And I
believe that people should be separated and made to live with their
own kind -not according to the color of their skin, but according to
the destructiveness and meanness that is within them that they do. -so
that the mean people are put together and that they are separate from
the not mean people that are also put together. And the destructive
containing versions of right and wrong will also be sorted and
separated to its own kind.-according to the destructiveness or lack
thereof that it contains and does. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
So that instead of doing destruction back to mean people, I instead
act to non destructively sort them -each to their own kind -according
to the destructiveness or lack thereof that they do. And if I myself
am not destructive, then I will be sorting myself away from them (the
meanies). This is a better way than what we have now. Prisons are a
start but they must be made non destructive and not be places of
punishment (outside of what the prisoners do to each other), but
instead be places of separation and sorting, where the mean people are
kept together and away from the rest of us non mean, non violent
people. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx However,
when considering the gray areas (of living life on earth), they are by
definition, areas where we’re unable to separate the good and
destruction: -where single actions do both good and destruction at the
same time (to different areas). Here we’re unable to do this sorting, -
we cannot sort good parts from destructive parts, as a part is both
good and destructive. So, here we must resort to some destruction, not
only in acting in the gray area, but also to partially destroy
absolute rules.
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
When we have perfected an area and are satisfied with it, we usually
keep it the way it is and don’t change it. Here we shut off
alternative possibilities and stick with what we’ve got.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx But if an area is a work in progress and contains
imperfection, then on the contrary, we don’t want to preserve it and
keep it the way it is, but instead, are open to change. Here we’re
open to all the possibilities and are not so quick to shut out
possibilities in order to select just one way.
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Let us consider where making up and enforcing rules fits into this. We
usually don’t make up rules or laws like the sun must make light at
dawn, because nothing else but this happens. When we make rules, we
eliminate, out of all the possibilities, that which we don’t want.
Obedience to rules requires that someone do destruction and destroy
any emerging possibilities outside the prescribed course, whether we
destroy them within ourselves, or enforcers destroy them when we don’t
self discipline. Hence rule making and obeying, is inherently a user
of destruction to obtain its goals. When we close our minds to
destructive possibilities, that works because being destructive to
that which is destructive, lowers overall destruction. But if we don’t
get it right, and our laws eliminate non destructive possibilities,
then our system of making/enforcing rules has increased the amount of
overall destruction due to the fact that making/enforcing rules,
itself, involves the use of destruction (to eliminate the
possibilities outside the prescribed course). Since this is just
another form of using destruction against destruction, it also falls
under the requirement that the user know in depth, and get it right.
(This is why ‘vengeance is mine sayeth the lord’, because only God
knows enough to use destruction to eliminate destruction without
causing more destruction in the process.)
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Not only is the
concept of making and enforcing rules, a user of destructiveness to
accomplish its goal; it additionally detaches people from reality/
actuality. xxx Because alternatives outside the prescribed path aren’t
allowed to exist; they can’t be observed, experimented with, or worked
with (or learned from). And the only contact with reality / actuality
is -what is within the prescribed path. (This is unlike the sorting
method, where the evil/destruction still exists (although not for long
as it destroys itself) -just that it exists separately.)
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Since
using destruction against destruction requires the user to know it, in
order to get it right and not become a doer, a source of destruction
themselves: if one doesn’t know it all from the start, its difficult
to learn along the way in an environment which is largely detached
from reality. And if out of ignorance you apply and enforce rules
which are inaccurate then you yourself become an instrument and source
of destruction through these rules. And since the use of rules does
greatly detach us from reality; we can continue being inaccurate in
our rules, in our ignorance for quite awhile without realizing it.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Since rules work
by applying destruction against destruction, this works only when one
knows what’s going on. But since the rules method also greatly
detaches one from reality/actuality (so that one cannot know, but must
take it by faith); this sets the rules user up to fail more often than
not. Taking something by faith is understandable if it’s something
we’re unable to know for sure. But requiring that we take things by
faith when it’s possible to know for sure, but that we don’t allow
because we don’t allow anything outside the rules to exist at all, and
thus have nothing to experiment with or learn from: is just
incompetence.
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
There are things which have both goodness and destruction inseparably
in them, in the gray areas of actually living life on this earth. None
of the previously proposed ways suggested to deal with and overcome
destruction in this situation, works. But the making and enforcing
rules method is worst because it freezes this imperfect situation as
it is (by eliminating all possibilities except that within the
prescribed course; thus preventing change), and does so in detachment
from reality/actuality and hinders change out of this situation.
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Consider a gray action which inseparably (at our level of ability)
produces both goodness and destructiveness (to different areas) when
done. What is the result of rules applied in this action? Well, first
let’s consider this area without rules. Suppose when we do this
action, goodness in area A results, but also, destruction in area B
results. If we do this action then goodness (A) and destruction (B)
will result. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx If we
destroy, eliminate or don’t do this gray action, then destruction in
area A and goodness in area B will be the result. Either way,
destructiveness is always present (in different areas).
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx So no matter if we completely
destroy, partially destroy, or do no destruction to this gray action:
we’ll have been unsuccessful at completely eliminating destructiveness
here. The plan to use destruction against itself won’t have worked
here until we’re able to dissect this action and apply destruction
only to the destructive parts of this action. And if we’re unable to
do this at our level of ability then we’re unable to eliminate
destructiveness completely. The same problem occurs with the sort and
segregate this action unto its own kind method. If we’re unable to
dissect this action into component parts and segregate the destructive
parts away from the good parts, (because this is a gray action which
by definition we’re unable to separate its good parts from its
destructive parts at our level of ability), we’re thus unable to do
the segregating idea, by definition.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx If we apply no rules to
this action then a haphazard pattern of sometimes doing this action
and sometimes not doing this action can result, with area A receiving
goodness some of the time and destructiveness the rest of the time;
and area B receiving destruction some of the time and goodness the
rest of the time.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
But if we apply a rule either for or against this gray action, then
one area will receive goodness all the time and the other area will
receive destruction all the time as a result of the gray action. Even
if we apply a rule which allows this action in some circumstances
while prohibiting this action in other circumstances: this will
involve subdivided area A’s and B’s. And in these subdivided areas,
some will receive destruction all the time, and others will receive
goodness all the time. And when an area or subdivided area receives
destruction all the time, it becomes barren and desolate. When an area
receives goodness all the time, it becomes rich and at high ability.
This is what is created when rules are applied to a gray action. Rules
put a structure to the gray actions so that their goodness and
destructions are fixed to the same areas; unlike a haphazard doing of
the gray actions under no rules.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx When an area
receives destruction some of the time and goodness other times, then
the area becomes of medium ability -neither desolate nor rich. This is
what results when no absolute rules are applied to a gray action.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx When
rules are applied to gray actions, the destructiveness of the gray
action is segregated to one area while the goodness of a gray action
is segregated to other areas, so that a patchwork of desolate
environments and rich environments is the result.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx When life that is mainly
destructive, acts, it produces an environment of desolation.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx When
life that is mainly good acts, it produces a rich environment. And
when (earthly) life that is in some ways good, but is in other ways
destructive, acts: it can produce an environment that is neither
desolate nor rich, but that is at a medium level. It is in these
medium level environments where the forces separate, -where goodness
becomes separate from destructiveness.
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
When life material (containing both goodness and destruction, due to
these gray actions) is fed into barren areas of desolation and
destruction, then neither the goodness nor destructiveness in them is
able to escape the destruction and nothing is saved.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx When fed into rich areas,
this life material containing good and destructiveness is preserved,
because both the goodness and destructiveness are well off; -even with
destructiveness being an incompetent force, -in the rich environment
it can mess up all it wants and still get by: thus the destructiveness
remains alive and together with the goodness, in the rich environment.
(Also, the good here can’t get away from the evil here due to evil’s
fast growth in a rich environment.) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx But when the
life material is fed into areas at medium level of ability: here the
goodness is able to outperform and have that out performance count,
and (is able to get away and) become separate from the destructiveness
of the material of life due to goodness being superior to destruction
(when forced to survive alone). Hence eliminating and destroying rules
out of gray actions allows the goodness in gray actions to be open to
all alternatives thus allowing change and thus be freed from the
destructiveness in the gray action(s). While applying absolute rules
to gray actions, preserves the state they are in -that is of having
both goodness and destructiveness together, to the point that gray
actions need these rules in order to persist as gray actions. Thus it
behooves us to destroy and tear down (in a partial, special way) the
rules that always keep everything the same in these gray actions (and
in Pleasantville), and allow anarchy to rule in the gray actions.
(Just remember that such partial destroying of these gray rules is
also impure; and being such, also needs a mechanism to keep it also
from spoiling our pure areas). Just think, without rules, the gray
actions which do both good and destruction, can reap what they sow,
which is a medium and middle class environment, instead of either rich
or barren. And here the good present can heal itself and free itself
from the destruction and escape to a rich life separate from the
destruction. Whereas with absolute rules over gray aspects of life;
there results a patchwork of bareness and richness (as a result of
that gray actions do both good and destruction, and that rules have
structured the gray actions to always be done the same way, then some
pieces of the patchwork always receive destruction and other pieces
always receive goodness); thus generating a patchwork of rich and
bareness in the presence of a destructive force (because gray actions
have some destructiveness inseparably as part of them): thus resulting
in firestorms where that destructive force burns down the rich parts
of the patchwork, leaving only barrenness in the end.
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
(This segment is repeated.) Let us consider some situations, while
keeping in mind these truths: -that it takes life and ability to do/be
either goodness/growth, or destruction-and-death (and that lack-of-
life isn’t able to cause either force); Inputs and outputs: -that the
force of destruction-and-death takes in what’s alive as its input-or-
raw material, and produces voids-in-life and inanimate material as its
output as what it produces. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx -That
the force of goodness-and-growth takes in voids-in-life and inanimate
material, as its input-or-raw material, and produces ‘life’ as its
output and what it produces.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx With these concepts in
mind let’s consider the situation of the force of destruction-and-
death in a rich environment. Here, not only does this force have
plenty of its raw material or input (life); it also has what supports
what either force is made of (which is life). Thus here the force of
death-and-destruction can grow rapidly and become quite large.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Compare this to a medium environment.
In a medium environment, destruction doesn’t have as much of its
input, nor does it have as much of what forces can be made of. Thus
destruction can’t grow as fast, thus allowing goodness to get away
from it. Once away from destruction, the two forces are alone, and the
good survives while the destruction self consumes.)
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
(In this tangent, please consider that since enforcing rules over the
gray areas of living life causes a patchwork of rich and barren
environments: my question is, why do we scrap together these rich
environments where there is the force of destruction nearby -(as
destruction is inescapably a part of all gray actions at our ability
level)? This will just result in successive firestorms where the gray
actions’ destructiveness burns down the rich parts of the patchwork.
(and since the force of destruction has grown rapidly and large in the
once rich environment, it usually burns this part of the patchwork
down completely to barrenness.) All this does is feed evil/
destructiveness. As for myself, I don’t wish to succor and feed the
force of destructiveness. End tangent.) END REPEAT
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Let us now consider the reverse situation: -that is with the force of
goodness-and-growth in a barren environment. Here the force of
goodness has an abundance of its input or raw material (that being
voids in life and inanimate material), but unlike the previous
situation, it doesn’t have an abundance of what supports what either
force is made of (which is life). So here, even though it has plenty
of its input and raw material, this force of goodness isn’t able to
grow rapidly at least not right away, -until it is able to generate
enough life from the inanimate to support what it is made of. With
both the forces of low ability, neither is able to do much, so the
force of good is unable to get away from the force of destruction,
thus preserving the togetherness of the 2 forces in this situation.
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
When we humans are going about our daily lives, most of what we do is
neither all good nor all destructive but is usually some of both. And
this is due to that the human ways/actions available to us usually
contain both goodness and also destructiveness as part of the same
action. So that we produce both life and voids in life, which tends to
result in a medium environment (between rich and barren). And in our
medium environment, the destructiveness force (which is one part of
our human ways), doesn’t have access to an excessive amount of its
input (which is life), and doesn’t have access to an excessive amount
of what it can be made of (which is also life). It is thus NOT able to
grow incredibly rapidly (like it would in a rich environment). We are
thus able to avoid and get away from it. (When we get away from it, it
(destruction) no longer has a source of good to feed it. It is alone,
and alone it consumes itself and dies, unlike when good is alone and
is able to survive when alone.) Here we can see how a medium ability
environment is useful where evil is present that needs separating
away. Here we’re able to get away and separate from the evil, whereas
in a rich environment the evil would grow too fast for us to do so.
(And in a barren environment, the directive of good has no special
advantage or fast growth; (it thus remains unable to get away/separate
from the destruction it is with); so that won’t help either). (We can
see that neither rich nor barren environments are effective, but that
medium, middle environments are effective.)
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx And once separate from the evil, the
evil has no food supply and it burns itself out and disappears, while
the good survives.
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz Just think, without rules,
the gray actions which do both good and destruction, can reap what
they sow, which is a medium and middle class environment, instead of
either rich or barren. And here the good present can heal itself and
free itself from the destruction and escape to a rich life separate
from the destruction. Whereas with absolute rules over gray aspects of
life; there results a patchwork of bareness and richness in the
presence of a destructive force (because gray actions have some
destructiveness inseparably as part of them): thus resulting in
firestorms where that destructive force burns down the rich parts of
the patchwork, leaving only barrenness.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx And
not only that: under no rules, when an environment is middle class and
medium, -no lives are eliminated. However, in the barren parts of the
rule ridden structure, where this piece of the patchwork receives
mostly destruction: the material in this area does not survive. -
Because when something is beaten down again and again and only
receives destruction, it eventually dies and is completely destroyed.
Now the death of this material doesn’t heal the world, as the world
continues being a place where actions (gray) continue to have both
destructive as well as good effects. -that hasn’t been healed or
changed. The world continues on living, but now gray actions cannot
act on material that doesn’t exist. The material that died no longer
exists. So gray actions in this rulie world are forced to take
remaining material that does exist. Thus some from the rich area must
now be thrown into the barren area. And as those in the barren area
die off, more and more from the rich areas must be sucked down. And it
is all so senseless, as this downward and eventually total self
consumption occurs only in the rulie version of earthly life. So
unless you have a death wish, and if you want to live and love and get
better, then cast the rules out of earthly life. Smash them down. As
we now know, they are the sources of death destruction and stagnation,
holding us back from getting better. Since we know where the source of
destruction is, we can use destruction against destruction here. Well,
if we can segregate rules away from us to be with that which is
destructive; this is better because it does not require us to get it
exactly right. But in a pinch, if we’re unable to do this, we can know
we’re probably ok to use destruction against rules over our gray areas
of our earthly life. Rules try to associate themselves with God and
the overall good and try to make themselves out to be pure and holy.
