In this introduction, we see that in
contrast to our stagnant universe that
doesn't grow well; that in an all-good
universe with lots of growth, no one is
left behind, but are all advanced to
high levels, in good time. (Note:
FogoHC means Force of good of High
Capability. And force of good means
to cause a change that generates
positive growth)
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
When the joint venture of GROWTH
and gripping, does growth and
gripping on itself; there's a circular
feedback created that produces
tremendous quantities of growth.
When forces of good are producing
capability (exhibiting growth); they
can either produce new forces-of-
good; or new neutral-capability.
Forces of good are made of
capability. And for one force of good
to produce a second force of good; is
a force of good producing a force of
good. A force of good can also be a
force of good, by producing neutral
capabilities. There are great
advantages for forces of good to
produce more forces of good, as
opposed to neutral capability. For one
thing, the newly created force of
good can in turn produce force of
good of its own; and an exponential
increase in the production of the
force of good will result. Whereas,
with the increase of neutral
capability, only a flat rate of
capability increase is achieved, and
no new force of good is produced. For
another thing, the forces of good are
protected by the fogoHC, while
neutral capability is not. Thus forces-
of-good producing forces of good, is
more advantageous than forces of
good producing neutral capability.
However, before something can be a
force of good, it usually has to have
some minimum level of capability.
Like, it might help if something were
alive, so it could reproduce itself; or
that it be intelligent, so it could rise
above random action, which produces
decrease(destruction) as well as
increase(growth). Thus even though
the forces of good may want to
increase force-of-good capability right
away, they have to go through an
increase of neutral capabilities to
reach a minimum level, before forces
of good can start increasing forces of
good. (And, a neutral capability
cannot be gripped before it exists/-
before it is produced.) When a force
of good that is able to do gripping-
(that is, a fogoHC), comes in contact
(together) with neutral capability
produced by forces of good; that
neutral-capability becomes a part of
the fogoHC, and is thus protected. We
see a picture of the fogoHC going
about gripping forces of good and
gripping the neutral capability that all
forces of good initially produce. With
more neutral capability being
produced; those forces of good who
can do gripping (that is forces
ogoHC), have more neutral capability
to grip, and thus turn into force of
good capability. As we can see, there
is always more and more neutral
capability (to grip) that is being
produced. But where does the
capability go after it has been gripped
and is a marginal force of good? Well,
there are 2 possibilities: A) it goes no
further and serves to produce neutral
capability for the fogoHC. it remains
at about its original level of capability
and fails to advance: being frozen at
some level of advancement so that it
is useful to the fogoHC, but that it
advances no further. or possibility B.
B) it could advance in its abilities to
first become alive; then advance in
intelligence; and finally become a
fogoHC. it continues to advance and
eventually becomes a fogoHC itself.
With possibility A, more and more
neutral capability is produced. The
amount of it increases exponentially.
But the fogoHC becomes no larger.
There is no growth in the fogoHC
because no lower capabilities are
allowed to become fogoHC. For the
fogoHC to produce more of itself, it
can replicate itself. But this is taking
lower forces of good and advancing
them to be a fogoHC. This is example
A not example B, so the fogoHC
doesn't do this. It finds itself with an
ever growing supply of neutral
capability to make contact with. It
might get swamped by the size of it.
It needs to grow in size to match the
growth of the neutral capability. It
could try and make itself more
powerful and become of higher
capability within itself. But whether it
could do this or not is uncertain;
whereas the creation of itself has
been proven possible by its own
existence. The fogoHC must increase
its own power at an exponential rate
just to keep up with the neutral
capability. But this is unlikely as the
fogoHC would be increasingly more
busy trying to handle the exponential
growth of the neutral capability, that
it would have less and less time to
work on its own advancement. Also, it
is into uncharted areas, as it has
never been that powerful before. It is
a driven and desperate fogoHC, that
is forced to keep up a growth output
and is driven by growth needs, if it
can keep up at all. In this picture of a
universe, it is easy to see how a
fogoHC could become overextended
and how the marginal force of good
and neutral capability could overgrow
a fogoHC, and eventually become
unmanageable. It could cease
contacting the neutral capability, but
that would make it vulnerable to evil.
Thus the force of evil would step in
and stagnation would result after
some point of expansion.
Possibility B: Now let's observe a
universe where the basic forces of
good produced, do advance to finally
become a fogoHC. With possibility B,
there would be more and more
fogoHC to keep up with the more and
more neutral capability being
produced. There would be no problem
of the fogoHC getting swamped.
Here, the contacting of the ever-
growing neutral capability is provided
by a fogoHC that is also growing
exponentially. Also, the fogoHC isn't
forced to grow in uncharted areas;
only in the replication of more of
itself, which by its existence, has
already been proven possible to do.
So it's very probable that not only
does the fogoHC contact neutral
capabilities and turn them into
marginal force of good capability; the
fogoHC also advances these
marginal-good capabilities to be very
intelligent, capable, alive; and finally
to be forces ogoHC. (Growth plus
advancement.)
End introduction.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
REPRODUCTION
Consider the concept of supply and
demand; as applied to human beings.
If there is a shortage of humans, then
they will have a higher value and will
be treated better. But if there is a
surplus of humans, then their value
will be low, and they will be treated
poorly, according to their low value
according to supply and demand. So
that when women are considering
how many humans to produce in
terms of how large a family to have;
collectively, they have quite an
impact on how we're all treated by
those economic forces that rule over
us. xxxxxxxxxx In response to this,
someone wrote: "According to the law
of supply and demand, a shortage or
surplus of humans would not affect
their treatment but their _price_. In
some cases, a high price might lead
to worse (or better) treatment, but
there is no necessary connection."
xxxxxxx And I responded: -A high
price for humans, means that they
are paid a high wage. A high wage
means that they are not in abject
poverty.
Sometimes too much money leads
people to be unhappy. But a little
money keeps them out of the other
unhappy extreme of abject poverty.
Another way to look at this, is to look
at Mexico. There the catholic
traditions against birth control and for
big families means that there are
always a lot of little Mexicans running
around. And the resources of the
society must be divided up again and
again amongst them all so that they
mostly live lives of abject poverty.
That's not to say one cannot be
happy in abject poverty, it's just that
it is a challenge to overcome. And in
a world where there is
destructiveness around; a medium
ability environment is what is needed,
not those of abject poverty, nor
richness. Note that Bible prophecy
predicts plagues and famines for an
apocalyptic end to the world. And if
people overpopulate the world under
religious direction, then the plagues
and famines will appear, as predicted.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx And then there is
the conservative, religious rules over
our sexuality. But first let us consider
sexual reproduction in itself. Sexual
reproduction produces offspring that
are not exact copies of their parents
but are different from their parents to
some degree. So, sexual reproduction
generates differences between each
of us; it is a generator of differences.
But people who are different, do not
hang together. no, it is people who
are alike, who hang together. And E
Harmony matches to those who are
alike, not to those who are different.
Now, if we were all to have sex with
each other in unrestricted sexual
reproduction, then those differences
would be spread all back among our
population and we would not build on
or accentuate those differences. But
that's not the way sexual
reproduction works in our world.
Sexual reproduction is restricted to
one man one woman and to form a
family grouping to raise the offspring
produced. People of like interests and
skills tend to hang around with each
other; and that is where they are
likely to meet a mate, where they will
spend a lifetime together with
someone with common interests. This
leaves the people that are different,
as not reconnected together. So that
the genetic differences generated by
sexual reproduction are preserved
and compounded over each
successive generation. Being
different means that they are good in
different areas. So that different
groups of people are developed, each
being good in one particular area,
while not so good in the other areas
(exploring the scope of genetic
differences that human genetics
allow). So that as individuals they
cannot function well, but only as a
group can they work together to
combine their good areas to make a
complete and competent societal
whole. Thus the rulers of a society
have at their beck and call, all the
humans of the society to do their
bidding, because as individuals they
are all unbalanced in their skills,
incapable of being self sufficient as
individuals, who can only survive and
excel by joining the societal group
each to contribute their best skill. So
that what the conservative rules over
our sexual reproduction do is to
breed individuals who are slaves who
are easily molded by the rulers of a
society, who are incapable of much
independence as individuals, so that
we are more so a commodity to be
used by those who rule over us.