But as we have seen, rules are users of destruction. They can dish it
out with impunity, but hide behind God and goodness when it is their
turn to take it. No longer. They should now take what they dish out;
as we now see they are no better than the rest of the shit that goes
on here on this imperfect human earth.
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz However, let us consider
another point of view: Let’s consider that by applying rules to a gray
action, we thereby cause destruction to be segregated to one area, and
goodness to be set aside to another area, that we thereby quarantine
the force of destructiveness, (where after it brings its area to
desolation, then dies out and is thereby eliminated).
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx The only problem with this
line of reasoning is: this is a gray action which by definition has
goodness and destructiveness inseparably in it (at least at our level
of ability). There is no separation of goodness from destructiveness,
by definition; by the situation itself. The destructiveness always has
a source of goodness nearby to feed on through the common link of the
gray action. So that the destructiveness is not truly quarantined but
always has a supply of goodness nearby due to the nature of gray
actions whereby they produce goodness and destruction from the same
action. So that destruction doesn’t actually burn itself out and die
but is preserved at a low level, as it is occasionally able to get
some of the nearby goodness common to the gray action it is part of
(and burn it completely down in a firestorm).
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Rules don’t work when applied to
gray actions. They don’t change the fact that some destruction is done
(they just rearrange where (in which areas) it is done) and hence are
no better than anarchy in the gray areas in terms of the level of
overall destruction done. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
And if there are rules over gray actions (which people say are from
God), that rearrange where destruction is done in gray areas without
eliminating the destruction in gray areas, then they tie God to being
a doer of destruction (in the gray areas) done not for the purpose of
eliminating other destruction. -(that is, being a source of
destruction). Evildoers also do destructive things not for the purpose
of eliminating other destruction and are also sources/perpetrators of
destruction. These rules from God over the gray areas then make God
out to be no better than an evildoer or a sinner. (And to them who
would kill those who speak against the rules of God as instructed by
the old testament Bible, we should sort them together with those who
would murder and kill so the rest of us won’t have to put up with the
destruction they do.)
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx The rules over
gray areas don’t effectively quarantine its destructiveness to the
point it is eliminated. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx The
rules actually preserve a gray area in its present state and prevent
the goodness from being able to be separate from the destructiveness.
And, the rules detach us greatly from reality by preventing any
alternative ways from existing. and through this ignorance allow for
their continued use to the exclusion of all else even though they are
ineffective and even a hindrance to goodness.
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Why can’t earthly life reap what it sows? -experience what it
naturally produces? Life here on earth that does neither all good nor
all destruction, naturally produces an environment that is at a medium
level -between desolation and richness.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx And if this earthly life
experiences such an environment that it naturally produces for a time,
the forces here will separate and good will separate from
destructiveness. And this earthly life will not be preserved in its
present state of togetherness of goodness and destructiveness, but
will allow its goodness to go free.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx But if rules are
applied here, then medium level environments will disappear leaving
only patchworks of desolate and rich environments in its place; which
will thus preserve the earthly life as is and prevent its change out
of the togetherness of goodness and destruction. But to accomplish
this, the natural product that earthly life produces -that of a medium
level environment, must be denied it. It must be acted on to prevent
this from happening. Who or what would want to preserve earthly life
as it is and prevent change out of this situation? Well, goodness or
God certainly would not. God has no need of anything we might produce
here on earth. But the force of destructiveness is an inferior force
that can’t survive on its own. If alone it will bring its area to
desolation and then cease to exist. To keep existing, it requires the
togetherness of good and destruction so it always has something to
feed on. (i.e., the knowledge of good-AND-evil) -knowing that good and
evil are always together. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
So then it is the force(s) of destruction that desire to detain
earthly life in its present state (of goodness and destruction
together) and prevent its progress out of this togetherness, so as to
preserve the forces of destruction.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx So any rules in gray
areas, although they may claim to be from God: if they act to preserve
our present gray state, by making environments of desolation and/or
richness out of environments that would otherwise be of a medium
level; then these rules actually are from the forces of destruction,
and we are doing their bidding, not God’s.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Some may help
make and enforce rules over our earthly gray actions of living earthly
life; and they may also call themselves champions of compassion,
Christian charity and love (tough love). But I ask you: what benefit
does making and enforcing rules (over gray actions of human life),
deliver to the all important prime directive of charity, compassion
and love? No, on the contrary, these rule making and enforcing over
earthly life serve not love, but instead, destruction. And to mix
charity with destruction is just a feeding of the inferior force of
destruction in a preservation of the forces of good and evil together.
-the knowledge of good-and-evil. (the togetherness of good and evil),
which is a tool to succor evil.
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Now as we go about our human ways, separating away the evil therein,
using our medium ability environment to do so: we may realize that we
are humans and not Gods. We may realize our ways are human and that
they aren’t perfection nor absolute. But if by chance we do come in
contact with absolute goodness, we thus experience a rich environment.
And absolute goodness has perfect ways which richly supply its needs,
and now ours since we have come in contact with it. But by habit, we
are used to our human ways, and if we do our human ways in the
presence of absolute goodness, the destructiveness in our human ways
in the rich environment will eat us alive as the destructiveness will
grow fast and we won’t be able to separate it away in this rich
environment. This is the fear of God.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Also, let us realize
that there can be a competition between absolute good ways and human
ways. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx In the presence
of absolute goodness, it is clear that the absolute good ways are
better and that we seek to give up our human ways as we’re well aware
that they cause us torment (when we do them in the presence of
absolute goodness). However, when absolute goodness is absent and when
human ways are all that’s available, then human ways work fine in
their medium ability environment. -If we were to give up our human
ways with no absolute good ways to replace them, then we’d throw
ourselves into barrenness as nothing would get done, and this would
also be a torment because in the barrens, the good in us wouldn‘t be
able to get away from the destructive in us and we‘d be preserved,
unable for our goodness to advance to absolute goodness. (In
barrenness, the good there has little life making it up, so it can‘t
do much. The evil there is also just about out of its input (life), so
it can‘t do much either. -stuck there together with each other.)
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx -We humans need medium
environments, not barren nor rich environments for our human ways to
function, and for the good in us to escape and join absolute goodness.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx So when absolute good ways
are available, we should give up our human ways in favor of them. But
when absolute good ways are unavailable then here in this area, is
room for human ways. Human ways done in a medium environment, purify
themselves over time to become absolute good ways. So there can be a
competition within us between human and absolute good ways. (unless we
are eternally held back from growing into absolute good, and are
eternally preserved as human, through a careful living of a rule
ridden version of life.) But then there is the topsy-turvy upside down
situation where human ways are unavailable to a human, but godly ways
are available, and then absolute godly ways eventually fill that need.
This occurs in the reproductive drive area where hot women or studs
act to get members of the opposite sex to compete over their
affections; they pick who they like best and spurn the rest. The rest
are ‘scrubs’ who will never get their love. One will get their love
but the rest will not. For the rest, that human way is unavailable.
Recognizing this fact, the rest of us can open our minds to the
competition to human ways that the ways of absolute goodness pose. For
in this situation, surely the ways of absolute goodness will full the
needs here before the human way can. So give up hoping on the futile
human way here and widen your scope to allow absolute godly ways to
come in. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx It is unrealistic
in the overall situation that hot women or studs would be able to deny
us their affection. If they all did then there would be no offspring,
and that way would eventually bring about its end. But if one quits
competing for the hot babe/stud’s attention, they would loose out to
those who did compete. So let us quit competing for their attention
and fill our needs here with the godly ways. Thus if we do pick up a
mate, we won’t do so in hen/rooster pecked bondage but will live
together in freedom. Realize that there is a competition between
absolute good ways, and human ways; and that although there is some
room for human ways, if the human ways can’t get it together, then
that option will expire, and it will be all absolute good ways.
Realize that there is really no room for hold ups in the human ways,
as that represents a barren environment when neither the human way nor
the absolute good way is available.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx In the barren environment is the
raw material/input for the goodness directive; but the human goodness
within the barren environment is unable to grow rapidly here even
though surrounded by its raw material and input, due to the fact this
environment doesn’t supply what can support either directive. But to
high ability forces/directives of goodness, this is just the raw
material they seek and can make use of. This attracts them. (as they
already have lots of life which makes them up)
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx And to those of us who have a
competition between absolute good ways and human ways within us; this
indicates parts of us are into high ability goodness (while other
parts are not). The barrenness in this area is a signal for high
ability goodness outside this barren area to invade this barren area
and bring it out of barrenness (since the high ability goodness
already has the life that supports its directive, and all it needs is
its input/raw material); whereas within the human good with the barren
area; it working in the barren area is futile because although it has
an abundance of input/raw material, it lacks enough of what makes up
itself(its directive): -a barren environment is no help in allowing
human ways to change to absolute good ways, as what is needed is a
medium environment. But outside high ability good entities do take
these barren environments in as inputs; and you may thus meet God or a
high ability good part of yourself this way. Outside high entities of
good act in barren areas not only because voids in life (ie barren
environments) are their input; but also because they know that neither
barren environments nor rich environments allow for imperfect humans
to grow out of their imperfections. So that because this area of human
reproductive drive is imperfect, human, and contains some
destructiveness, the intervening high ability goodness doesn’t bring
this barren area to richness, but only to medium ability. So that the
person who has been rejected in love, will get their hot babe/stud
anyway, or a reasonable facsimile thereof: -all they have to do is
give up on trying to make this work using their human goodness; but to
open their mind; look away from the futile human area, look to and
allow the high ability absolute goodness to come in and supply that
very human area to medium ability. And the only person who will be
held back and be forced to remain as imperfect human for an extended
period of time in this area, will be the person who keeps insisting on
barrenness in this area -which is the person who attracts suitors and
spurns most of them. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx insert: When a babe/stud
rejects you because of the societal rule that they are dating someone
else, realize that this rejection is absolute; that they're trying to
apply an absolute, to a human area that is anything but absolute. Thus
in some part of this human area, there is some area that gets
destruction all the time, leading to barrenness. The one way gift does
take all-destructive actions that can be separated away from imperfect
human actions, and does separate them away. Thus the one way gift
removes away their absolute rejection of you, but only partially and
not absolutely; thus the area that got destruction all the time, no
longer gets destruction all the time, but only part of the time, thus
upholding medium ability, as opposed to bareness. end insert.
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
This brings up another important point; about areas that are
imperfect, which contain some destructiveness as part of them; -these
need to be at medium ability -not in a rich environment, nor in a
barren environment, but in a medium environment; for the separation of
the forces of goodness from destruction, so that the imperfect life
can grow into perfection and not be preserved as imperfect forever.
The new point I’m trying to make is that only the knowledge that an
area is imperfect and contains destructiveness is needed in order to
allow destructiveness to be used. Before I had argued that one could
only use destruction (and still remain on the side of goodness), when
one understood a situation in depth and then only destroyed the
destructive parts. But here is an exception to this rule: and that is
one only need know an area is imperfect. But the permission to use
destruction is only to bring the environment to medium ability. No
absolute destruction is allowed here as it is with the total knowledge
situation. And once an environment containing evil is brought to
medium ability, no further destruction is warranted. And of course if
an imperfect environment is already at medium ability, no destruction
is warranted either. And destruction can only be used in such a way
that it moves the environment towards medium.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx So then: when we’re living our life in
the human area, doing human things which are neither all good nor all
destructive: when someone then classifies us according to our human
actions as warranting a judgment of either all (absolute) goodness or
absolute rejection/punishment: we realize that neither of these
options of richness nor barrenness is suitable for us, and we seek to
temper these attempts at absolute judgments.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Destructiveness isn’t the only
thing that can bring this about but it can be one of the tools used.
Like when we are offered richness, it would be wasteful and
misunderstood to use some destruction to bring the rich reward down to
medium ability, and that there are other ways that could be
accomplished. But in the area of absolute punishment and condemnation;
that just begs to have some destruction done to it. -Not so much as to
totally destroy the once absolute condemnation, but only enough so it
is partially destroyed, so that we end up with a medium environment,
not a rich nor barren one. Other methods, such as segregation and
quarantine don’t work well here because only a partial and not total
elimination of the destructive condemnation is sought. In the case of
the spurned lover situation, partial destruction of the absolute
rejection may not be enough, as the creative abilities of goodness
causing life where there once was void in life may be needed to raise
the area out of barrenness to medium ability.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
And now. It seems that the rules over our sexuality and reproductive
drive act to throw this imperfect human area into either rich or
barren environments, and seek to eliminate any medium environment and
moderation. Yes, concerning any person’s human reproductive desire and
attraction for another human; the rules of dating and marriage dictate
that these two either get all of each other, or none of each other,
and that there should be no in between. This is an imperfect human
area, this area of human reproduction. What should actually be the way
things are done is that nobody should get anybody else all of the time
(rich environment); neither should anybody be denied anybody else all
of the time (barren environment); but that everybody should be able to
get everybody else some of the time (medium environment). What you
people do to each other is oppressive. In following these rules, you
hold each other back and prevent the humanness and imperfection of
your reproductive area from growing out of that, and preserve
yourselves as imperfect in this area. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx In the
rich environment situation, a married couple can find ways to distance
themselves from each other so that they achieve a medium environment
with respect to each other. But in the barren situations, outside
action needs to be taken. To partially destroy absolute rules over
these areas; and for higher good to generate something in these barren
areas where there is now nothing and nothingness.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Human sexual desires/drives
effect us strongly on an individual level. But society and religion
also want to have say over our individual sexuality. Sometimes they
want to prevent us from using birth control, or abortion; condemn
homosexual expressions; and condemn expressions outside of marriage.
As an individual, I am small and weak compared to the greater society,
or even to God. It would be foolish of me (an individual) to go
against the greater society or even God in any area wouldn’t it?
Usually, this is true: it is futile for the individual to go against
much more powerful entities such as the greater society or even God.