Human sexuality doesn't stop, but
continues to generate differences in
the offspring; and with the
conservative rules remaining in place,
this results in ever increasing
specialization in an individual's best
skill area, while the rest of the
individual's areas lag further and
further behind; so that individuals
become more and more unbalanced
so that eventually the individual
becomes a commodity (which is their
best skill), and is not so much alive
anymore in any of the other areas; as
generation after generation of sexual
reproduction under conservative
protestant rule progresses.
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx In a world
where the force of destruction is a
problem, we shall see that being at
medium ability, not at barren, neither
rich ability; is the solution.
Concerning the unbalanced
individual; being at barren ability in
all the other areas, is not good; and
the other areas, although lagging
behind, need to be advanced too,
eventually; otherwise it doesn't work
out. However, outside the
considerations of dealing with
destruction; what is the best
configuration to have, concerning the
societal entity (which is made up of
the best skills of each individual); and
also concerning the individual entity?
The societal entity, and the individual
entity, are both areas (of value) that
can be grown into and improved. To
leave a vacuum in any one of these
areas, represents an improvement
that can be made and grown into. To
act so that either of these areas is to
be sacrificed, is destructive, and is
against the directives of
growth/goodness and love, which God
purportedly is. The force of good-and-
growth needs/is able, to scale and
cross barriers to find raw materials
separated by barriers, so it can
continue to grow. This represents
many individuals(representing the
individual position) trying out all the
many different possibilities until one
is found that works; not the
elimination of options(elimination of
the individual positions) and choosing
just one (societal) way; especially
before one has found the answer to
the next challenge to growth.
Also there is the consideration of
coordination. As unbalance
progresses in the individual, the
individual looses sight of where its
best skill fits into the other societal
areas, as its own 'other areas' are so
feeble. Eventually the societal entity
becomes the individual, as the
individual entity no longer exists.
What was the individual entity, is now
like cells of the body -incapable of
any life or action outside the body
-there is no longer any intelligent life
at this level. The result of all this, is
the causation of a rich area (the
societal entity); and a barren area
(the individual entity); from what
used to be a medium ability situation.
What has occurred, is a polarization
to absolutes, by using sexual
reproduction and conservative rules
over sexual reproduction; over the
generations. Note that neither of
these absolutes(barrenness nor
richness) is capable of dealing with
the problem and force of destruction;
whereas the medium ability
environment is. And since we live in
a world still with the problem of
destruction, we will need to bring
back these medium ability
environments. And this means we at
some point need to interrupt this
conservative breeding program that
has been cornering the effects of
human sexuality; and violate it.
Otherwise we will be in hell. (// Note
that to actually obey the command to
die to yourself for Christ's sake; that
when you take into and part of
yourself (so that it becomes part of
yourself), this action to die to
yourself; that you must also die to
this dying to yourself; so that an
incomplete dying to yourself actually
results; which provides the medium
environment needed, not these
absolute polarizations.//) The religious
exhortations to be like a seed and die
to yourself so you can be part of the
great big religion in the sky; so that
you can be part of the body: an arm,
a leg, an eye or an ear or a hand
maybe; so that you can die to
yourself and be one(in the
(societal)body): are all leading you
down the wrong path; it seems to me.
Because the appeal of Jesus Christ,
and need that He fulfills, as being
part of humanity; as being in between
the absolutes of highness and
lowness, representing humanity and
the in between: is not found here.
And the creation of a barren area in
what used to be the individual entity,
is against the directives of growth
and love. Now, in response to a
totally evil environment, this would
be a good response. Like a case can
be made that the world of the Roman
Empire, needed to be brought to an
end. But life is no longer so much
so. Yet the controls are set on
autopilot in this direction, and need
to be changed. A little bit of this
unbalance is OK, because it causes
the individual entity to also share
with the societal entity, so that both
entities can exist and grow. But too
much unbalance forces the individual
entity to death so that only the
societal entity remains. But then I am
reminded of the idea that if high good
ways exist, we as individuals should
seek to give up our individual ways,
because individual ways are fraught
with more destruction and are not as
good as the higher ways (of a societal
entity). But wait a minute: this is not
that situation. The directive to bring
the individual entity to nothing as a
means of solving the imperfections of
the individual entity/position; is a
different solution than the solution of
having a robust individual entity lay
aside its ways and let the societal
ways fill its needs (with the medium
level Jesus Christ entity as facilitator);
because in this solution, both the
societal entity and the individual
entity EXIST and are well grown into.
(Not all of the individual's actions are
defective; some are wholly good and
evil free.) Now then, not all evils are
based on need. The ones that are, are
eliminated by both these solutions,
dealing with the neediness of the
individual position. But other evils
that pop up, well, if there is no
individual position, then they must be
dealt with by the only remaining
position -the high and rich societal
position. And as we shall see, when
an evil is put into a rich environment,
a firestorm results and the whole
thing is burnt down. Better to let evils
be worked out in the individual
position, so that the societal position,
(which is made of the best parts of
the individuals collectively and is very
rich) can know how to avoid these
evils, having learned from its
individuals. Once again, I reiterate:
we are screwing ourselves if we
continue down this path to death of
the individual entity through
conservative running of our sexual
reproduction! Get off your ass and
fuck different people (while trying to
avoid a venereal disease, which is the
weakness of this directive). And have
some, but not too many kids from
this. Otherwise, if you insist on being
good and morally, sexually
conservative; you along with the rest
of your kind will be the cause of the
end of the world scenarios that
religious fundamentalists predict.
Because when hatreds are worked
out on the individual levels, it is with
guns and knives and clubs. But when
there is no more individual level, and
there are still hatreds to be worked
out; the societal entities work these
out with atom bombs. And who wants
to be responsible for blowing up the
whole world? Who is the biggest
terrorist now? Why it is the
conservative fundamentalists. So, in
the war on terror, we ask you to
loosen your morals a little. Or if you
insist on one man one women, then
find a mate who is out of your class
and social group, who is different
from you, to marry and have kids
with. (Stop catering to 'the MAN'(so
much/so absolutely).)
In this insert, let us consider the
racial purity philosophy of Hitler and
the Ku Klux Klan and others. The
idea is that one race is superior and
that the other inferior races need to
be exterminated. To exterminate the
differences brought to the global
societal entity by other 'inferior'
races, does curtail and handicap the
societal entity; thus providing some
favor to the individual entity (of the
surviving race). This stops the
perpetual advancement of the
societal entity at the expense of the
individual entity under conservative
sexuality. And when genetics under
conservative sexuality causes some
individuals in the master race to be
too different from the standard of the
master race, these individuals too
can be exterminated or sterilized.
Thus the ultra specialization brought
by continued conservative sexuality
is stopped, as individuals who are too
specialized are exterminated. So this
seems to work, theoretically. But
getting to this point is the problem.
Not all races are willing to lay down
and be exterminated without a fight
like the Jews in ww2. And now the
Jews of today in Israel are certainly
not going down without a fight. So
that the end of the world will be
achieved by trying to exterminate the
other races in the world war this
would cause. Much better to loose
the conservative sexuality to achieve
the same result, without all the
destruction and end to the world.
But perhaps having the different
races intensely prejudice of each
other will keep them from joining
together into a greater societal
entity, thus limiting the societal
entity, which is what is needed in
systems of continued conservative
sexuality. Perhaps this may explain
why prejudice exists today, and what
function it serves. However, this is
not the best system that can be. As a
better system is one that puts
together the differences of the races
(not all the time), but periodically;
and this would replace systems of
eternal prejudice; and it would not be
a system of eternal conservative
sexuality.