But with the sexual area, it is a special area -a rare area where the
individual has a good chance at being the boss over society, and even
religion. Where in this case, the tail can wag the dog. You see,
society has a sexual need too. It needs for us individuals to have
some offspring so as to continue itself past one generation; but also
to moderate that offspring production so only a limited number of
offspring are produced, so that it can remain a rich society. This is
what the family structure is for -to provide a nurturing environment
for the rearing of children, but also to burden the couple with that
rearing so they won’t have an excessive number of children. And casual
sex, cheating, homosexual activity, birth control/abortion do not
serve the greater society’s need for generating the next generation.
Know that there is plenty enough room for individuals to express their
sexuality and have plenty of sexuality left over for the satisfaction
of the greater society’s need here. But sometimes greater societies
take to bossing around and belittling the individual, and making the
individual know that the individual position is not important, but
that the greater society is all important, so that they stamp out any
individual expressions which are not in line with societal
expressions. But here in the sexual area, unlike in most areas, the
individual has the rare power to eliminate greater societies which are
not to their liking. By disobeying the directives of society,
individuals can have sex with birth control and abortion, casual sex,
etc; all while having no children; and by doing so, can eliminate that
society in one generation. No matter how much this greater society
punishes us, we can still bring it to an end by having no children. So
that here in the sexual area, I seek to make it an area under
individual control. That it is not an area that belongs to the greater
society, religion, or even God; but that it shall be an area that
belongs only to the individual; and that through it, individuals are
able to express their approval, or disapproval, of these more powerful
entities that are over them. This is an inherent democracy that the
individual comes born with.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx There
are some who are very articulate about telling us how we should be
behaving towards each other sexually, out of all the possible ways we
could behave towards each other sexually. Stories of what they would
do or what others have done if they caught their mate cheating,
abound. But as to an explanation of why this way is better than the
other possibilities; there is a strange lacking of articulation, and
silence. This appeal for fidelity without reasoning, doesn’t appeal to
my thinking mind. Another thing that doesn’t appeal to my thinking
mind, is the animal attraction I may feel towards a hot babe/stud. So
if I just accept what comes over me by faith, without question,
without engaging my thinking mind; then some of the time, when these
agents of fidelity come over me, I will be faithful: And when what is
biologically borne in me -the hot babes/studs, comes over me, I will
by faith, unquestioningly follow there, and thus be unfaithful. So
that without reason, my reasoning mind sees that I won’t be able to
stick to any absolute course (so why bother trying (to actually be
absolutely faithful without question (by faith alone))?). Futile. Now,
with reason, I will be able to stick with a consistent course (of
moderation (in all (human) things)), but as it turns out, it won’t be
(absolutely) with the fidel-itors.
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
And then they call upon Jesus. Well, this brings to mind God the
father. And where almighty God is, we humans seek to give up our
humanity and join God (so that we are no longer human, but godly); and
Jesus is quite helpful with that. But where humans and human ways
exist comfortably, is a place where God and absolute goodness has not
yet appeared. And high ability goodness will not appear as long as we
keep these rules over our humanness and prevent ourselves from
advancing higher. So there is no need to call on Jesus here, as
absolute goodness (love) has not appeared to cause us to desire to
replace our humanness with Godliness. And if we prevent ourselves from
advancing beyond our human ways, by carefully observing these rules
over our human ways, then all we will have is our human ways, and God
will never come, and it will seem like God doesn’t exist; and in our
little area; He won’t. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx This again brings up the
question that someone may ask you: Do you believe in God?
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx When someone asks me if
I believe in God; I realize that the area of God is an area I can’t
see or prove. But I would like to refer to what I can see. And what I
can see, is human beings who are something, but are not powerful
enough or good/kind enough to be Gods. What I can see, is human
beings, but human beings who in their lifetime; in what I can see and
show: never advance into being extensions of God. Throughout their
lives it seems they never outgrow needing food, sex, attention, etc.
This lack of growing into and advancing into anything greater than
human, strikes me as a stagnation and a trap and an inability to be
anything other than human. So that with the persona of God being out
of reach of humans actually achieving, it remains in the realm of the
invisible and outside our reality. Since the persona of God is so much
better and richer than what we know as humans; for me to say that such
exists, that God exists, puts a condemnation upon the humans who I can
see and that I know exist, for being stuck as humans and never growing
into and becoming extensions of God. And I do say: Yes, God exists.
And thereby condemn this human stagnation that we find ourselves in.
And what is it that causes us to stagnate, and never advance/grow out
of being humans, into a higher and richer plane of life? I claim it is
religion and religion’s rules over the living of human life in human
gray areas of living life. And by proclaiming the existence of God, I
do thereby condemn religion and societal absolute rules over the
living of human life. -thereby putting to shame this system where
humans don’t advance or grow into being anything more than humans, who
just stagnate as humans; thus making concepts of God, rich in absolute
goodness and kindness, to be figments of imagination, not within, but
outside our visible grasp and visible reality. So that when asked if I
believe God exists, I can’t just point to Him and say, see, there He
is; but have to instead explain a concept that is invisible and not
visibly here yet. -due to the stagnation that we are in.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Along these same lines, we could take a tip from
Genesis in the Bible. -Where Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit and
were then cast out of the paradise Eden. What is the forbidden fruit?
Well, Genesis claims it is from the tree of knowledge of good and
evil. Well, religion proclaims the knowledge of what is good or bad,
godly or of the devil. It is religion, I claim, is the forbidden
fruit, that throws all who partake of it, out of the paradise of Eden
with God. Also, after they ate the fruit, they became aware of their
nakedness; ashamed of their nakedness, and wove fig leaves to cover
themselves. And isn't it the case that most religions focus on
suppressing the sex drive and make us ashamed of our sexuality. And
isn't it the case that women are more interested in religion, just as
Eve ate the fruit first and brought it to Adam. So, yes, it is
religion that is the forbidden fruit, that brings death. And you would
do well to heed Genesis' advice and to not partake of its fruits, so
that you can keep your fellowship with God in paradise.
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
And we can chide these humans who insist on clinging to their humanity
by way of their condemnation of infidelity; by pointing out that
although they complain about the fallout; the seeming improper
expressions of human biologic attractions between the opposite sexes;
of the humans around them: Are they ready to fill the void if that
imperfect human biological attraction were removed? That are the
humans around them of such a caliper of being loving and kind and
generous; to devote years of their lives and resources living in
pairs, raising children, as part of their work and business? Or,
instead, do the people at work act in cutthroat backstabbing
manipulative ways towards each other, so that nobody would be willing
to make the sacrifice to raise the next generation? And that without
the benefit of biologic attractions harnessed towards the family
structure, this system would end. xxxxxxxxxxAlso that without godly
ways present to replace the human ways; throwing out the human ways
leaves one with nothing and barrenness and an end to whatever is
there. Our greater society and religion actively pursue a policy to
put sexual desire in control of reproduction. And my question is, how
does this interrelate with the prime directive of Love: to encourage
kindness over cruelty? (But let’s wait till later to explore this.)
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxAs
a new religion, the act of marriage, whereby one hoards their spouse's
sexuality all to themself without sharing it, is now a sin. And the
act of cheating and sharing ones sexuality around, is now an holy
estate ordained by God. Sinners repent!!! It is unfortunate that an
old religion causes couples to develop expectations about that their
mates should be faithful to them and only them, when that is not
necessarily the way that they should go. What right does one person
have to claim another's sexuality all to themselves? But such a rite
is given to all spouses under our current system; in a kind of sexual
slavery. Abolish this last bastion of slavery. xxxxx However; human
sexuality has in it hopelessly intertwined, goodness and destruction,
so that no absolute rules of any religion belong over it, not even
this new religion. Neither absolute chastity nor absolute promiscuity,
works. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Sometimes a group, especially a conservative
one, emphasizes the disadvantages of a promiscuous lifestyle while
remaining silent* about the disadvantages of a chaste lifestyle (*and
they say you've got to watch out for the silent ones); when the truth
is there are disadvantages to both lifestyles; and that we need to mix
it up and do both so as to be at medium level, so as not to go to
extreme bareness in any one of these directions. (*such an approach is
deceptive as it does not represent what is truly out there well. and
those who use deception, can be called deceivers. and religion calls
the devil, the father of lies. Thus it would seem that religion calls
itself of the devil in this area.) xxxxxxxxxxxx In the conservative
way, all sexuality is corralled towards the family way in a structure
of monogamy with no cheating. Yes, when a hot woman gets married to a
man, she forces all the other horny men that want her, to not have sex
with her; against their will. She does thereby violate so many people
this way. But such is the way of human sexuality (one of the gray
actions) where no matter which way you go, there is always harm and
destructiveness, just in different areas. Because of this; because the
sexual area is an imperfect work in progress: it is no place for
absolute dictates toward any one direction or another.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Then there's the song that goes: "No huggy, no
kissy until I get a wedding ring. My honey, my baby, don't put my love
upon a shelf. Don't give me no lines and keep your hands to yourself."
Here we can see the female is corralling the man's untamed sex drive
and harnessing it towards forming a stable family structure where a
certain number of offspring can be produced, thus satisfying the
greater society's sexually based need to have couples produce and
raise a certain number of children so that the society can continue
past one generation. Thus satisfying society's sexual need. (Notice
how so many women are so horny to satisfy the societal sexual need (by
forming the stable family structure with no 'cheating').) Aside from
the fact that the woman gets to frustrate the man's untamed sex drive;
is this really an advantageous position for the woman to take? In a
society that does not compensate or monetarily recognize the work a
woman does in causing the whole society's continuation; the woman here
has satisfied society's sexually based need for continuation, but has
gotten nothing in return. You may say that society allows the woman to
then share in the monetary holdings of the man she has captured. Yet a
woman could monetarily gain much more by trading her sexuality to many
men who are eager and willing, to whom the novelty of infatuation is
still new and has not worn off. Of course this society makes
prostitution illegal so that its own sexual need may be satisfied
instead. The act of giving years of ones life to a greater society
that takes and does not compensate for; is just the same as letting
these horny men have their way with you without compensation. Both
ways the woman is taken advantage of. But if a woman were to put her
foot down, she could have compensation from these horny men either
way, and that doesn't necessarily mean she should go the way of
placing the stamp of acceptance on this society which corrals
sexuality to wedding rings and family (which offspring are an integral
part). When a woman supports the societal way of corralling all
sexuality to the family structure and the raising of a certain number
of offspring; she has in essence said that she accepts the society she
is in without question and has given it a blank check for its
continuation no matter what it does. Not every woman is willing to
give up her mind and become a rubber stamp; a non thinking, baby
making machine; for whatever their society does. In a democratic
society, this is out of place.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Conservative societies
put in place the expectations in the relations between men and women
that they expect their mates or boy/girlfriends not to cheat. But
human sexuality the way it comes naturally, is what it is, and it is
not in line with this conservative way. It must be corralled and
molded so as to be in line with the conservative way. And then so many
people are disappointed when their spouse or boy/girlfriends don't
live up to the expectations of being true only to them. When human
sexuality, the way it comes naturally, doesn't conform to this at all.
These conservatives just try and force natural human sexuality to
conform to these standards, and is it any wonder that these
conservative expectations are not met. What's the deal here? Why sex
at all? Many of the lower life forms such as worms and fungi reproduce
by cloning, or asexual reproduction where they make exact copies of
each other. But higher life forms seem to enjoy the greater genetic
variability of sexual reproduction so that their offspring are not
exact copies of each other. The way human sexuality comes naturally is
a result of many eons of evolution; or that they were created that
way. Who are humans to take charge and change what evolution or
creation has created? What is the reasoning or understanding behind
such an action? (Perhaps the conservative way won't pass the test of
evolution, given eons of time.) The conservatives are not much on
reasoning, but are more toward take it by faith, and we told you to do
it, so do it (just because we said so, and we know best, don't
question us). Truly, it can be said that we know not what we do when
we corral human sexuality off its natural course, into some contrived
conservative mold. Untamed sexuality causes chromosomes and genetic
material to be well mixed so that there is increased variability
spread over the whole population. But with the conservative way of
sexuality, that genetic material doesn't get mixed as well. From this
results family groupings where each family is good at one thing, but
not very good at anything else; since men and women with like
interests (that they are good at), tend to remain together. Whereas
with free flowing sexuality, these traits would be shared throughout
the society and everyone would be good at all things, (or not). But
with conservative sexuality, family groupings exist where each group
is good in one area, but not in other areas. This forces them to join
together and participate as a greater societal whole, where each good
area can work together in an effective all encompassing good; because
as individuals, being good at only one or a few things, makes for a
bad life as an individual. This requires that they join together with
each individual contributing his/her talent that they are good at.
This is great for those who run the society as they have a ready
supply of forced labor, as there is no other realistic alternative but
to join the greater society in order to function effectively. But
keeping the individuals weak, and in need of joining the ruling
societal group; strikes me as a weakness, and not a wise way to go, in
the long term evolutionary picture. But this conservative sexuality
way, sure works well for those who wish to harness and enslave others
for their benefit. Just don't be surprised when human sexuality,
doesn't live up to the expectations of the conservative mold. Why
should it?, that's not what it is. xxxxxxxxxxxxx Note that a woman who
is looking for happiness through marriage to a man, will be
dissapointed as no one man has all areas mastered well. But with the
occasional harem of the arab world, and polygamy; the genetic material
can be spread around a little more. But this is all for the benefit of
society's satisfaction of its sexually based need. -One society type
sees the value of generating more well rounded individuals (at least
occasionally); while the other society type seeks to keep its
individuals unballanced and severely beholding to it.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In considering which came first, the chicken or the egg: realize that
whatever came first, the life forms here had to go through many
generations of sexual reproduction. Let us consider the nuances of
sexual reproduction itself. xxxxxxxx When organisms utilize sexual
reproduction, the offspring are not exactly the same. Differences
arise. When conservative sexuality is applied, those differences are
not allowed to equalize back through the whole population. Hence with
longstanding conservative sexuality, different races are created,
(because eventually the differences (from sexual reproduction that are
not permited to be spread through the whole population) become so
great that a new race is created). Hence conservative sexuality is a
cause of racism (or at least provides for its continuation) because it
creates the situation of different races living side by side. By not
allowing differences from sexual reproduction to spread back
throughout the whole population; not all the possibilities are tried,
and less posible combinations of genes are tried. With less
combinations tried, sexual reproduction is weaker at generating
different combinations that may survive the tempests that nature or
our own destructiveness throws at us.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
The conservative way breeds individuals who are helpless by themselves
unless they conform and meld together into the societal group. Yet it
is the conservatives who emphasize individual responsibility and blame
individuals for what goes wrong in society. And it is the
conservatives who squack so loudly about the welfare and how that is
sapping society so. Really, people helpless of taking care of
themselves and in need of welfare is just a product of the
conservative's own breeding policy, and they really have no right to
complain about it, as it is them that caused the problem of helpless
individuals in the first place. All this is is just a jab at us all to
conform to the societal will and cause no dissent; because if we do,
we will be cast out of the societal way and find ourselfs as helpless
individuals, needing welfare. These threats by the conservative way
for us to conform are not in line with the promise of freedom
proclaimed by the American way. Hence, in this respect, going with the
conservative way absolutely, all the time, is decidedly Un American.
(Land of the free, home of the brave? We are certainly not free when
absolutely under the conservative way.) xxxxxx Yet perhaps there is
value in allowing a (family) group to develop and perfect an area in
freedom from being overly burdened by the demands of other areas.
However, at some point in time, the advancements gained in the
disparate areas need to be put together, in order for this type of way
to be a better way. Some may say that the occasional marriage by
people of different best skills, (in order that the couple may
compliment each other so as to survive better) will do this mixing.
However, I disagree since the rulers of the society have grown to
depend on the separation of skills (so that people are very good at
only one area) so that the population is forced to conform to their
dictates (or be cast out and be a helpless individual in need of
welfare); as a means of control over the society. Hence mixing of
these skills and assembling them all together is not allowed, and is
sought to be prevented. This holds us back and does not make this way
a better way. So, although there may be a place for some conservatism;
it is no good for there to be absolute conservatism or to have it all
the time. In this imperfect area, there is no place for absolutes of
any kind. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx And while I am recanting
positions, let me recant somewhat my opposition to the conservative
breeding program that creates unballanced individuals that aren't self
sufficient by themselves. Yes, perhaps as a safeguard to governments
and individuals who would generate large quantities of self sufficient
people who would be devoted to doing evil/destruction; does the
safeguard of being helpless as individuals have some use. In other
words: combining the concept of that when there is evil, we should
seek a medium ability environment; with when there is an abundance of
humans in an evil environment, they are treated poorly and are food
for evil (whereas if there is a shortage of them, this would force
better treatment of them). I would state that the unbalanced
individual is the medium environment sought. So that if some
government or individual woman wanted to overproduce humans so as to
use them as fodder for their evil/destructive designs, that they could
not easily produce complete humans, but would be limited to incomplete
humans. But if we as individuals are to give up our self sufficiency
in order to provide this safeguard and medium ability environment in a
world full of evil, then we need much more to ensure that we
individuals have a vote over the greater society (that we as
individuals create in comming together); so that this greater society
that we defer to doesn't then turn around and screw us, as now non-
self-sufficient individuals. Our responses can vary widely depending
on how much evil there is in our environment. The presuposition here
is that there is evil in the environment, hence the individual needs
to be at medium ability by making him/her less than self sufficient.
But if this is so, then no one entity should have all the power
(neither the individual, nor the greater society), and all entities
should have checks and balances on each other and be at medium
ability. xxxxxxxx That vote the individual should have over the
greater society that bosses him/her, is by allowing we as individual
couples to have unfettered say over how many offspring we have. -That
we have many offspring in a good situation where there is no evil; -
That we have a limited number where there is some evil; and that we
have few offspring where the greater society is mostly all evil and is
treating us badly. So that the conservative attempts at stopping birth
control and violating women's ability of choice over to have or not
have an offspring; are much out of place. And also, the conservative
breeding program can be enacted quite sucessfully enough by limiting
its rules only to having children; and need not burden us by extending
their coverage to our sexual expressions outside of having/creating
children. xxxxxxxxxxxxxx Now then, I am changing my mind again. This
latest idea makes no sense. The idea is that the individual needs to
be at medium ability because there is evil, and hence should be less
than self sufficient, and that if we let the individual be of high
ability and self sufficient, the governmental groups of these people
will be used more so to do more destruction. The problem is is that no
mater whether the individual is self sufficient, or not, the greater
society or government is able to put together the individual strengths
of less than self sufficient peoples to obtain high power anyway, and
that the only entity that high power is denied, is the individual. So
that it makes no difference (there is no gain or loss) to the greater
society whether the individual is self sufficient or not, concerning
what level the society is at -always high level, not medium level. And
the less than self sufficient individuals run the risk of being at low
level, not medium level because of their lack of self sufficiency.
(And low level is not any good in an evil situation either.) A greater
society made of self sufficient individuals would be more powerful
than any individual self sufficient individual; so that it takes self
suficient individuals to achieve medium ability in this situation,
whereas non self sufficient individuals would be at low ability in
this situation (which is undesireable). -And that no mater what, the
greater society is at high ability irregardless of whether the
individual is self sufficient, or is less than self sufficient. So
once again, I now change again and disolve any alegiance to the
conservative breeding program that breeds less than self sufficient
individuals. I may say, that there is a place for the conservative way
in order to allow development of the different areas without undue
interference from each other; but that it should not be allowed to be
the absolute boss. And the conservative way tempts greater societies
to use their individuals and consume their individuals as fodder
because it forces them to conform due to their lack of self
sufficiency.
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
I have made argument that where there is evil/destruction, we should
seek to make that environment at medium ability so as to encourage
separation of the forces. But this is only if there is some goodness
trapped herein that needs separating from the evil. If the good has
already separated from the evil; do not continue to intervene to keep
the all-evil at medium ability. If an area has only evil, then allow
that evil, now alone and by itself, to burn the medium environment
down to barren so that it will then cease to exist: thus taking
advantage of that good can exist while alone but evil can’t.
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
In another out of place insert, I just want to say that with all this
considering of gray areas and all the nuances of how to handle gray
areas: -Not every area is a gray area. That there ARE areas that CAN
be separated into wholly good components, and wholly destructive
components. And that here, the advisements of how to handle gray
areas, don't apply. That here, we DO separate the components into
separate areas ‘of black and white’; and that doing so here is good.
Consider ‘rules’ over these non gray areas: Rules don’t allow the
‘bad’ to exist at all. They create a vacuum (which high forces of good
fill to medium ability, (in a special way that prevents their purity
from being compromised)). But the action of separation DOES allow both
the bad, and the good, to exist: -just in different, separate areas. -
Even the gray actions are separated away from the all-good (due to
their badness that partially makes them up); (so that the ability of
the all-good to contact the good parts of gray actions is tentative at
best). So that when you’re not satisfying some human (gray action)
need that has good and destruction inseparably intertwined; you can
commit your main center to absolute goodness (Jesus, God, Ala, etc),
which as a base part of it, has separation of all good from all evil/
destruction. (Only when satisfying an earthly need, need you be open
to the destructiveness from gray areas.) Through separation, the evil/
destruction still exists and is not eliminated, but it is separate
from the rest of you/your goodness; where it does not bother nor
consume your all-goodness. (Note that freedom/separation from evil/
destruction is just a base part. The goodness then acts to grow
perfect goodness, which then matures, etc, (as detailed elsewhere in
this writing).)
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Let me reiterate this in a different way: Some actions are human gray
actions which contain both good and destructiveness inextricably
intertwined. And around our human gray actions have grown up rules
governing the expression of our human gray actions. These rules do not
eliminate the destructiveness in our gray actions, but instead just
rearrange where it is done and put a structure to where the
destructive part is done. These rules themselves then also tie to
themselves the fact that they are not totally free of destructiveness
either. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx But not all actions/areas are these
human gray actions. -Some actions CAN be separated completely into
that which is good vs. that which is destructive. And in these non-
gray areas exists a purity of action in that they are either all good
or all destructive, that does not exist with the gray actions. (As we
know, when an all destructive area is generated, it soon consumes
itself and disappears; thus leaving only pure all-good areas.) Thus
there can exist structures with an absolute purity in their action,
and also other structures which are always impure and can never be
pure in their 'human' actions. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx For
a human gray action say of satisfying a human hunger, to join with
these NON gray areas would be a pollution of the pure good area and a
torment as the evil in the gray action would grow rapidly in the rich
environment of the all good area. But the rules over the gray actions
are also likewise impure, and for them to join the all good area would
be the same result. Human sinners know that they are impure and know
better not to join the pure all good areas. But rule enforcers over
gray areas may mistakenly aspire to be godly and see themselves as
joining the all good, but they also must be separated away from the
all good to maintain the purity of the all good, as these rule
enforcers are as impure as the sinners they enforce against. Yes,
there are areas that are non gray and are absolute good within us. And
we keep these separate from every(all) destructiveness, including
destructiveness of our gray human hunger satisfying, as well as the
also destructive enforcers of rules over the gray areas. These all
good areas are not only separate from destructions, they are also our
engines of growth into perfection. These all good areas are even in
addition to this, are also givers of goodness unto only medium ability
in a one way gift to the gray areas, in order for those in the gray
area to work their way out of the gray and into the all good. But of
course, there is no gift of medium ability to any all destructive
part. -only to where there is some good is there a gift to medium
ability.xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Now when a human situation exists which
needs the intervention of the all good to supply a one way gift to
bring to medium ability; the all good then splits a small part off.
The reason the part split off is small, is to represent that the all
good is to be kept at high ability, while the one way gift is only for
bringing to medium ability. And not only is the splitting done; the
smaller one way gift also must leave and become separate from the all
good area; since it is to enter an area where there is some evil, and
that the all good area must be kept separate from. So, although the
small gift part leaves and separates away, and in the arena containing
some evil, brings things to medium ability, where the life there darts
about and avoids and tries to run away and to obtain separation from
the evil; the main part which is all good, remains and stays and holds
its ground and does not run away because it has already obtained
freedom and separation from evil. xxxxxxxxx Skip this SEGMENT: Looking
at the human area , in the satisfying of a human hunger: the one way
gift to medium ability causes: -The area of human hunger can proceed
for awhile in medium ability. -Then to generate and share existence
with a regulatory action (also of medium ability) to remove all of the
godly part to God (due to a maturation process); and soon after that
to generate and share existence with a second regulatory action (also
sharing medium ability from the medium ability gift) which in response
to the havoc caused by the first regulatory action, to take the
remaining now incomplete matured human parts which had godly parts
removed from them, to only partially take these incomplete matured
human parts and meld them together with complete matured human parts,
so as to only partially restore their function of satisfying a human
hunger. End SKIPPED SEGMENT xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx When there has
grown up around our gray actions of satisfying human hungers; absolute
rules that bring an absolute nature to how we are allowed to do gray
actions (ie; as when Christians go about destroying all things sexual
outside of what they have allowed); then as I have previously stated,
those absolute rules need to be smashed down to medium, to no longer
be absolute, so that medium environments are favored over patchworks
of rich and barren. However, such an action to do so, is also an
impure action that also contains destruction; -as is also, the
enforcement of absolute rules over these gray actions is; -as is also,
the gray actions of satisfying human hungers itself,are. So that
although the high good wants to fill to medium ability, the vacuums
created by these absolute rule enforcers; the high good is sometimes
unable to do so directly due to the contamination to itself that would
bring. The high good, then does so indirectly by splitting off a small
part of itself in this one way gift mechanism to do this*; much like
God the Father split off a Son, Jesus, to come to the impure earth,
and smash down the absolute nature of the Jewish rules over living
everyday life,/ the works of the devil.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx When
there exists a human gray action (which has good and evil inseparably
in it), the one way gift maintains it at medium ability, in a medium
environment. But if in addition, there is an evil/destructive action
that can be separated away; I mean, who is going to separate a human
gray action with some good to it from a destructive action with no
good in it? All-good actions have separation from all evil, but a
human gray action is inseparable from its inherent evil, thus any all-
good action would risk being contaminated by evil if it attempted to
save a(n impure) human action from another, all evil action.(-the all
evil action feeding off the good in the human action). And of course,
this is where the one way gift of-and-to medium ability comes in.
Realize that the goal of the one way gift, is to help the good in the
human action obtain separation from evil - by providing a medium
ability environment/level, and doing whatever else is needed for that
directive, such as removing it from other all evil actions that are
using it as food. When the human action is freed/removed from the all
evil action; the all evil action is then alone, and without food,
consumes itself and disappears.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Let me
restate this. Some actions are human actions, containing growth and
destruction inseparably within them. But not all actions are human
actions, and some actions can be separated completely into all good,
and all destructive components. And when they are separated, the all
good components are separate from the all destructive components. This
puts a hurt on the all-destructive components because when alone they
consume themselves and disappear. But if they can find some human
actions, they can continue to survive by feeding off the good in the
human action. And who would separate an all-destructive component from
a human action, which also contains some destruction? The human action
is inescapably (at this level) contaminated with some destruction. No
immediate purification is obtained by separating a human action from
an all destructive action which is feeding on the good in it, as the
human action still has some destruction no mater if it is separated
from the all-destructive or not. And any all-good action would
contaminate itself trying to do this. So, this is where the small one
way gift comes in: to not only bring out of the vacuum of barrenness
and nothingness unto medium ability, but also to separate human
actions from all-destructive actions that are feeding on them: thereby
causing the all destructive actions to self consume and disappear:
paving the way for the contaminated but now medium ability life to
work its way out of its contamination and eventually obtain freedom
from destruction. The evil within human actions is difficult to
separate away. But the evil from an all-evil action that is feeding on
the good in a human action, is not so difficult to separate away,
provided the one separating it away isn't concerned about being
contaminated. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx One might not say that the rules
(religious and societal) over human gray actions are all destructive
and are feeding off the gray actions, because no matter what you do to
a gray action (whether destroy it all, partially destroy it, or do no
destroying to it), you end up with some good and some destruction. But
this is just a matter of semantics, because the end result is just the
same. The rules act to cause patchworks of rich and barren; the rich
are burned down to barren by the destruction always present within
gray actions, leaving only barren. In only barren environments, the
good and destructive are forced to be together. Destructiveness has
been fed, and its survival is ensured and there is no hope of
eventually getting away from it. So that even though it was the
destruction from the gray action that did the actual destroying of the
rich areas created: it was the rules that formed the environment so
that this and nothing but this would happen. And being barren is a
result of all destructive things and is what they produce. So that the
all destructive is bred, fed, and grown out of the human gray actions,
and does feed on the human gray actions; as caused by the rules.