End insert.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Now, with the Amish, individual
expression is stamped out, and
everything is plain. So that when a
woman is looking for a mate, she has
a harder time finding someone just
like her, due to them all looking
pretty much the plain same. Thus the
Amish may not have so much of an
accentuation of differences as their
generations pass. And with the
Mexicans, the man has a few kids
with one woman and then moves
onto the next woman to do the same,
and the next and the next etc. Thus
there is good mixing of the genetic
material, and differences are put
together again. The same is true of
the African American male/ also the
gang banger, who does a bit of
philandering and doesn't spend much
time in the home; thus providing the
needed genetic mixing. And with the
Arabs, (and the Mormons) the harem
provides a genetic mixing and
melting pot. And with the Americans,
a melting pot where different types
intermarry, brings genetic differences
back together. But with the
conservative Protestants, no such
getting the genetic differences back
together occurs. They may not
overpopulate the world like the
Catholics, but they instead create
ever more unbalanced offspring
eventually no longer capable of any
individual existence but only of a
societal existence, resulting in
societal conflicts that will annihilate
the world (as predicted). This is
unfortunate for them (and everybody
else). Now, if you go with the free
love of the communes, the hippies,
and the 60's, and Disco 70's, you can
have individual expression as well as
good genetic mixing.
(But what about inbreeders? Since
they are of the same family, there is
much similar genetic material. Here
again, it is people who are the same
getting together, but these people
are so much the same genetically,
that weaknesses in genetics are not
complimented by a different partners
genes, and these people often have
serious physical problems due to
genetic deficits. However, the
differences generated by sexual
reproduction are put back together.
So that if a well balanced well
rounded, self sufficient group of
individuals does this, they preserve
themselves. But if an unbalanced
group does this, that is where the
trouble is.)
Of all these things I have spoken
against religion, you might think I am
against Christ. Well, I am not against
a Christ who values both advancing
the individual entity as well as the
societal or body-of-Christ entity. But I
am against a Christ who sacrifices the
individual entity completely and
absolutely to the societal entity; who
does not advance the individual
entity along with the societal/christ
body entity. -Because that is
extremely destructive/wasteful as it
brings about the end of human life on
earth. And also hinders the force of
good from finding solutions to
barriers to new growth, which it
needs to do to be able to live in a rich
environment without the force of evil.
And I will replace this 'bad' Christ,
with the 'good' Christ, who is more fit
at being savior of the world, unlike
the 'bad' Christ, who is unfit to be our
savior, but serves only to be our
destructor.
Obviously there is only 1 Jesus Christ,
and reportedly He is still alive, having
survived the crucifixion. But He is
now at the right hand of God, so that
we may all have His Holy Spirit; so
that He is not easily accessible to
settle which interpretation of "die to
yourself for Christ's sake" did He
mean. -Did He mean to completely
and absolutely sacrifice the individual
entity for the societal body of Christ?
or did He mean to partially sacrifice
the individual entity so that both the
individual and the societal entities
would prosper? Depending on His
answer, is my answer of either
support, or a true need to find a
better savior; not only to save us but
also Him. xxx Obviously there is only
one Jesus Christ, but there may be
two answers. Some may claim the
Holy Spirit has led them to one
interpretation, while others, to the
other interpretation. I claim the Holy
Spirit, through logic, has led me to
the interpretation that causes both
the advancement of the societal body
of Christ entity, as well as also the
advancement of each individual
entity; (and by doing so, also claim to
be a Christian); albeit a non
traditional one: mainly because of
Christ's stand that we love and be
kind to one another. If you can't
stomach that, then I think we need to
be separate from one another.
xxxxxxxx Maybe I just don't get it. I'm
still not going to restrict my sexual
lifestyle according to the conservative
Christian way, which as I have
explained is part of the fallacy of
sacrificing the individual entity
absolutely and entirely for the
societal entity. It won't be me who
throws Christ out, but perhaps Christ
will throw me out if it turns out that
He is for the interpretation of
absolutely sacrificing the individual
entity for the societal, body of Christ
entity. In that case, there still exists
inside me, a christ like part which
functions to intercede between my
absolute, high good parts and my
human parts; which will continue to
act, and will be thrilled to join with a
Christ like savior who is of similar
make up, who actually can function
as a savior. But I have faith, that
Christ will come through for me, and
for us all.
xxxxxxxxxxxxx
I have been told there is a soul mate,
one spouse who is just for me. -When
people are being generated
who are ever more different and ever
more unbalanced; it is true that there
are fewer and fewer people who are
similar to me, so that it can be said
that there is just one person who is
best compatible with me, having the
same like interests as me. But for me
to marry this person and enjoy our
lives together, and have (many)
children with, just perpetuates this
tendency towards unbalance and
elimination of the individual entity for
the sake of the societal entity.
Seeing that this isn't what we need at
this point; I thus avoid doing this.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Let me rehash this stuff a little bit.
When people get married and have
kids, they have to spend a lifetime or
a long time together. It helps if they
have common interests (ie, they are
pretty much the same) so that they
can enjoy their time together. This
puts quite a persuasive incentive to
find someone who is similar. So that
when similar or the same people hook
up, this leaves dissimilar people Not
hooked up. So that differences fester
and grow so that eventually in a
population, different groups of
people are generated, each being
good in different areas, to the extent
the genetics allow. From this, a
societal entity forms whereby a
person who is good in one area but
deficient in other areas, is not
weeded out, but can survive by
joining the societal entity. People can
specialize and develop their good
area extensively while letting their
other areas slide; and together with
everyone else, who also specialize in
each respective area, can make a
competent societal whole. But
resulting from this is that no one
person is competent to satisfy their
mate; that there are 2 sources of
need satisfying; that compete. If
someone isn't the best at their good
area, then where they plug into the
societal entity is at less pay and less
of a good lifestyle. So that they may
seek a mate based on complimenting
skills that are not the same so that
they may improve satisfaction of their
needs from the societal angle, but at
the same time, give up compatibility
and enjoy their time together less. ie,
when one marries for money. This
allows for some putting back together
of the different specialized areas,
(done by those less competent in
their societal good areas). and also,
when people get together for a short
while and then divorce, who are not
necessarily compatible but just
attracted, this also allows for more
mixing and putting back together of
the different areas. So that the
absolute directive to take away from
the individual area and give to the
societal area, certainly is slowed; and
perhaps would be enough to prevent
the absolute/complete raiding of the
individual entity for the benefit of the
societal entity. but there is certainly
room for the relaxing of moral
directives and for the allowing for
divorce. Xxxxxxxx
Let me go over this again in a bit
more depth of analysis: One is
required to spend their whole life with
their mate in sexual exclusivity if one
follows through with the conservative
way. When people are young, sexual
attraction occurs and boys and girls
pair up. Most of the time they are not
compatible; that is they don't share
the same interests and are not the
same. These then break up and soon
after, move on to another partner.
Eventually partners find themselves
with people of similar interests, who
are pretty much the same (ie
compatible); and these people then
take the plunge and get married. (In
this insert, some say that opposites
attract. But perhaps what is going on
instead, is that there is a sexual
attraction between most men and
women, and that when they pair up,
most of the time they are different, or
'opposite', while only occasionally do
pairs contain similar people. xxxxxxxxxx
Because the requirements of sexual
morality require us to at least make
an attempt to live with a partner for a
long time in sexual exclusivity; this
favors people who are alike to come
together, so that they may enjoy their
long time together pursuing common
interests; thus leaving people not
alike, ie, different, as being left apart
and not connected
sexually/genetically. As a society
specializes and its individuals become
unbalanced -that is they are good in
one area, -maximized in tune with
one area; but deficient in all the other
areas: this provides another
need/need satisfaction source (in
addition to the reproductive drive
need and need satisfaction source).
That is, an individual needs to
participate in their society, giving of
their good area so that they may
receive their small shares of the
Many(more than 2) other good areas
supplied by Many other unbalanced
individuals (who are also maximized
in their own respective and different
good areas); and thereby satisfy each
others needs (other than sexual) as a
societally competent whole. As a
society continues to specialize, the
number of different areas (manned
by individuals who are good in each
particular area) grows well beyond 2.
So that if a person was thinking of
giving up similarity in a mate in order
to join a mate with complimentary
skills; this would not work out well
because 2 skill areas does not a
society make. And the society way
would do a much better job at
supplying needs through combining
the skills of a multitude of skill areas
(supplied by individuals) much
greater than 2. No, better a person
find someone of like skills for a mate,
and they can both work on improving
their performance in their one good
skill area and thus get better
recognition and pay from their job
(joining with the societal entity and
through their societal connection).
And at the same time they can enjoy
each other's like interests. But what if
a person is at the top of the heap in
their good skill area, and already has
good pay? Well, with those needs
satisfied, the only need left is the
reproductive drive. Here, finding
someone of like mind/ability/interests
allows this couple to enjoy their
greater command of resources (from
society) together. So, we see an
uninterrupted directive to ever
increase specialization and sacrifice
the individual entity to benefit the
societal entity, so far. However, in
some ideas about good vs evil; life vs
destruction, we will see that
meanness and cruelty doesn't get
along with itself. They are the same,
yes, but two mean people, being
mean to each other, do not get along
and are not compatible. Perhaps if
they can direct their meanness to
others, they can get along, but this
can be tentative at best, as mean,
competitive people often go after
each other to establish who is
dominant. So that pairing of like
people who are mean/competitive,
does not provide satisfaction in the
traditional morality concerning
satisfaction of the sex drive. These
dominant ones find submissive ones
to dominate, and they are not the
same, do not share the same mind,
and once the sexual need is satisfied,
they have a lot of time on their hands
with little in common to do. And there
is no harmony here concerning the
traditional way. The societal way of
satisfying other needs, is the only
way that does work for these people.
They are often at the top of their
heap and make good money. It is in
the marital area where things are
problematic. Since the traditional way
in the sexual area doesn't work for
these people, they are tempted to
model this area after the way that
does work for them -the societal way.
They are thus tempted to add the
sexual area and treat it the same way
other needs are handled by the
societal area. -That is to have the
input of many different people each
contributing their best skill, not just 2
people. This means multiple partners,
maybe a girl in every port; divorce,
bigamy, going from one mate to
another in rapid succession, etc. It is
these kinds of behaviors that mix the
genes, and prevent absolute sacrifice
of the individual entity to the societal
entity, thus saving our ass!
It is odd how a religion based on love
and kindness depends on meanness
and mean and competitive people to
save its ass/ our ass.
xxxxxxxx
(In this insert, I consider that jealousy
is from a fear of loosing one's
significant other absolutely due to the
absolute nature of the traditional
morality. Because the traditional
morality is unlike the societal way of
need satisfying, in that it totally and
absolutely shuts out others from
sharing in one's mate's sexuality; one
fears any advances on one's mate by
others may cause one's mate to
switch partners, and thus exchange
places so that one is now absolutely
shut out from one's former mate. It is
the absolute shutting out action that
brings this about. If sexuality were
not so absolute, the tensions would
be eased, and sharing could occur
without jealousy, overpowering
jealousy. When we deliver goods
and services in our job, we don't
service just one person, but
deliver/share our goods/services to
many people. If sexuality were not so
absolute, multiple partners, and
shared relationships would occur; so
that the loss of one lover would not
be as hard to take as in the absolute
world where one has only one lover,
whose loss results in the loss of all
the love that one has. Plus, does any
one person really have the right to all
of another person's attentions?
Note that the sexual attraction one
person feels for another, causes them
to value the object of their feeling
above all other people; when in
actuality, people are of equal value;
and we do treat them equally when
we are not under a sexual attraction
towards one of them. But when we
are under a sexual attraction to one
of them, this focuses our attention
and valuation all to that one person.
Now if we have sexual feelings for
more than one person, one might
think this is expressing more
sexuality. But the most sexuality one
can express is being attracted to just
one person, because the nature of
sexual feeling, is to remove
importance from everyone else, and
concentrate it to this one person. If
one removes importance from
everyone else, and concentrates it to
a group of people, that isn't as much
of a concentration. So the person
who has multiple partners, although
they may think they are being more
sexual, in actuality, they are being
less sexual, due to the concentrating
nature of sexuality itself.
When a man and woman share their
affection with each other, they may
think that they enjoy that. What do
you think? Don't you think that men
and women sharing affection is an
enjoyable thing? But then they take a
good thing that they enjoy and limit it
and put it under a box and prevent it
from expanding and keep it to
themselves. Now if one were to take
the good news of the gospel and hide
it under a basket and try to limit it,
then religion would be up in arms
about that. But more to the point,
when women(men) refuse to service
all mankind's(womankind's) sex
drives except one partner, then there
are a lot of unsatisfied customers out
there. Women(men) may be
attractive to men(women) and some
very much so, but it is all just a tease
unless one does submit to the
conservative breeding program that
could very well result in the
apocalyptic end of the world. I would
ask the people attracted here to
realize that the conservative way is a
mostly all destructive entity that does
prey upon the imperfect human area
of sexual expression; and that the
sogp/jesus representation (explained
later) can and should (as non
destructively as possible), cast this
mostly all evil out of/ off of, the
human sexual area; so that our
sexual area tends towards medium
ability, out of barrenness and low
ability. End insert.)
Concerning the dual need satisfaction
system: sometimes it all gets sucked
into one mess. Sometimes there is
separation between church and
business, but sometimes a person is
called out on not being morally up to
standards, so that the same absolute
polarizations of all or nothing that
occur in the moral area, are also
applied to this person's other areas of
need satisfaction, so that they are
ostracized completely in all need
satisfaction systems, so that their
business connection is polarized to
barrenness for them and richness to
those who extract from them. And
when people's whole lives are
dragged down into these religious
polarizations, things can get out of
hand with burning down the rich
areas in firestorms. And this is just a
waste of resources, leaving all in
barrenness. Better to follow the
separation of church and state with
also having separation of church and
business (concerning how a person
satisfies their reproductive needs vs
how they satisfy their other needs).
As the satisfaction of the sexual need
is such a limited thing, compared to
the good one can do by helping
needy people and fill their needs in
other things other than sexual. Unless
one is prevented from doing so due
to some religious or societal shunning
that has labeled them as heathen or
infidels and that one is not allowed to
help them/they are not allowed to
help others. Thus one's force of good
is not only prevented from helping in
the sexual area (which is limited at
best) but also every other area, in a
now all encompassing
societoreligious polarization. xxxx
Note that although the people of
Jesus' day condemned the adulterous
woman; note that Jesus did not
condemn the adulterous woman.
Now, when people of today work in
their jobs (so they can get paid so
they can buy things to satisfy their
other needs (other than sexual)),
they are not absolute in their action.
They do not service just one
customer and deny all the other
customers their service. Instead,
they give each customer a little bit of
their time and do service many
customers. But in the satisfaction of
the sexual area, this is NOT how
things are done. Instead, each
person satisfies only one customer,
and leaves the rest unsatisfied.
These two different ways of need
satisfaction are incompatible. For
example, if each worker were to pick
one customer and service only them,
then most of the work would not get
done, and this system would collapse
and be unworkable.
But way back in the past, in little
house on the prairie days, when
individuals were more self sufficient,
this actually would work out. Each
person would take care of themselves
and their spouse and their family
grouping, and leave the rest of the
world to fend for itself, just like they
fended for themselves. And when the
nearest neighbor was miles away,
one man one woman was how the
sexual area was done also. So that
there was no dual or conflicting ways
of need satisfaction. It was all the
absolute way, the all or nothing way,
and each person did not service
many other people, but only their
own family grouping.
But not only is this way less efficient
and can be replaced by a way of
societal entity and individual entity
balanced with each other; that as I
have explained; many generations of
one man one woman does generate
ever more unbalanced, and thus less
self sufficient individuals.