Because of the rules, the all destructive does feed on the human gray
actions and thus does not self eliminate. But if the small gift comes
and separates the all destructive from the human gray actions; then
that all destructive WILL self eliminate. Jesus will do what the rules
(the religious/societal law) never will.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx *Note
that rules use destruction, and that the result of destruction is a
vacuum. High good will not fill these vacuums, even though it is the
input of good, and that the high good also has the necessary life
making it up; -due to the loss of purity in this area due to the
impurity of the destructiveness from the rules. But to the smaller one
way gift, this vacuum not only has its input, and it still has enough
ability making it up to do good to this vacuum even though it is
smaller than the rest of the all-good, and finally, this vacuum is no
threat to purity as it isn't primarily concerned about purity: thus it
is these smaller one way gifts that make use of these vacuums created
by rules. God the Father does not come down in power to fill these
vacuums; instead, Jesus the meek Son comes down to fill these vacuums.
And the parts of us that are meek inside of us, which are split off
our high good areas, should also do the same, in our world. Note that
although some destroying of rules is done; the majority actions used
here are not the use of destruction, but are the use of creative
abilities of goodness and growth, to put something of medium ability
into where these vacuums and nothingness once were.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
When we start out, we have a high good area part that is totally
separate from any human-hunger-satisfying-gray-action. But this isn't
actually the case, as our gray areas do have a small one way piece
that was once some of the high good area, and still gets small
replentishments from the high good area. Still, the connection to the
human gray area is tenative at best. But we do have major parts of the
high-good-area-of-us, that are not newly generated(thus have already
given their contribution to the small one way gift), that are totally
separate from any human hunger satisfying gray action. These parts
have tremendous growth, but they are against a barrier in that they
don't posses any of the gray areas, evil free, at high good, but only
have themselves at high good. And high good is always trying to bridge
barriers and do more growth. The small one way gift of us is what gets
it on in the gray areas, so that it is not fair to say that the high
good has always been aloof and has no contact with the gray areas, as
the small one way gift which began as high good material, does come
and have contact with the gray areas. Here, it casts away absolutely,
all evil that can be separated away in the gray areas, but doesn't try
to cast out evil that is part of the gray actions, as that is not
obtainable at this time. It also generates material to medium ability
for the vacummes in the gray areas caused by destruction in the gray
areas (doing so first in isolation, then releasing that material to
the whole of the gray area). The point I'm trying to make here is that
while doing human hunger satisfying in the gray areas with the small
one way gift part of oneself; to remember not to draw the established
high good parts of oneself into this, but to at this same time, keep
them completely separate from this. Eventually, because of the small
one way gift's doings in the gray areas, the good in that will work
its way out of the gray areas and separate from the evil that was once
unseperatable, and will join the high good parts. Hence the high good
parts will at this later time, have bridged their barrier, and will
have range over not only their high good area, but also over the
purified gray area material. In other words, when our gray, human
parts plus one way gift parts of ourself are satisfying a human
hunger, there is simultaneosly a coordinated effort between the not-
human-high-good parts of ourself, and our one way gift, to keep the
high parts completly separate/away from these impure(contaminated with
destruction) imperfect human hunger satisfying actions. Whatever part
of us is made of evil-free-high-good parts will be opting away from
any human hunger satisfying, while at the same time our human parts
and one way gift will be doing the human hunger satisfying actions/
cycle. These two directives (one of human hunger satisfying -to medium
satisfaction; and the other of getting away from human hunger
satisfying and not doing any human hunger satisfying) do not despise
each other, but instead, work and coordinate together so that each may
coexist, mainly (but not completely) separate from each other, within
us. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Let me take this to the next level (up a notch). This is kind of a
recipe for human hunger satisfying. Keeping in mind that we are
composed of both all good areas, and also human gray areas; we see
that we cannot apply one set of rules to us, but must differentiate
between what is all good, and what is gray, in us. The first order of
business when satisfying a human hunger, is to remove the all good
parts of us from that. and that includes the purified parts from a
previous satisfaction of that human hunger. Then we satisfy the human
hunger with our remaining human parts. Here are some suggestions for
that: Note that the small(er) one way gift (or Jesus representation
within us) does generate human material in isolation, and then
releases that material to the larger human hunger satisfying area. The
purpose of this is to limit exposure to the destruction in human
material so that the gift can keep some semblance of high capability
and limit the compromise of its purity. Taking this idea to the next
level, we can have more than just one level of separation, but
multiple levels of separation, like the layers of an onion; and
thereby generate a spread of varying levels and togetherness of human
materials in this human hunger satisfying. So how do we create the
different levels? Well, this starts with how we, (or the one way
gift), can variably release material it generates to other less pure
levels of the human area. There is a difference in how an evil is cast
out vs how we satisfy a hunger. (After our all good parts are removed
and not participating in this): when the one way gift is casting out
an all-evil, the casting out action it generates in separation, is
totally delivered to the human area to completely cast out the evil
that can be cast out and removed from the human hunger satisfying. But
when the one way gift is generating material for human hunger
satisfying, it need not release all of it to the human area, but can
leave half of it unreleased, still in separation. The reasoning behind
this is that forces of good like to generate material, but it is not
good if too much material is generated so as to be at high capability
in this human area. So, if the one way gift leaves some material
unreleased to the human area, it will still maintain medium ability,
as the extra material will be separated away from it by a barrier. And
the one way gift will have gotten to do what it likes to do, that is
to generate material and fill voids. And this can be carried between
the levels. As enough material coallesces in a human level to allow
for increased generation of human material, some of that material can
be released to a new area, while the rest of that material can remain
behind; so that we have two levels of medium ability as opposed to one
level at high ability. This is how we generate new levels. At this
point the two levels are the same. But then the one way gift, which is
of the highest ability of any of the levels, because it is the most
separate from destruction; generates a small fragment, which is the
next step in the human hunger satisfying, and releases half of it to
only one of the two levels. Now the two levels are no longer the same.
The level with the next step as well as all the previous steps, is now
a more corrupted, and also a more satisfied level. The one way gift
then leaves the half of the fragment that was not released, so as to
generate another fragment that is the next step after that which was
the next step, so as to release half of it to the broadest most all
inclusive level of human hunger satisfying. And the addition of this
next step material causes this level to generate more whereby it
creates another level by releasing half of itself to another area. And
this keeps going on till the human hunger is satisfied in only the
final broadest level. This way all the possibilities are generated,
and a complete spread of all levels of ability are generated, so that
if the final level that had a complete human hunger satisfied, does
burn itself down, or is purified and leaves the human area to be with
the all good; there is still a human area at medium ability, which is
more than a vacuum that is left behind. And the one way gift does
leave each of the previous fragments in order to generate the next new
fragment, so as to limit its exposure to the destruction in the human
action, so that it can remain at semi high capability, so that it can
generate the needed fragments that the more corrupted levels cannot
due to their greater exposure to destruction from the human action.
Note that it is easy for the one way gift to release, and also to
remove itself from these fragments because they don't represent what
it directly needs; and in fact their removal and absence DOES keep the
one way gift at semi high ability, (higher than any of the other
levels) and is therefore a positive thing for it. This is hard for the
more corrupted, broader levels of the human action to understand, as
they value the final fragments they recieve, which they aren't able to
produce sufficiently on their own due to their greater exposure to
destruction. But, then, they aren't asked to give up these final
fragments anyway, like the one way gift does. They should realize that
the one way gift does not value these fragments to the extent and
intensity that they do.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
The casting out an all evil from a human hunger satisfying may be more
difficult in some situations. After the all good is removed from this,
the one way gift then does this. It can do so by first generating
casting out action in isolation, then half of the one way gift
releases part of its production (say half) of it to the broad human
area. But before it releases all of it, the one way gift then retreats
to isolation again (to generate more casting out action). -(Then at
this point, the other half of the one way gift comes out of isolation
to release its half part, so that the retreating part no longer has
the heat/burden focused on it. -Note that this second half of the one
way gift that is now comming out of isolation and releasing its half
part; also releases (to the broad human area), the half part that the
first half of the one way gift failed to release because it was
instead retreating to isolation again.) And the two halves of the one
way gift cycle back and forth between release from isolation to the
broad human area; and retreating to isolaion.) This way, the casting
out action is mostly all released, as is what the all-evil deserves,
but in such a way that the all evil can't get to the one way gift very
well, because the one way gift is shielded by casting out action that
it is retreating from, with the unreleased casting out action between
itself and the all-evil. But that the unreleased casting out action
isn't wasted because the other half of the one way gift that is
comming out of isolation at this time, uses its released half to also
push into release, that previously unreleased material from the other
half. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Now, with the satisfying of a
human hunger, things can get even more complex. Not only do we have
the two halves of the one way gift releasing and retreating to and
from isolation what they produce. (And note that here, they leave
unreleased half parts as unreleased and do not push these into release
from the other side like is done for casting out evil, as this is
satisfying a human hunger, which is different like this because medium
ability is sought.) Not only do we have the two halves of the one way
gift doing their cycle, but they can start to deliver their production
to different levels that are not the direct recipients of the
production, with these other levels then handing that production off
to the direct recipient level in a second action. And the one way gift
can in time, stack it back so that it is quite far away from the
recipient broad human area level. This leaves room for the one way
gift halves to generate the next step in the hunger satisfying
directly to part of the broad human area, and then to also work even
that production back so that it is far away; and so on and so forth
till all the steps of the hunger satisfying are generated. And while
this is going on, the inteligence part of the broad human area is
expanding itself so that different/more (medium ability) levels are
generated; whereby the one way gift halves only select part of the
expanded broad human area to deliver the latest step in human hunger
satisfying. Thus the whole spectrum of human hunger satisfying is
generated.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Let me go over this again with my newest version. I have kind of
gotten away from the 'stacking it back' idea. What I do for human
hunger satisfying is, oh yes, first the all-good parts of me removes
itself/are removed. But then, the one way gift starts to put into the
vacuum of no activity, some activity, so that a medium measure of
activity is present. (It of course does so in the two halves, each of
which produce in isolation, then deliver out of isolation to the
broader hunger satisfying area). But once a medium measure of activity
is present, the one way gift removes itself from the broader area. The
broader area then goes along, and it usually takes the activity from
medium measure, to high. At this point, things break and things give.
Some of the material may become evil free, and is then removed from
here. Sometimes much of the material becomes corrupted and evil starts
to burn it down. At this point, the broader area's inteligence has
found its limit, and backs off the high measure, back to medium
measure; and it does so by expanding itself so it is of larger area
doing medium measure, (as opposed to what it was, which was a smaller
area doing high measure). This inteligence then chooses a part of
itself to split off and become a new level, which comences to do the
next step in the hunger satisfying, (leaving the rest of the split to
remain as is and to not do the next step). Usually this new next level
doing the next step (in the hunger satisfying), is inadequate, and
produces insuficient doing of the next step, and it is at low measure.
It is at this point when the one way gift which had been aloof, comes
back in, and raises this next step from low activity measure, to a
medium measure of activity. (And during this time the one way gift
part of us actually does this step in the hunger satisfying, in medium
activity.) It then again leaves the broader hunger satisftying,
leaving the broader hunger satisfying, with the broader area
inteligence (which was once a split off part of the one way gift in
the beginning, before so many levels were generated), to continue on.
And once again, the broader area usually takes this new next step to a
high measure of activity. (Once the broader area nears the completion
of the hunger satisfying, a larger part of the material can become all
good and be removed.) Sometimes this removal causes not much to be
left over in the hunger satisfying area. This remnant then falls to
way low activity measure. But this doesn't always happen. Sometimes
the remnant is of sufficient medium activity measure. But when it does
happen, and the remnant is of way low activity measure, it finds
itself unable to do much. This is when the inteligence in the broader
area is wise to lay still and look to the aloof one way gift part.
Yes, in these occurances, the one way gift breaks from its aloofness,
and comes in to replentish back to medium, these way low parts; and
then thereafter going back to being aloof again. Then the broader area
grows in area but stays at medium activity. Again, it splits off part
of this area to become the next level, and commences doing even the
next step in the hunger satisfying only in this new level. Once again,
this is inadequate and of low level, and the aloof one way gift comes
in again to bring it to medium, and then leaves again to be aloof. And
this cycle continues until there are all stages of levels up to and
including the complete satisfaction of the human hunger (which often
goes to being part of the all good, and removed from this). This is my
newest recipe.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Then I am hearing on the history channel how some of the early
Christians were preaching absolute celibacy (especially towards women)
as the only way to obtain salvation. From what I understand, the
Romans killed Jesus because they were trying to prevent rebellion by
the Jewish people. And the Jewish people did rebel (unsuccessfully)
several times including at Masada during that time period. But
obviously, if the roman women didn't have sex, they would also have no
offspring. And the roman war machine depended on a goodly supply of
offspring to keep it going. -Hence the roman persecution of early
Christianity. This act by the Christians was ultimately successful in
overthrowing the roman empire where Jewish revolt had failed. And in
their time under a mostly evil and cruel empire, the total denial of
offspring was the right course to take. But in today's world, this
absolute celibacy isn't necessarily the right course any longer.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Note that since women are the source of the next
generation and they are born with that goodness, they thus become
targets of destructive forces seeking life material to feed off of and
destroy; and some become corrupted or occupied by such destructive
forces. But its not their fault. They can't help that they are born
with this prize that destructive forces of the greater society seek.
Some just need the small gift to come and separate off these
destructive forces that have found a home here. Perhaps this is why
religion sometimes sees women as sources of what is bad, and puts them
down. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx out of place insert: Consider that the
many gods of the roman empire are replaced by one God. Consider that
the state of having many gods could not be long lasting. A world of
many 'gods' all powerful and growing in power, there would not be room
enough for them to be separate, but that they would need to get
together and cooperate, essentially forming one God, or if unable to
get along, annihilating each other with their great power. end insert.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx But concerning more spiritual
matters and spiritual salvation, we can rehash that the sexual area is
an imperfect area that contains destruction no mater which way we go,
just in different areas. So that when Christian leaders/instigators
preach absolute celibacy for salvation, they are just as guilty of
sexual destruction as the sinners are. However, a case can be made
that the believers who attempt to achieve salvation under such, are
blameless and are not guilty of doing any sexual destruction, but that
that guilt goes with the leaders who instigated this behavior. Being
free of destruction, these believers then have made an all good area
in a gray area. However, destruction still exists in this gray area,
and these believers still suffer its effects, it is just they are not
to blame as its source (others have taken the blame for them).