Yes, to start, a group of self sufficient
individuals or family units could
choose to isolate themselves from
each other; and this would favor one
man one woman in the sexual area.
But one man one woman generates
ever more unbalanced individuals.
So that out of necessity (due to the
loss of self sufficiency), a societal
entity formed and lessened the
individual entity.
And from that group of self sufficient
individuals who chose to live in quasi
isolation from each other, and who
did not allow the sexual area to mix it
up; they are now forced to be a part
of a societal entity because they are
no longer self sufficient, but are now
unbalanced. In this societal entity
there is no longer isolation, but many
people working together and
intermixing. From those interactions,
more sexual intermixing should
follow, which thus halts the ever
advancing trend towards unbalanced
individuals. However, sometimes a
society clings to the one man one
woman theme due to religious
directives.
So that today, the only thing left of
the self sufficient/absolute way of
need satisfaction, is the sexual area;
whereas all the other need
satisfactions are done with the
societal entity and no longer with the
self sufficient individual entity. But if
the societal way were applied to the
sexual area, then people would
service many others instead of just
one other, and would be called
'whores' and 'creepers' and 'rappers'.
Now when there is a balance between
the individual entity and the societal
entity; that is the best and most
powerful system. But as the one man
one woman, absolute self sufficient
way persists in the satisfaction of the
sexual area; we continue generating
ever more unbalance, and overshoot
balance and end up with all societal
entity and no individual entity; and
that is a lesser state.
And when young women cling to this
last expression of the self sufficient
individual/ absolute way in the sexual
area, they thus thereby eliminate
completely any individuality or
individual expression leaving only
societal expression. Eve, put down
the apple.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxx
GOOD VS EVIL:
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxx Let us Consider that
goodness, growth, and being kind to
one another, is a superior force over
the force of destruction, death,
decay, and being mean to each other.
(To do this, we consider all
possibilities)
-Considering what'd happen if in a
universe with only the force of
goodness-and-growth:
-If in a universe where only the force
of death/destruction existed:
-Or if we were in a universe with both
forces. Here on earth we're in the
situation where both forces exist. But
that doesn't mean this is the only
way, -that other situations aren't
possible.
Let's consider a universe of only the
force of destruction and death. As
death /destruction progress, they
take whatever is alive, and kill it,
so that where life once was, now
exists (is produced) nothing and
nothingness. Ashes to ashes, and
dust to dust. Pretty soon, life
becomes in scarce supply, while a
whole lot of empty space and
inanimate material is left behind.
After awhile, all the life is killed, and
then what? With no life left to kill, the
force of destruction comes to a stop
(no more destroying can be done),
because from nothing, this force can
go no further from there. Here is
a definite bottom to the universe. The
force of destructiveness comes to a
stop and cannot continue.
Now consider the force of good-and-
growth as being the only force
around. As this force acts, it takes
nothingness/lifeless matter (dust),
and creates life in its place. Soon
everything starts to come alive.
Pretty soon we begin to run out of
improvements to make. Emptiness
and undeveloped raw material (dust)
starts to come into short supply. If
everything is alive, then no more
growth/goodness can be done, and
thus the force of good is stopped,
right? Well, there's not so much an
absolute ceiling, as there is an
absolute bottom. You see, life forms
can advance/be advanced and
become ever more capable and alive;
and this thus continues the force of
good. And, a universe that is alive
(full of life), is very capable -able to
do lots of things, (unlike a barren
universe consisting of nothingness).
And with that life/capability, it can
bridge barriers and reach raw
material (dust) that had previously
been separated from it by a barrier.
Hence, the force of goodness and
growth can survive by itself much
better than the force of
destruction/death can. This is an
advantage: -When the force of
destruction can be escaped from;
(the good separated from the
destructive); that which is
destructive, when alone, burns itself
out, finds itself boxed in by barriers,
and ceases to exist; Whereas the
good alone, survives, bridges
barriers, and continues to grow. Of
course when both forces are around,
the force of good generates life for
the force of destruction to feed on
and destroy as it survives. (and the
force of death/decay generates voids,
which the force of good uses as its
starting material.) This is the way
things are here on earth. And both
the forces of; good, and destruction,
have an easy time finding material to
work with (compared to if they were
alone). /(insert) when the force of
good is advanced to be free of
destruction, it is under more pressure
to cross barriers and find new raw
material for growth. Thus it needs the
individual entity even more so, and
cannot totally sacrifice the individual
entity for the societal entity here in
the end, in perfection anyway.(as the
individual entities are needed to try
out all the possibilities to find the
solution to the next challenge to
growth)(end insert)/ xxxxxxxxxx
ALSO, it takes life-and-capability to
do or be either 'the force of good-
and-growth', or 'the force of
destruction'. The lack of life can't do/
be either force. Since what the force
of good produces is life, such life can
continue to do forces. But since what
the force of destruction produces is
death and nothingness and voids in
life; since this cannot do or support
either force, then the force of
destruction alone is
destined to a quick end while the
force of good and growth alone is
destined to continue. xxxxxxxxxxxx
ALSO, since only life can do-be either
force: When destruction experiences
what it produces, or is applied to
itself, it doesn't grow, but instead
shrinks to nothing. But when
goodness experiences what it
produces, (when goodness is good to
itself) it does not die, but instead,
grows. So, the force of destruction
needs something other than just
itself to exist (is a parasitic force),
while the force of good does not and
is self sufficient with just itself. So
that when alone, good survives while
destruction self eliminates and
vanishes. From this we can see that
good and growth, is a superior force
to the force of death and destruction. xxxxxxxxxxx
Let us consider some situations,
while keeping in mind these truths:
-that it takes life and ability to do/be
either goodness, or destruction (and
that lack-of-life is unable to cause
either of these forces);
Inputs and outputs:
-that the force of destruction takes in
that which is alive as its input/raw
material; and produces voids-in-life /
inanimate material as its output, as
what it produces.
-That the force of goodness/growth
takes in voids-in-life and inanimate
material, as its input/raw material;
and produces -life- as its output and
what it produces.
With these concepts in mind let's
consider the situation of the force of
destruction in a rich environment. Not
only does this force have plenty of its
raw material or input (life), present
here in the rich environment;
-destruction also has what supports
what either force is made of (which is
also, life). Thus here the force of
death-and-destruction can grow
rapidly and become quite large here,
in a rich environment. xxxxxxxxxxxxx
(In this tangent, please consider that
since enforcing rules over the gray
areas of living life causes a patchwork
of rich and barren environments(rules
structure and FIX WHERE the good,
and destruction, respectively, of a
gray action, are done): my question
is, why do we scrape together these
rich environments where there is the
force of destruction nearby -(as
destruction is inescapably a part of all
gray actions at our level of ability)?
This will just result in successive
firestorms where the gray actions'
destructiveness burns down the rich
parts of the patchwork. All this does
is feed evil/destructiveness. As for
myself, I do not wish to succor and
feed the force of destructiveness. End tangent.)
(2nd insert: When a man and woman
share their affection with each other,
they may think that they enjoy that.
What do you think? Do you think that
men and women sharing affection is
an enjoyable thing? -a force of good?
In the imperfect area of human
sexuality, some good and also some
destruction are generated. Why is
this imperfect good forced to live in a
RICH area, where it has a hard time
finding its input -voids/improvements
to make, when there is right next
door, areas of barrenness that it
needs to make its goodness force
active? Why does one torture their
imperfect good this way? End 2nd
insert.)
(Here is another important tangent:
Here on earth, we live with what is
destructive and also that which is
good and growing. In this respect, we
often do actions which contain both
goodness and growth and also
destructiveness in the same action.