Unfortunately, they are under a structured gray area, due to their
rules for obtaining salvation, so that they generate patchworks of
rich and barren, resulting in ultimate total consumption of the life
in this area due to the force of destruction. What is needed is medium
ability in this gray area, and this way hasn't provided that, never
mind who is to blame, who is guilt free, etc. So we thank the
Christian tradition for overthrowing the roman empire, but realize
that this way doesn't help in the imperfect human gray area of human
sexuality. The better way to help it pretty much Scott free, is to do
as God the Father and Jesus did (do), and that is to split off a small
part of the all good area (Jesus), who then separates from the all
good area, and comes to the impure human gray areas so as to bring to
medium ability. This is the better Christian tradition
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
But rules over the gray areas; what about them? Since rules contain
the use of destruction (to always eliminate any alternative path -
which is why there’s a vacuum there; (and that destruction is absolute
and not a partial destruction, as none of the alternatives are allowed
to exist at all) -high good then acts to fill these vacuums to medium
level, so that alternatives exist in spite of the rules attempts to
eliminate them).xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx But rules over
non gray areas; what about them? If we apply the action to separate
the all-good from any bad, including any bad of gray actions; then
since imperfect rules contain/are-sources-of destruction in their
action, they are also separated away from the all-good. Imperfect
rules then find themselves thrown down to the gray actions and to the
destruction only areas. But as we have shown; rules don’t help in the
gray action area either, and are out of place here too. Why do we have
rules? Supposedly to act against destructive elements in society. But
rules themselves contain (absolute) destruction inherently as part of
their action (in that they eliminate all alternatives but the
prescribed path). So rules contain inherently in their action, that
which they seek to act against. And if one doesn’t know it all and get
it exactly right, and the destruction of their rules destroys
something other than just what is destructive; then the rules
themselves become the source and perpetrator of some destruction. One
could end up chasing their tail if they let rules rule their life. If
the rules thus introduce what they seek to stamp out (destruction),
then they never will be successful at accomplishing what they seek to
accomplish: and to an all good part, they are impure and a pollution
of an all good part, if joined with it. But the action to separate
that which is all-good away from any evil, (including that within gray
actions), itself need not be destructive (like rules are); so that
this separation action can be a part of and together with that which
is all good. It has no contradiction within its own system like the
rules way does. Now it is possible for perfect rules to supercede
this. But, to do perfect rules, you have to know in depth and in
advance, because rules detach one from any other alternative; so that
finding perfect rules is nearly impossible in an imperfect rule ridden
structure, if you don’t already have them; whereas such absolute
knowledge is not needed to use the separation method, unlike that it
is needed to use the perfect rules method. --------------Wait a
minute: there is no such thing as perfect absolute rules in the gray
actions, because rules absolutely eliminate alternatives (attempting
to achieve bareness there); where what gray actions need is medium
ability ie partial elimination of alternatives. Thus there are no
absolute perfect rules over gray actions. Let me reiterate that not
all parts of us are gray parts, and that these non gray, all good
parts of us need to be separate and not participate in the ways of
gray parts, but instead participate in their own ways of growth and
richness. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Also, let
me say that in the gray areas, variability is a useful tool for this
area to change out of its imperfect state. The use of structure over
gray actions, which directs destructive parts to one area, and good
parts to another area; can be useful in causing variability. So that
instituting absolute anarchy over the gray areas is also unwise. Some
structure should be allowed in the gray areas; just that it mustn’t be
allowed to be absolute. Neither absolute anarchy nor absolute
structure seems to be a good idea; but somewhere in between does. END
INSERT.
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzThis
is the newest version of this writing. When the xxxxxxxxx and
zzzzzzzzzzzz paragraph markers run out, an older version of this
writing that is the same after the paragraph markers run out, can be
found at http://www.geocities.com/feelosofree/beok.html
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
In another out of place tangent, I wish to say that I notice that some
have taken objection to the Harry Potter books, saying that it
promotes witchcraft, and that Christians should be against it. And I
also remember as part of our Christian heritage here in the U.S. that
historically they had a witch hunt where they actually burned and
killed people on suspicion of being witches in Salem. And then of
course there is the history of the inquisition where they would accuse
one of witchcraft in the middle ages. One thing I wanted to point out
was to consider Jesus, the head of the Christian religion. He was a
very spiritually active and gifted person. He went about healing
people and bringing people back from the dead and it is even reported
that he cursed a tree and the next day it died. If such a person had
done these things in Salem, or the middle ages, they would have
probably been burned at the stake or drowned as a witch; so that Jesus
probably would not have been able to survive among these ‘Christian’
people. Crucified, burned at the stake, drowned; they all just want to
kill Jesus (and Kenny). What I am suggesting is that we should not
condemn people for being spiritually gifted per sea, but it is what a
spiritually gifted person does with their giftedness, either good or
evil/destructiveness that we should be paying attention to. There may
perhaps be such a thing as witches and witchcraft and voodoo where
people use spiritual abilities to do destructive things to others; but
such things are not easy to prove as regular murders and assaults are.
Without proof, only actions to bring an environment or person to
medium ability where destructiveness obviously is present, is
warranted in extreme cases; not the absolute destruction of burning at
the stake or drowning anyone. Christians really have little new
testament basis to be against witchcraft. -it is not a big concern in
the new testament narrative. There are no words in the new testament
saying to put to death anyone for witchcraft. And lest their own
Jesus, or even when one of them speaks in tongues, be considered and
condemned as a witch, they really should not be acting destructively
where they do not understand. And just because some assholes who
called themselves Christians in old Salem, and also in the
inquisition, got in a snit and decided to take some old testament
writings/rules literally as an excuse to kill people and burn them at
the stake, or drown them, doesn’t change the fact that the Bible,
especially the new testament Bible doesn’t really emphasize witchcraft
as an impending evil needing attention. So I would ask present day
Christians who they are going to follow: -some assholes from old; or
the Bible? Another reasoning that may be at work here is that Wicca
and paganism were and are competing religions to the Christian
religion, and that competing religions often are intolerant of each
other. End out of place tangent.
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
But here is another insert: Then there is that incident where the man
was arrested for having sex with a dead dog, which some jokester
shoves in front of your face. Such a spectacle makes each and every
one of us feel like Jesus must have felt when they brought the
adulterer woman to his feet and asked him to condemn her.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx As
repulsive as it may be; this guy really didn’t harm anybody (but
himself). The dog wasn’t harmed; it was already dead, hit by a car.
But the greater society will be guilty of harm for sure, as locking
someone up for years, is quite harmful and destructive. So here we
will have the greater society being the sole source and perpetrator of
certain harmfulness and destructiveness. Kind of makes the greater
society out to be no better than a criminal in search of correction.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx For sure, having
sex with a dead dog has no chance of producing viable offspring. Just
as gay sex has no chance of producing viable offspring. It seems the
greater society of late has taken to being destructive to individual’s
sexual expression that has no chance of producing viable offspring. We
individuals all have sexual desires/needs that we must find ways to
slake. But so does the greater society have sexual needs that it needs
to fill. It needs to have us individuals have some sexual expression
which produces viable offspring, and a family structure for raising
those offspring; in order that it may continue past our generation. If
the greater society punishes our individual’s sexual expression, then
perhaps we individuals should punish the greater society’s sexual
expression. The greater society’s sexual expression is for us to have
and raise viable offspring through individual sexual expression. To
punish that, we avoid having offspring. So it seems that we should
slake our individual sexual needs by entirely expressing them without
any offspring being produced; so as to punish the greater society’s
sexual expression; because the greater society is punishing our
individual sexual expression: -has taken the position that sexual
expression is to be punished; -or is trying to eliminate individual
sexual expression that steps outside its needs, and replace it with
its own sexual expression; when it is perfectly able to let both exist
peaceably. Do not worry when the greater society punishes you for your
sexual expression that does not produce offspring. Just realize that
as a group of individuals, we shall bring this societal punishment of
our sexuality to an end by not having offspring, as that greater
society itself thus will be brought to an end.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxSpeaking of mean and cruel societies that need to
be brought to an end, I had the chance to be indoctrinated in the ways
of some of today’s women. At a lunch table, they spoke of the
upbringing of their few children and how they were discouraging them
from sexual activity until later in life, after they had gotten their
college degree and were well off in their careers. Here I see that
these women and those like them have not only made our country rich by
not having an excessive number of offspring and by limiting the number
of their offspring; but that they are trying to pass on this rich way
of life so that it may continue. Unfortunately they focus on stamping
out individual sexuality of the young in order to achieve this goal;
thus spoiling an important part of any good life. So that the good
life they seek to pass on, isn’t quite as good after all. In fact, if
you don’t get the college degree and the good job; life is pretty
rotten for a lot of people; where a rinky dink boss goes around nit
picking and attacking you while you work your butt off for minimum
wage. In response to all this rottenness, these women naturally parrot
the overall rotten greater society by chiding the young generation
these days for having no ambition; for their not getting with the
program and studying at school, and buckling down. Little do they
realize that they have the power in their hands as individual women,
to bring this rottenness to an end: by having even less children than
just a few: by having very few children or no children. And by doing
this, they need not take on into themselves the rottenness of the
overall society by making their kids buckle down and try to satisfy
greater societal requirements; which can be quite cruel. You see, the
human infant is quite helpless when born. For the mother to apply the
greater society directly to their infant when born, would eliminate
cruelty in the greater society in short order, as human infants
wouldn’t survive it; and without surviving infants, any cruel society
is doomed. But no, these mothers nurture their human infants until of
age, and then cut off that nurture at this time; hence allowing the
cruel society a source of fodder to feed on (because when of age, the
child is no longer helpless); allowing the cruel society to continue.
By doing this, they themselves become responsible in part for the
cruelties in society, that they could have eliminated, but instead
acted to support. And as a child, who happens to be under bad parents,
it is up to us to do better: to not do as our parents have done, but
to do in ways that eliminate the cruelties of society. And this has
nothing to do with buckling down to get the degree, but has everything
to do with controlling our reproduction as individuals, and not having
the greater society eliminate our control over our own sexuality and
reproduction. It is the way of inherent democracy that we are born
with; -the way we as individuals decide which societies we will keep,
and which societies we will scrap. And this inherent democracy can
exist quite well with the young (and old) expressing their individual
sexuality in ways that do not produce offspring, as well as in ways
that do produce a few offspring--when that couple is placing their
stamp of approval on their society. So get out and vote for democracy.
Vote Democrat; but vote Democrats that won’t take away individual’s
inherent democracy in their reproductive ness through cloning. Cloning
takes away from the individual control over their reproduction and
puts it in the hand of the greater society. Some greater societies may
need to be eliminated by their individuals because they are cruel. Do
not allow cruel societies to escape the wrath of their individuals
through cloning. Note that the greater society is stronger and more
powerful than its individuals that make it up. And an individual has
little hope of success in going against the wishes of any greater
society. The greater society tells the individual what to do in every
other area; why should the sexual area be any different? But it is
different. It is here in this sexual area of reproduction that
individual women have the power to completely annihilate the greater
society if they deem it too evil, no mater that this greater society
may be much more powerful than they are as individuals. The greater
society may try to take this power away from the individuals by
regulating their sexuality, outlawing abortion, preventing them from
using birth control -calling it a sin; but it cannot prevail if women
unite and stand firm. Because although the greater society may be able
to destroy all or many individual women, and punish and reward
individual women: individual women can annihilate this society, even
though they be also killed. If killed, their deaths will not be
meaningless, as they will have accomplished putting an end to this
hated greater society. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sometimes I hear the calls for those on welfare, who are taking
advantage of the system, who are not pulling their weight, to be cut
off and made to suffer. A society that can dictate our economic lives,
that can force us to do menial tasks in exchange for our survival food
and shelter, is one thing. But what about those people who reject
that, and who disobey what they have been told, and who don't enslave
themselves for their survival needs? What does a society do with them?
Well, one option is to deny them any assistance with their survival
needs. But let us apply our newly learned concept about putting things
that are not all bad nor all good, but some of both; in medium
ability. What is the right thing to do? What is the wise choice? For a
society to deny completely the survival needs of individuals who
disobey the burden their society requires them to bear, is to throw
that individual into barrenness. If that individual is all evil with
no good whatsoever to them, then this is the right thing to do.
However, most individuals aren't all evil with no goodness to them.
Even individuals who shirk at some of the burdens a society may want
to put on them, usually are not all destructive, but usually are a
mixture of both goodness and destructiveness. In these cases, the best
thing to do, is to put them at medium ability, not at bareness, nor
richness. For a society that has an abundance of resources, that can
do whatever, with ease; to deny these shirking individuals who are
neither all good nor all destructive, is to throw them into bareness.