These actions I would term 'human
actions' (also referred to as 'gray
actions' ). These human areas are
hopelessly a mixture of both
goodness and destruction (at our
level of ability we're unable to
separate the forces), and there is no
purity of action in them, as they
contain both goodness as well as
destructiveness inescapably
intertwined in the same action. These
mainly center around human hungers
and needs. So that whether or not a
human action is done, partially done,
or refrained from; some destruction is
always present, just in different
areas. Like when we eat, this is good
for our survival, but at the same time,
destructive to some other life form's
survival as a plant or animal had to
die to provide this. And if we don't
eat, this is good for the surrounding
plants and animal's survival, but
destructive to us as we starve.
However, in our human world, not all
actions are these 'human' or 'gray'
actions. Some actions CAN be divided
up completely (or much more so),
into all good vs. all destructive parts.
And it is here, with these non human
areas, there can exist a purity of
action as is not seen in the human
actions. Areas of all-good exist, as
well as do areas that are all
destructive, exist. However, when
areas of purely all destructive exist,
they soon self consume and
disappear. So that only the areas of
all-good exist with such a purity of
action. Still, if that which is all-
destructive can find a human action,
it can feed off the good in the human
action, and it won't have to self
consume. -(It can continue to exist
and not disappear.) So, when the all-
good casts off the all-destructive: -to
achieve purity of action; the all
destructive actions become as
ravening wolves seeking to prey upon
human actions, feeding off the good
in human actions, so that they can
survive and won't self consume/die.
And who is going to save a human
action from being preyed upon by
these all destructive actions? It is true
that the all destructive action CAN be
separated away from the human
action, (unlike the destructiveness
within the human action that is part
of the human action); but who is
going to do it? The all destructive
action is desperate, as its life
depends on preying on a human
action, and so has apparently
overpowered the human action. An
all-good action might intervene and
separate an all-destructive action
from a human action; but if it did so it
would spoil its purity of action and it
would no longer be an all-good
action. So that all-good actions are
reluctant to intervene to separate an
all-destructive action from its prey
human action, as they loose their
purity of action in doing so. So it
would seem the all destructive
actions (although since they've mixed
with the human actions, are no longer
purely all destructive), have found a
way of survival and a continued food
source by preying on the human
actions and human hunger satisfying;
thus making the human world more
towards the destructive side; towards
barrenness (which preserves the
togetherness of the good and
destructive within that human action,
as we'll see later). (Recall the parable
of the good Samaritan.) xxxxxxxxx
However, what about this plan: What
if the all-good actions split a small
part of themselves off to come and
deal with this situation, while leaving
their major part of themselves
behind, still separate and still
maintaining their purity of action.
(The smaller part that split off would
loose its purity of action through it's
intervening.) The smaller part that
split off would come and separate the
all-destructive part from the human
part so that the all destructive part
would finally self consume and die;
leaving the human action no longer
preyed upon by the all destructive
action; so that it tended not towards
barrenness, but towards medium
ability. Thus evil/destruction would be
lessened and much eliminated by this
plan. xxxxxxxxxx
Now, in the human areas; when the
smaller, split off, all good part is
generating/creating something (to
medium ability), in the vacuums
(where there is nothing and
barrenness) caused by destruction,
even the destruction of rules over
human areas,(and even the
destructions that are part of the
human actions themselves): it is wise
for this split off part to limit its
exposure to only the human part it is
presently creating/generating, and
not the rest of that human area; even
if this generated material is
eventually for the rest of that human
area. This is because this smaller,
split off, all good part can limit the
loss of purity and exposure to
destruction, to just what is in the
human part it is generating. Once it is
done creating a piece of this material,
it can then withdraw itself and then
allow the rest of the human area to
have possession/use of it. So that the
split off all good parts of us can act to
generate material in isolation, and
then shortly, to also act to release
pieces of that material away from
itself and this isolation, unto the rest
of this human area. In these
coordinated set of actions that build
parts of human actions/things; once a
certain part has reached medium
ability, this part is no longer
generated in isolation, but other parts
are, as the split off all good does
move onto these other parts that are
in need of being brought from
nothingness to medium level. The
parts at medium level that are no
longer being generated, are still
participants in the rest of this human
area, and do receive what is released
from isolation; its just that they do
not keep on being generated; so that
they do not move then from medium
level to high ability, (as a result of
this generating in isolation and then
release). xxxxxxxxx
There may be a difference in when a
part is first being created, and when
it is added to in additional
generatings. When the split off good
part (sogp) is first generating an
action, it may divide in two and leave
the part to be corrupted in human
ways, behind. In order to do this, it
generates even less than what is
needed for medium ability (in the
whole); sort of like the romantic
gestures around valentines day,
which are small, but mean a lot. Then
it moves it all to the half of itself to be
left behind in human ways, thus
concentrating them. At this point
they are now at medium level. (If
they had started at medium level, the
concentration into the half that was
to be left, would result in a high level,
which would burn down in the evil
present in human ways.) However,
with subsequent additions to this
action, a more robust doing unto
medium level right away can be
done, as there now already exists a
platform and entity to deliver the
generated material to.
Note that even if, for the sake of
argument say, it turns out that
Christianity is a fraud and that Jesus
wasn't anybody special: note that the
structures of Christianity still exist in
our human world and in our universe
and within us, anyway; as some areas
are more easily all good vs all
destructive, while other areas have
the destructive and the good
hopelessly intertwined in the same
action. Where does Jesus fit in? If we
take the Biblical account, Jesus was
from God, (and is therefore rich). But
Jesus also received God's punishment
for our sins, unto death. But he
survived it as he was resurrected. So
we can't say he is as high as God
because he also received God sized
punishment. But we can't say he
represents the low point either,
because being of God, he survived
the punishment and was resurrected.
Somewhere in between the high and
the lowest points, I would say (the
Bible says somewhat below an
angel). Here we see an entity often in
between the highness of God, and the
lowness of death and nothingness or
hell: -who longstandingly represents
humanity and the in between, and
the medium level; better than any
other mortal human ever could. xxxxxxx
It is our sogp(smaller split off part
from our all good areas) that then
acts to separate destructive parts
away from human areas that can be
separated away; and to fill vacuums
in the human areas to medium
ability; and not done by our main
high all good parts which are
separate and kept away from the
human area. So that if we are
waiting for God almighty to step in
and do this. No. It is the meek and
smaller Jesus representations that are
here with us in the human area, that
do this instead. Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
For our high, all-good parts to be
separate from any/all evil, even the
small evil amount found in human
actions; is a helpful thing. But this
directive to label human appetites as
sinful, and make a distinction
between the sinful and the all pure;
can be taken too far. Just because the
all-good needs to be kept ultra pure,
doesn't mean the human appetites
and the human area is valueless or to
be discarded. -That absolute values
are applied to say that there is
nothing in the human appetite area
worth keeping. That is why we have a
Jesus representation to intercede
between the high all good parts of us,
and our human appetite parts.
Now, superseding all this, is the
directive to either sacrifice
completely ones individual
components (for the good of the
complete whole-and-one's high good
parts); or to instead, grow BOTH the
areas of ones individual components,
as well as one's complete whole. So
we want to choose the second option,
and put this spin on all we do.
So that in one's high good area, we
actively generate this dual nature of
growing both the components, as well
as the whole. Now at the border of
our Jesus representation, or sogp, our
high good parts are acting to not go
into this area (because
destructiveness is nearby), and are
doing this action of staying out of this
area in the dual generating way/spin,
and actively so. Now, with the Jesus
representation, since it is made from
small split off parts from the high
parts, it has this dual generating
already, and is how it comes
naturally, without additional or active
effort (if that is how we did our high
parts). And our Jesus representation
acts to cast away any evils away from
our high parts (including gray/human
hunger evils); and also away from
itself, (save those which are gray,
which are part of human hungers);
and also casts away total evils out of
gray, human hunger
materials/structures; and finally
generates to medium ability in
vacuums caused by
destructivenesses. It is then in these
generatings to medium ability in the
vacuums that active dual spin
`generating' occurs once again. xxxxx
When the sogp is generating to
medium ability in the gray areas; one
might consider that the sogp should
generate to medium ability in all
possible gray areas because these
are all (supposedly) legitimate areas
for growth: and that therefore, one's
individual sogp representation should
also generate all possible gray areas,
even if one has no hunger in some
of these gray areas. But the idea of a
gray area is that some goodness is
obtained for the destruction that is
also generated. If you don't have a
hunger or need in a possible gray
area, then by doing the specific
motions of that gray area, you don't
derive any satisfaction (or goodness)
from it, but the destruction is
invariably still done. Hence, if you
don't have a hunger or need in a
possible gray area, then it is not a
gray area for you, but an all evil area.
So that once your hunger is satisfied,
you don't continue feeding
indefinitely, but do stop feeding. Now,
if a partner is involved in a gray
area hunger/feeding, one should
respect the partner's need to
continue feeding until satisfied; even
though one is right to stop their own
feeding once one is satisfied. But in
areas where one experiences hunger
in, it is ok to generate to medium
ability after ones hunger has been
satisfied after finished material has
been spirited away to the all good,
leaving a complete vacuum in this
gray area, but now not so, since one
generated to medium ability before
ending the feeding.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In this out of place insert, I was
reading in the philosophy section,
and discovered the argument about if
there is evil in the world, that proves
that there is no benevolent, all
powerful omnipresent God. -That
either he wants to remove all evil, but
can't (and is therefore not all
powerful); or he IS able, but doesn't
want to (making him malevolent).
But my answer to this is that God IS
dealing with the evil in this world; and
that the situation we see today of
God to be nowhere in sight, with evil
running freely about with no almighty
Godly intervention, IS the process
whereby God is successfully dealing
with all the evil. Because
evil/destruction is a parasitic force
and not self sufficient; by just leaving
it alone, it self eliminates. For an
almighty or God the Father to come
down in power and richness/love to
confront evil/destruction, would just
provide the material for the force of
evil/destruction to grow. So that
Gods presence would just perpetuate
and encourage/grow evil. So to
eliminate evil, almighty God acts by
staying away; and sends a lesser
powered representative, Jesus Christ,
to separate these all-evils off human
actions so the evil is totally isolated
and can self eliminate. -these evils
that keep popping up due to people's
free will, whereby they are learning to
advance to be more and more
powerful as well as good. Now
because the moral evils
perpetrated by humans, demarks
areas where God stays away in his
process of eliminating evil; then
natural destructions that occur in
these same areas don't change that.
Hence Christ's words about natural
evils that the people caught in them
aren't any more sinful than others,
but that those not in him will all
likewise perish; indicating that those
who are in him, have the presence of
God to protect them; not on this
earth, but in that they die and are
resurrected again in perfection in
him. So that from a philosophical
sense, there is no trouble with the
existence of an almighty benevolent
God; although He is deliberately not
omnipresent; as a tool to remove evil.
However, God is omnipresent if you
count Jesus and the rest of us
underlings who work in the name of
Jesus.
Now then; unfortunately, many who
work in the name of Jesus, have so
irritated the rest of us with their
holier than though behavior and
inappropriate restriction of the sex
drive, that it is completely
understandable why some would try
to come up with a philosophical
argument against the existence of a
benevolent God. Its just that that is
incorrect as I hope I have eluded to.
Not that it can be proven absolutely
that God does exist. Where we are at
now, is that it isn't proven absolutely
either way whether God does exist or
does not exist. Gone is the proof that
God does not exist.
However, I think I have shown that
goodness/kindness is a superior force
over destructiveness; so that the
odds are good that a benevolent God
does exist, and that if not now, that
one may exist in the future; and if
that means that this future
benevolent God is not quite God but
is only a near God, an almost God
due to the fact that He did not always
exist, then so be it.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Let us now consider the force of
destruction:
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.
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. 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?)
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? 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?
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).)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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. 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?)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).
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. 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.
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, as there won't be enough
resources to share among us all.
-until we find a way to support even
more people, or join us all together as
one.
In this tangent, I had the opportunity
to hear the old song about the leader
of the pack, and sorry I hurt you
leader of the pack (of bikers).
Unfortunately for the leader of the
pack, he wipes out and dies, when
dumped by his girl at the request of
her father. (And if she wanted to be a
rebel herself, in the sexual area, that
would be incompatible with his desire
for a traditional relationship.) My
interpretation of this song, is that the
leader of the pack desired to settle
down with this girl in the respectable
way; ie this was his girl in the
traditional morality. But in other
areas of his life, this leader/biker was
not respectable and in fact was a
rebel to society: and that this
contradiction of/within the different
parts of his life, blew him away. Such
is the case with many. There are
many who hate religion and
denounce Christ, but who in the area
of sexuality, cling closely to the
traditional morality of one man one
woman and no cheating. These also,
help contribute to the end of the
world just as much as any religious
person.
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.)
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. I state
that at this level (that of an intact
human), that God's laws/rules over
human sexuality are not absolute
-are neither always approving nor
always disapproving of a couple's
sexuality. 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'. 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: 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
loving, as opposed to other criteria.
Let's consider what can be done and
how we can respond to the problem
of destructiveness/destruction.
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
and laws 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/perpetrato
rs 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.
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. 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). 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.
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). 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. 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.
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.
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. 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.
Let us consider where making up and
enforcing rules fits into this. 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.) 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.
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 -
just that it exists separately (although
not for long as it destroys itself).)
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.
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.
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. 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.
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). 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.
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.
But if we apply a rule either for or
against this gray action, then a
structure is put to the gray action, so
that 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.
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.
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.
When life that is mainly destructive,
acts, it produces an environment of
desolation.
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.
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. 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.) 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.
(This segment is repeated.) Let us
analyze goodness vs destructiveness,
and 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.
-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.
With these concepts in mind let's
consider the situation of the force of
destruction-and-death in a rich
environment. (Here in a rich
environment, note that the force of
good/growth DOES NOT have much or
any of its input raw material (which is
voids in life), and so it is not capable
of rapid growth.) Here, not only does
this force (of destruction) 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.
(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(which has more of its
input here, allowing for equal
growth footing/opportunity) to
get away from the force of
destruction. Once away from
destruction, the two forces are
alone, and the good survives
while the destruction self
consumes.)
(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)?
(Why do we prevent the force of good
from growing here, -keeping it from
its input (voids-which are scarce in
rich environments)? These rich
environments (which are full of
destruction's growth input) 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
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/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/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 at
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.
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.) And
once separate from the evil, the evil
has no food supply and it burns itself
out and disappears, while the good
survives.
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. 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.
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).
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).
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. 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.) The rules over gray areas
don't effectively quarantine its
destructiveness to the point it is
eliminated.
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.
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. 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.
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. 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.
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. 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. 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.
Also, let us realize that there can be a
competition between absolute good
ways and human ways. 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
(lesser/human) good there has
little life making it up (Recall, it
takes capability/life to do either
force, and voids can't do either
force), so it can't do much (even
though it has a lot of its
input(which is voids)). 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.)
-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.
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
babes/ 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.
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.
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) 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 (actually,
the semi phenomenal, slightly less
than absolute(but still quite capable
and above the barren lesser human
good)) goodness of the sogp/jesus
representation) 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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. 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.
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,
a vote if you will, that the individual
comes born with. 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.
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.
This again brings up the question that
someone may ask you: Do you
believe in God? 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. 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.
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.
Also 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.)
As 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.
When one hoards one's mate's
sexuality all to themselves, they
generate a rich area, where the input
of the force of good (voids) is in
scarce supply, and hence do make it
difficult for the force of good to grow
here; and also make it easy for the
force of destruction to grow here
(because the input of destruction
(life) is in rich supply). And since
destruction is invariably a part of this
imperfect human sexual area, it
invariably gets out and burns these
marriages down. After the
divorce/breakup, the couple is then
free to pair up with others, and start
new families, hence providing the
needed genetic mixing. Society's
needs are met for eternal
continuation, but this sure is sucky
and a lot of aggravation for the
individual. Maybe some individuals
will get a mind to try to do it
differently. Lets hope so.