All this does is show the incompetence of this society itself, and
shows its lack of vision and lack of realization that goodness and
kindness are valuable, and are a better way to be than not. Never
mind, as the small one way gift will fill the needs here to medium
ability, and will even partially destroy elements of a snooty society
that try to prevent this.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sometimes one can be surrounded by a societal group that makes a big
to do about the negative aspects of a promiscuous lifestyle, while
being totally silent about the equally negative aspects of a chaste
lifestyle, especially in conservative circles; when in actuality, no
matter which way you go there is always some ups and some downs (just
in different areas). The reproductive area is an imperfect, human,
gray area that no matter which way you go, or what you do, has
negative/destructive results (just in different areas), due to it
being one of those human hunger areas that has inescapably intertwined
some good as well as some destruction (at our level of ability). The
negative aspects of men who violate a woman outside a bar is brought
up. But silent is the pain of all the other gentlemen whom countless
women have forced not to have sex with them against their will, and
also thereby violated them. Especially including the unmarried couples
whom in the past have been forced not to have sex against their wills
by the police enforcing anti cohabitation laws. xxxxxxxxxx And then
they bring up the child molesters. But my question is, which child
molesters are they talking about? Is it the matriarchs of some African
villages who genitally mutilate their young girls (brought to them by
their mothers) so that when they grow into puberty they won’t enjoy
sexual intercourse so that they won’t get a venereal disease so that
their womb won’t be harmed so that they can have lots of babies with
their husband so that we can hear about all the starving children in
Africa? (I consider this child molestation). Or is it the pervert who
violates young girls perhaps giving them a venereal disease and more
certainly damaging them psychologically in the sexual area so that
they can’t have a family of their own when they grow up. Thus spoiling
society’s sexually based need for a certain number of offspring to be
produced in a family structure? And when you directly violate or spoil
or damage the expression of society’s sexually based need (for
offspring), in a society which is intolerant of even misdirected
sexual activity that is not directly destructive to the satisfaction
of its need, (and that has acquired the practice of controlling the
sexuality of its individuals), then you engender the full wrath of
that society. Pity the man who is born with a sexual attraction to
young girls, as opposed to sexually mature women, as his life will be
short. I still maintain that most sexual expression has some good and
some bad inescapably intertwined, but these are extreme cases where
there isn't much good to them if at all. It is just not a wise choice,
if you are able to choose. Sexual expression, as an imperfect action,
needs to be out from under the control of larger entities which seek
to impose absolute rules. A child is under the control of the state
and parents. To engage in sexual expression with a child, even with a
willing state and or parents; just brings that sexual expression under
external control; and that is not a wise choice. Also, a child is in a
state of creation -of their sexuality in the process of being formed;
so that such creating entities may not want to be drawn into the
imperfect sexual area any more than they have to. So, unless you are
forced to, it is better to keep your sexual expression out of the
hands of controlling societies and parents. Especially since these
often represent a ravening all evil that is attempting to prey upon
this human area for its survival; when it should not be allowed to
prey on this human area so that this all evil self consumes and
disappears. End insert.
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Concerning the idea favoring the production of medium ability
environments: in the gray areas of actually living earthly life, where
there is a mix of both goodness and destruction: the plan to segregate
each to its own kind shouldn’t even be attempted. xxx -Because it is a
gray action, we’re unable to segregate the good parts from the
destructive parts. But we shouldn’t even try to segregate the good
from the bad here. This is because the good force here achieves that
separation on its own, and no additional (outside) action is needed.
It is hard work for the good here, yes, but this is what it generates
naturally. So perhaps this is why the bible is reluctant to have God
separate the good from the bad here on earth until the end of time; -
because he wants to allow the good on earth to do so of itself, and
thus grow here. So that the destruction (which the force of
destructiveness does here), helps provide the medium ability
environment, which is so ripe for allowing good to escape that
destructiveness. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx The small one
way gift does act not only to generate unto medium ability in the
vacuum left by the destructiveness of rules (as well as other
destructiveness); it also acts to protect this medium ability material
(as well as itself) from additional destruction, from rules, as well
as from other destructive sources. This includes, to a certain extent,
destructiveness from and within the medium ability material and gray
action itself. You see, one of the results of rules is that it
amplifies and accumulates the destruction within gray actions to the
point it becomes an all evil or that it can be separated from the gray
action. You see, the thing about gray actions is that they have some
destructiveness as part of them that cannot be separated away. But the
result of rules is that that destructiveness (from gray actions)
becomes concentrated to the point it is a destructiveness that can be
separated away from the core gray action (which has a destructiveness
that can’t be separated). For the one way gift to attempt to separate
the destructiveness within a core gray action, results in not only a
failure to achieve this, but a similar result that rules result in. So
that the one way gift does not act to separate the destructiveness
from within any core gray action; but on the other hand, does act to
separate any destructiveness away from the gray action that CAN be
successfully separated away. On one hand the one way gift doesn’t
interfere and it does nothing and lets the gray action ruminate; but
on the other hand, the one way gift does interact and does remove
destructiveness that can be separated away from gray actions,
including those that accumulate from older gray actions themselves. So
the one way gift is leaving alone, not interfering in, and not acting
on or in a gray action itself. But this leads to a contradiction when
the one way gift is generating to medium ability out of a vacuum. When
the one way gift is generating (to medium ability) some part of a gray
action which the other parts of the gray action need but have none of;
then these other parts of the gray action cannot use it but must
instead wait till the one way gift is finished generating it and then
leaves it, before it can then be activated and used by and added to
the other parts of the gray action. xxxx What I'm trying to say is
that the gray action is impure concerning good vs destruction, while
the one way gift, from the all good, is pure, at least initially, and
is more pure than any gray action. But the purpose of the one way
gift, is to bring the gray action to medium ability never minding the
loss in its purity. This involves creating material to medium ability
where a vacuum once was. But if the one way gift and what it is
creating can be segregated from the rest of the gray action, until it
is done creating in this area; and then remove itself before the rest
of the gray action joins the new material; then the one way gift can
preserve some of its purity and not suffer as much loss, due to the
inescapable destruction inherent within the gray action itself; then
the force of good will have done well here. -Needing less replacement
one way gift; the major all good won't be drained by this process.
xxxxxxxxxx Also, keeping the one way gift separate from the core gray
action, keeps the one way gift from being tempted to regulate or
attempting to separate the forces here where it is unable to do so (at
this level of
ability).xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
The force of destruction is a weaker, inferior force. Because of this,
in order to even survive, it needs to have two tier structures. It
needs to have small set aside areas that are protected, that allow
life to grow and generate a little, before being thrown into the
larger evil arena, where they are devoured as food for sustaining evil/
destruction. Like the small nurturing environment of one's family
allows helpless infants to grow up into something more capable, to
then be thrown out into the crueler greater society so as to feed the
evil/destructiveness therein. Like going to church to be mindful of
God, then leaving church to go back into the regular world which is
not so mindful of God. Like collecting all the good, rewarding things
together, accessible with money, so we can create a second reason for
doing things, outside of the inherent effects of (work) actions
themselves. (ie, of being paid and rewarded with outside rewards (from
money) for doing these work actions that we may otherwise not do, if
only considering their inherent, often destructive effects of these
actions themselves. xxxxxxxxxxxxThis seems a little pessimistic, and
actually it is. However, my point is that the force of destruction
absolutely needs these two tier structures to survive. Note also, that
the structure I have proposed for the one way gift, is also a two tier
structure. It doesn't absolutely have to be so, but for efficiency and
for minimizing losses to destruction, it is this way. So that just
because one sees a two tier structure, does not necessitate it to be a
tool of evil. So that the child who is thrown out of the house when of
age, is not necessarily a bad thing as I had previously indicated.
However, it can easily be a bad thing. We need to be more precise in
analyzing these situations. You see, this is just another case of
incorrectly applying absolute judgments to gray areas of life, that
are not at all absolute. You see, if a child of age is to be
considered material created by the one way gift, which is to then
participate in the greater world of imperfect work; then we will have
thus assumed that this whole person is all imperfect gray action. And
this is just not the case. There are some areas of a person which are
much more free from destructiveness than other areas of this person
that are much more gray, -having good and destruction much more
inescapably intertwined. The destruction free areas of this person
represent the high good. This high good, is mostly not forced to be
polluted with the impure gray areas, and it is only the small one way
gift that breaks with being holy and separate from the gray areas,
which does come down and get it on with the gray areas. So that the
parent creators of a young person cannot throw this whole person into
the crueler greater society of the gray work world; but only their
gray parts and a small piece of their high good parts (which is their
one way gift): and still be considered to be in line with the one way
gift structure. And there is the question of violating the will of
their one way gift. Also, the one way gift creates and generates parts
which are component parts to the larger gray action it will then
release it to. For a two tier structure to release life to a gray area
that it has no relation to and is totally not alike (just so that it
can be destroyed/devoured as food for an evil), is not in line with
the one way gift structure either. What is released into the greater
gray action, is material that is a component part of that gray action,
as generated by the one way gift, in order to maintain that gray
action at medium ability, out of bareness. So that just throwing a
person or part of a person unprepared into the greater society and
told to figure it out for themselves; is not in line with the one way
gift structure, since what was generated was not a component part of
the greater society. And any of these two tiered structures that are
not acting as one way gift structures; are thus acting as what is left
over. And what is the left over purpose of two tiered structures, is
to be provision for maintaining and feeding the force of destruction.
And that's nothing to be proud of or to support. Note that the
presence of a two tier structure either indicates the actions of the
one way gift; or the feeding of evil. Note that in either case, it
indicates the presence of evil (as the one way gift structure is for
dealing with gray areas that have good and destruction/evil
inextricably intertwined). Note that this does not represent the high
all good that is free from all destruction. So that wherever there is
a two tier structure, evil/destruction is present, and does not
represent the finished work of the high good.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Unfortunately, the concept that the good in gray areas naturally
outperforms destructiveness and gets away from it; is in contradiction
to Jesus’ exhortation to resist not evil, and if one smite thee on one
cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. xx Now, if evil isn’t able
to smite one on the first cheek, then one isn’t bound to turn the
other cheek by this saying. But in the earthly arena of gray areas;
the good here is well within the grasp and reach of the evil/
destructiveness here. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
This apparent contradiction (between that God won’t separate the good
from the bad here on earth until the end; vs. Christ’s exhortation to
the earthly good here to submit to destruction); is actually a
confirmation that God wants us to play both sides. What I’m saying is
that because God has hidden himself and not overtly shown Himself;
that He is thereby encouraging us to consider the possibility that He
doesn’t exist yet, and that we must, in part, do what we can within
ourselves instead of just saying ‘I don’t have to deal with this or do
anything because I’ll just depend on God to take care of it for me.
Jesus in saying ‘turn the other cheek’, is representing the Godly
position. He believes that God does exist. And if a powerful God does
exist; He will take care of the defense of all that is good. Just like
we in society are not expected to take the law into our own hands to
provide for our own personal protection against attack, but are
expected to defer that to the professionals, the police, to call the
police to provide for the defense of our person against destructive
acts perpetrated by destructive people. Basically what Christ’s
position seems to be is that its not our job as measly earthlings to
provide for our own protection, and that we should sit back and let
the more powerful God do this for us. Here in God’s world, it is not
the underlings who are expected to provide for the rich and powerful
God, but it is the rich and powerful God who provides for us weaker
underlings. -Kind of a welfare from God type of thing. And we should
develop an expectation that God will protect us and make better any
destruction evil does. -that its not for us to do this; that its not
our job. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (This is quite
different from how our richer more powerful bosses here on earth treat
us.) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx But this
flies in the face of the dynamics of how earthly good in these gray
areas naturally outperforms and escapes destruction. But of course if
God really exists then this minor advantage is of no consequence and
it is actually better to let the all powerful God handle this.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx On the belief in God side, no
matter what small bedraggled remnant is left after destruction has
destroyed is easily made whole, replaced and perfected by/in God. But
even if the earthly good on the believe in God side is totally
destroyed; any holdback good parts of us, are thus outside the believe
in God side. Instead they are on the ’we must do it ourselves (in case
God hasn’t been created yet)‘ side. Being on that side, they are no
longer bound by ’turn the other cheek’, and are able to take advantage
of that earthly good naturally escapes the destruction here (more
often than not). And when they mature, being uncertain as to if there
exists God yet or not; they thus devote a small portion to God to
hedge their bet. Then the godly side once again has something (and is
no longer totally destroyed), and the whole of the Godly side is
thereby recreated by/in God from that small part again. Thus if you
are playing both sides (as I am), then with the earthly good of your
Godly side, you resist not evil and allow it to be destroyed by
destruction. But not so with your earthly good in your do-it-yourself
side. Here you don’t let destruction destroy it but instead allow it
to naturally escape destruction. And as it produces and generates new
good, and when that new good matures and part of it chooses the Godly
side; then your whole Godly side can be recreated from this small part
even if a destruction had completely wiped out your Godly side
earlier. (This is a change, because usually it is the Godly side that
is the engine of growth. But here in this one instance, the earthly
side saves the day.) And if destruction wasn’t able to completely
destroy your Godly side, then the whole of it is easily recreated from
whatever remnant remains, without needing to go to your earthly side
for this.
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Concerning the attraction members of the opposite sex have for each
other; what purpose do you think it serves? Consider perhaps that
without it, many life forms wouldn’t take the time/effort it takes to
have and raise offspring. Even though we are above the animals, and
know in our minds that we must reproduce, to maintain future society
(because we all eventually die off); we still might not do this,
because we’d want to shove this burden off onto someone else, and
might try to avoid the expense ourselves. But if we come born with an
attraction for the opposite sex, well, problem solved. Or sort of.
Some might consider that sexual desire is an imperfect method to
provide for our societal reproduction, and that human reasoning might
do a better job. And this is entirely possible. Consider that when
animals have sexual relations, there is only one result: -that
offspring are always produced. But that when humans have sexual
relations, offspring need not necessarily be the result. With the use
of birth control and condoms, sexual relations can be for fun, and not
have anything to do with reproduction. This is something that is
uniquely human; and is not seen in the animal world. Consider that if
sexual desire can be diverted into an avenue separate from
reproduction, consider that something else (such as human reasoning)
can have say over human reproduction. But no. religion won’t have it.
And wants sexual desire to be for human reproduction only.
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Jesus states his commandments are not burdensome. But to package and
make absolute rules over the reproductive drive, is actually
burdensome. But what Jesus is actually saying in the reproductive
drive area, is not what people believe today. When the bible talks of
marriage, adultery, fornication etc, we then go to the dictionary
which is not a holy book, to learn their meanings. But Jesus, the head
man himself, has defined what marriage is, in the bible. And from this
we can infer the other things. He has said of marriage, that the 2
become one flesh, and what God has therefore joined together, let no
man put asunder. Well, think about it. Can married people prove that
they have become one flesh? Flesh is something visible that can be
touched and seen (unlike the spirit which is invisible). And, yes, we
can say that in married people, the two have become one flesh. Not
that they morph into a shape shifting mass (outside of when making
love), but in that married people have children. That the two have
become one flesh in the form of their child (children). So that
marriage is defined by Jesus as having children exclusively: -not as
having sex exclusively. Now if we were like the animals, this would be
a distinction of no importance because when animals have sex, they
invariably have offspring. But with humans, the use of condoms and
birth control, etc, having sex doesn’t necessarily mean having
children. And we can infer from the definition Jesus puts forth of
marriage, that adultery involves having children with someone other
than your spouse, not necessarily having sex with someone other than
your spouse. And that fornication is a person with no previous
children having a child with someone who already has children by
someone else. This Jesus based definition and regulation of our
sexuality upholds the family unit, as the family unit is one source of
goodness. And it does so without basing it on a shaky foundation. And
I tell you, trying to base the family unit on suppressing the sex
drive, is a shaky foundation. Whereas with basing the family unit on
the child connection, the foundation is firm. The additional rules
over our sexuality that insist on sexual exclusivity, are not from
God, but are from men being led astray by the forces of destruction:
doing the work of destruction by their added rules.
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Have you heard the latest gossip? Have you heard so and so was seen
cheating at the Bar X motel last night? Sounds like someone is in non
compliance with a rule directed towards human sexual behavior.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx This is the thing about
rules. -You’re either in compliance or non compliance. There’s no
middle ground. -Everything is either black or white, all good or
totally evil, ones or zeros. Rules force you to make an absolute
judgment about something with no room for middle ground. So that
inside your head, what something is, exists as a black and white
representation. But in our world, few things exist as absolutes. We
are dealing with humans not Gods. So if you see the human animals
before you in the light of compliance vs. non compliance to a set of
rules and regulations, then what they are in your mind is not what
they are outside your mind. Because in your mind they are splotches of
black and white whereas outside your mind they are something in
between all good vs. all destructive; in between rich vs. poor: they
are middle class. So, through the light of compliance vs. non
compliance to rules and regulations, a fantasy world can exist inside
your mind. Fantasy worlds can be entertaining, but don’t expect me to
take them absolutely seriously. So that to me, a person’s human sexual
behavior is neither all good nor all evil but is somewhere in between
regardless of whether they are faithful or cheating.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Thinking of this
another way, we see that we are humans and that we live on this earth,
and that a lot of what we are and do is neither all good nor all evil,
but is somewhere in between. But that when we apply rules to these
gray areas (areas which are far from absolute), that forces us to make
absolute judgments about these areas. That in reality, over a large
range of what we do or how we are in these human areas, we produce
some goodness and also some destructiveness. And that this just shifts
around (the goodness and destructiveness shifts around) to different
areas as we do an area in different ways. So that what we produce is
some good and some destruction. But when we are classified by rules
over the human areas (as either being in compliance or non
compliance); we are treated as being all good, or all bad as a result
of that classification. We should receive the reward of what we
produce, and that is neither all goodness nor all destruction. But we
don’t receive that but instead receive either all goodness or all
destruction based on how we are classified by the rules over the human
area. And when we humans who in reality are some good and some bad are
treated with either all goodness or all destruction, neither of these
environments helps us change out of our state of being half good and
half bad. Only when we receive what we produce, that is being rewarded
with some good and some bad, will we be in a medium ability
environment which is the only environment where our good can
outperform our bad and where we can thus change from being partly good
and partly bad, to being all good. Otherwise we are forced to remain
as part good and part bad and are prevented from changing out of this.
In this aspect, I know who I am. I’m a human being, who over a large
range of what I possibly could do; does neither all good nor all
destruction, but does some of both good and destruction, due to the
fact that many of the actions available to me produce both good and
destruction (in different areas) out of the same action. But when the
large range of what I could do, gets carved up into absolute
classifications; and depending on which classification of this range
I’m in, I get treated as either all good or all evil as a result:
neither of these treatments helps me change out of being partly good
and partly bad, but instead preserves me in my state of being partly
good and partly bad.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Now,
since when the forces are separate(alone), they find it harder to find
input raw material to work with (with both forces: -of good, and
especially the force of destruction); there may be some room for
delaying the separation of good from the bad in us humans. But not to
the extent of perpetual delay. So then, if we apply the concept of
seeking a medium environment when evil is present; to whether a woman
should have children: I see this: woman who are in an absolutely evil
society with no goodness, may act to not have any children, and
thereby put an end to this destructive society similar to the doing
destruction to destruction concept. And men who are supposed to work,
can do no work and also thereby not feed evil. But in a society that
contains some evil, but also some good, women in this society can have
a limited number of children (not an excessive number of children
(rich environment)), and so help create a medium environment, where
the evil can separate away. And also, men who are supposed to work,
can do a little work (not an excessive amount) and thereby help create
the desired medium environment. And of course, women in a totally good
society can have many children and men can do much work; as here, the
rich environment won’t be burned down by evil.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Oooops. I have made a mistake. I
no longer think that women have the unrestricted source of inherent
democracy within them. You see, I no longer think it is a good plan
for women in an absolutely evil society to stop having kids. Because
even though this will eventually bring about an end to this evil
society, in the interim, it will make this evil society rich (because
they no longer have to afford resources for the care of children).
This richness in the presence of evil, will just feed evil and make it
large and big; thus burning us all down in a firestorm. So I no longer
think it is a good plan for women to use their childbearing (or lack
of it) as a tool to root out evil. It still remains a useful tool in
good societies where there is no evil, to give women their rightful
place and for them to gain equality. But in these good societies,
women shouldn’t take this to extreme; and should still have some kids
so as to continue this good society (but not an excessive amount
either, because poverty for a good society is also not a good plan).
In evil societies that restrict the bearing of children so as to
become rich and also evil (using their richness to control every
aspect of their citizen‘s lives), we non evil societies are forced
into an unpleasant situation, of being overtaken and having our people
run in absolute control over our lives too. In this situation, we are
forced to suffer through rich evil, because the only option is for
every woman to stop having kids and eventually end this. But if women
have a choice; in evil societies, they should have kids and plenty of
them. (Pay no attention to this. )
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx As you
can see, I am unclear in my advice to women on childbearing. But at
this time, I now change back again to seeing women as the unrestricted
source of inherent human democracy. You see, in bad societies run by
dictators who control every part of the lives of their subjects;
people are already divided into rich and poor. Some are taken from and
have their lives spent enriching the dictator and his(her) ruling
class. These poor impoverished people have no recourse and are too
poor and powerless to overthrow the hated government. What I’m saying
is that in these societies, there is already a division between rich
and poor. The dictator and his ruling class have already enriched
themselves and made their evil/destructive ways rich on the backs of
these poor people. For these poor people and those around them that
hate this way; for them not to have children (all the sex they want,
just no more children); is an expression by them to reject this way
and to bring it to an end. These people are being starved to death and
are dying anyway: there is nothing much more the dictator can do to
coerce them. And the enrichment that they will give to the dictator by
not using resources for children won’t be that much more than the
dictator is receiving from them already by running their lives into
the ground in starvation. So that yes, here in these bad societies; it
is the thing to do for the individual to express their acceptance or
rejection of their situation (in this case, rejection of this
situation), by not having any more children, and thus eventually
putting an end to this situation. No need for George Bush to come in
and overthrow your dictator; you can do it yourself within your own
country. In countries with a sharp divide between rich and poor (with
little or no middle class), the poor can express their disapproval of
their situation this way, without having to resort to violence and
fomenting revolution etc. But in countries with a decent sized middle
class, and a good way of life for all; hopefully the women there would
see the goodness of continuing that situation, by having a reasonable
number of children, but not an excessive number of children as an
excessive number would just impoverish what was once a good life due
to all the extra resources needed to raise an excessive number all at
once. Women could still use ‘not having children’ here as a bargaining
tool to gain equal or slightly better economic status, but I would
warn that they not take this to finality because they would eliminate
a ‘good life for all society‘, if they did. So, we are back in
business with this women empowerment thing and women as sources of
democracy thing. -because the counter argument that women not-having-
children would enrich the bad society is mute because that bad society
already enriches itself on the backs of its poor; and the extra
richness gained by not having kids, would be quickly gobbled up by the
poor themselves; or even if the dictator was able to extract it; it
would be just a little more of the same, as the dictator is already
extracting from the people at pretty much their maximum already.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Also, because extra
resources are needed to power a system of absolute control over every
citizen‘s lives: the extra richness gained from not having children,
would cause a move out of poverty and into medium ability; and not a
move from medium ability into richness. And in this environment with
an evil dictator, it is the medium environment that is needed, not
either poverty or richness.
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Let us now consider the claim that if one believes on Jesus, he
receives heaven, but if one does not believe, he receives hell. This
applying absolute rewards (either all rewarding or all destructive) to
us non absolute humans, isn’t helpful to us at all, but just preserves
us as humans (in the case of receiving heaven), and if we receive
total destruction, preserves us as humans until we are destroyed. Any
of these systems of severe punishments or absolute rewards for the
various ways of being human, are just preservatives that prevent us
from being anything other than human. But after asking God/Jesus for
an explanation of this, the resulting answer turns out just to be a
matter of interpretation of this. The answer I got is this: God is an
absolute. Not only is God an absolute, God is an absolute good. And
when God is going about being himself, he is going to produce a lot of
goodness, and generating a lot of rich environments. When I as a non
absolute human being come into contact with one of these rich
environments, it is detrimental to me because I require a medium
environment to function. Now with the environment being rich, the
destructiveness within me no longer separates and dies, but stays with
me and consumes me in an eternal burn; and I am in torment. God
realizes that His absolute goodness does this to me, so He in
kindness, provides me an out: He allows me to put down my old human
ways and let them expire, and replace them with absolute Godly ways,
that is, when I run into (where there exists) these all good absolute
Godly ways. And this is accomplished by Jesus providing a limited path
of medium ability environment where I can let my old human ways expire
without the evil in them getting out into the absolute goodness to
consume me (a purgatory if you will). But of course, I have a choice.
God isn’t going to force me to do this. If I wish that the evil in me
(from that part of my human ways) continue even in the presence of the
absolute goodness of God, I can have that too, by just not reaching
out to Christ, and continuing in my own way. This is how I interpret
Christ’s outreach. The exhortations to love your enemies and to love
all people do act to create rich environments, and this may cause
tribulation. But that is just from the effects of absolute goodness.
Absolute goodness is one of the possibilities, and for us to not be
able to deal with absolute goodness represents an innocence that
cannot last forever, especially with the growth potential of absolute
goodness. Absolute goodness can exist and if so, should not be
expected to give up its existence just because we middle ground humans
don’t know how to deal with it.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx So that when we
are confronted with absolute goodness, we can accept Jesus to guide a
smooth transition from non absolute human ways to be replaced with
absolute good ways. But when there are no absolute good ways yet, and
the only way available is the human ways, we can continue to have
human ways (otherwise we’d be in barrenness -also a preservative)
until such time as absolute good ways can replace them. (As we are not
preserved eternally as human, but advance into absolute goodness)- we
can thus have the presence of both absolute good ways and also human
ways in us. (For religious leaders to shame our human parts, puts them
into barrenness, which prevents them from also advancing into absolute
good.) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx It is the presence
of both absolute good ways, and human ways in us that can take on a
similar structure as the playing both sides structure outlined in
other places of this writing -that being based on whether God exists
now vs. that God is yet to be created and we need to do it ourselves
now. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx You see, whatever we do can be seen as
God in us doing it (that we are extensions of God). Except when our
actions are imperfect human actions which contain both good and
destruction. These cannot be seen as God in us doing them. So some
actions can be placed on an absolute good side with God, and the human/
gray actions are on the other side.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx The object then is to place
human ways in a medium environment. When we feel a need to do a human/
gray action, we can separate off a smaller portion of ourselves to do
it, so it will be done in a medium environment and not a rich
environment. Also, when we remove godly parts as some of the actions
mature to become a mix of human and godly fragments, we can
Incompletely repatriate human fragments (left after removing the godly
part) into being one with complete human actions: -for the purpose of
maintaining a medium ability environment. And also not completely
separating away outside destructions that enter in; also for this same
purpose of maintaining neither a rich nor a desolate, but a medium
environment. In such a way, the good of our human actions is able to
escape their humanness and join the absolute goodness. So that we just
wait and let the goodness of our human actions purify and find their
own way back into the absolute goodness of the major part of us that
we left behind to do the human action; as they will do.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Let me go over this in
more detail: (This segment can easily be skipped. What I‘m saying, is
it is OK and good to skip this segment.) When an action is first
generated, it goes along and goes along until eventually it matures
and half splits off to be godly and the other half humanly. The
perfected godly parts generated then (after an initial place marker)
are generated as devoting a partial percentage of their activities to
also generating new action (which also must wait to eventually undergo
maturity itself). As the perfect-like new actions generated from the
mature godly side are maturing, they may (or may not) be under need to
satisfy earthly desires and do earthly actions. If not, they just
mature to the half and half split off of maturity; as an immature
action can rest as temporarily devoting itself in the godly direction
but still able to change to the earthly direction if
needed.xxxxxxxxxxxxxx In the generation of new actions in the
satisfying of new earthly needs, As some of these immature actions
mature in the earthly side, they split off half and half also. Now
with mature parts in the earthly side that are now for godly; unless
these parts are removed, their presence in the earthly side but being
unable to act in most earthly directives will halt the functioning of
the earthly directives in satisfying earthly hungers. And even after
being removed, some fragments of the earthly side are totally crippled
because (half of) what did function for the earthly side when
immature, now as mature, is unable to function for the earthly side.
It is then by the Partial repatriation of crippled remnant fragments
previously spoken of that generates the medium environment which is
neither barren nor rich that is needed here in this earthly situation.
Also, note that when earthly parts, both mature and immature find a
moment when they are done with earthly concerns and needs; and not
busy and without anything to do; they can align themselves in the
godly direction (as best they can). True, they are not built for that,
but in whatever limited way, they can do this, to also (help) generate
perfected godly material. Then when a new earthly need arises, they
can switch back to earthly concerns.
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
When I drop the phrase “the creator”; who or what am I referring to?
One could think I’m referring to almighty God. But consider that I’m
also referring to all the human creators here on earth. And that the
human female is in part, the creator of new life here on this earth.
(This makes them a target for evil to corrupt that which is good and
growing.) Now, if we as a people, don’t treat the human creators who
we can see, with dignity and respect, but instead treat them as second
class citizens, then I don’t see this as welcoming to an almighty
CREATOR who we can’t see; but who shares a kinship with the many human
creators who we can see, through the common link of being a creator.
It is not enough to believe in God. If we believe God exists, but also
mistreat God, then any religion that does this, I think we can see,
won’t be well received by God. And isn’t it a waste of our time to
practice a religion which will be rejected by God/Allah? Go to
http://www.geocities.com/feelosofree/oknow.html