Do you find having sex to be
pleasurable? If so, then why do you
prevent this imperfect force of good
from acting beyond your mate: thus
torturing/blocking this imperfect force
of good?
In the imperfect area of human
sexuality, some good and also some
destruction are generated. Why is
this imperfect good forced to live in a
rich area, where it has a hard time
finding its input -voids/improvements
to make, when there is right next
door, areas of barrenness that it
needs to make its goodness force
active? Why does one torture their
imperfect good this way?
When a couple marry, they attend to
each other and build up a rich area,
while they neglect others, and there
develops barren areas. In their rich
area, their human goodness finds
itself having an ever more difficult
time in finding its input of voids or
improvements to make (as this is
what a rich area does), hence ones
active human goodness here is
minimized and becomes small.
However, ones human goodness is
attracted to the barren areas where
there is plenty of its input, as this is
what forces of good do, that is move
onto areas where it can be useful and
fill needs, and out of areas that are
already satisfied. But this draws a
couple's attentions away from each
other, and eventually results in
divorce as they grow away from each
other. And then they remarry and
the cycle starts all over again. This
is a broken system and a waste of
everyone's time.
Now when the force of good builds
up all areas to richness, then it finds
itself in the same shortage of its input
(of improvements to make) as
happens right away in the marriage
situation. But as we know, the force
of good is able to bridge barriers and
keep on existing, even in the rich
situation. And in the marriage
situation, the human good here, also
does do some of this. -And in doing
so, allows evil to have access to
crossing barriers where it would
otherwise be unable to cross, since
destruction is part of all imperfect
human actions. This is a very unwise
way of doing things that favors and
succors evil/destructiveness. Quit it.
Stop that. First allow the human
goodness found in human actions to
free themselves of the human evils
they came born with by allowing
them to live in medium ability, and
not forcing them to cross barriers in
richness to survive while they are still
tied to this evil.
Since forcing a force of good to live in
rich areas (where it is starving for its
input of voids/improvements to
make), forces it to bridge barriers to
stay alive: the force of destruction
then is supplied with this ability to
bridge barriers which it would
otherwise not have. Thanks a lot.
You people who think you are doing
good and right by upholding the
conservative morality, are actually
making yourselves sources for the
force of evil/destruction.
In this situation, a spouse can
introduce a controlled amount of
meanness which will destroy the
richness down to medium ability so
that the pair's human good will not be
stifled and will not be forced to cross
barriers for the force of evil. Of
course, a couple can achieve this
same thing by being aloof from each
other, but that doesn't discount the
valid use of meanness in this
situation. Usually such all
destructiveness brings a change from
medium to barrenness, which is bad.
But here it is used instead to bring
down from richness to medium, which
is good. This may be why some
women like their men to treat them a
little rough and be domineering to
them, and make their marriage work
that way; allowing their human
goodness room to exist and act
without being squeezed by richness.
However, the people here need to
limit their meanness so that it only
burns down to medium ability, and
not down to barrenness. Better yet,
do not restrict your sexuality
according to the conservative way,
and you don't have to be mean at all. xxx
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.)
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. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Let me change the subject and go
over my latest structure
concerning feeding gray hungers and
casting out evils. But first, lets
review the earlier structure of the
sogp: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).
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Another complicated scenario that
can occur, goes like so: first the
sogp(or Jesus representation within
us) generates a human need(first in a
rarified way, then after concentrating
the rarified to medium level in one
half, leaving nothing human/gray in
the other half, and removing this gray
free half(which is itself); and then
later generating robustly to medium
level); and then removing itself away;
the gray/human need area now at
medium level, may or may not wish
to test its situation by going to high
level. If so, it may either find freedom
from all evil and heaven, or burn itself
down as caught by its own evil. In
these tests, the sogp stays separate
from this. But sometimes in the
middle of a test, need for additional
human need pops up. The sogp can
generate this new material (first in a
rarified way, then robustly) to
medium level. However, this material
being generated to medium level with
the presence of the sogp, needs an
additional action to keep it separate
from the test material that is going to
high level, even though they are both
of the same type of hunger satisfying.
Now, once the sogp separates away,
then this medium level hunger
satisfying can join the test material
(at its medium level or ramped up
also to high level, either way), and no
longer needs to be kept separate
from the test material. And of course,
if the test material finds that it is
incapable of generating what it
needs, or if evil is burning it too
much; it can come off of high level
and back to medium level; and once
it does, the sogp can then come in
and generate new things in it also;
and then it can again test to high
level, or not, if it wishes.
Eventually material breaks free of all
evil and joins heavenly, all good
material: a small fraction of that new
high all good material to split off and
join the sogp. -the
sogp keeping separate from both the
high all good material, and the
gray/human material as best it can.
Now for my latest structure:
As we have discovered, there is the
directive for rest and pampering the
individual components; that must be
balanced against the directive for
action in group endevors, so that
both directives are grown/advanced
(as opposed to only the group
directive being grown. This is
expressed by increasing the intensity
of our doing of an action: -and this
represents the group directive within
us; while when we act to relax and
decrease the intensity of doing any
specific action: -this represents the
individual components directive
(within us). (This is because, to do
any focussed or specific action, we
must mobilize our individual
components to act collectively, in
unison as a group, to do the action.
Thus when we relax, the group
directive is lessened, leaving room for
the individual components to be more
emphasized. So that we could pursue
a moderate and thus balanced doing
of an action, and this would represent
perfection in the choice to balance
these two directives. And this
material would be spirited off to
heaven to join with the high good.
But in order to have a Jesus Christ
representation or sogp within us to be
able to respond to things in the gray
areas, another way to choose this
balancing the directives can be done.
And that is to go at high intensity of
doing an action for a period of time,
and then to switch to low or no
intensity doing that action for the
same period of time, and cycle back
and forth like this. At no specific point
in time does this representation act in
perfect balance of these directives, so
it cannot be taken up into the high
parts. But overall, it still represents a
choice for balancing the two
directives yet does so as a separate
Jesus Christ entity within us that is
separate or away from both the high
parts and the gray areas.
Realize that when obtaining a gray
area good/feeding a hunger, that the
moderate doing of an action (which is
working its way into perfection to
eventually join the high parts); and
the sogp's cycling between high and
low intensity doing of that action; do
exist side by side: -with the moderate
doing of the action being the only one
present when the sogp is in its rest
part of its cycle.
However, there is no moderate non
cycling doing of a casting out evil
action (eventually to join with the
high good) because the high good
removes itself from all evil and does
not do/include any casting out gray
area evils action, and that is the sole
domain of the sogp.
Now, when the sogp is generating to
medium ability in a gray area, what
cycle period/frequency does it do?
Well, if the sogp was active for a long
time (and then rested for a long time)
then a high ability generating would
be done (from the long active period).
But if the sogp cycled rapidly back
and forth, then only a small or low
amount could be done each period
the sogp was active. And if the sogp
had to start over each time (due to
the evil of the gray area consuming
what was produced in the previous
cycle because the good produced
couldn't get away from the evil at
that low ability level), then this
generating would remain at low ability.
But, if the sogp cycled at a medium
period, then the desired medium
ability would be generated in the gray
area. When the sogp isn't responding
to gray area hungers, it can put
itself at fairly high ability level, but
when a hunger pops up, the sogp
needs to come back to generating at
medium level.
Now, concerning the casting out of
evil:
when the sogp is casting out an evil
(non destructively as possible of
course), it is debatable how it should
do it. (But however it does it, it cycles
alone, as there is no moderate non
cycling casting out evil that is
working towards joining the high
parts, since casting out evil is solely
the domain of the sogp.)
There is no good in an all evil being
cast out, so there's no need to do it at
medium ability, because this is not a
gray action (it is an all evil) and there
is no goodness to be salvaged. And
the sooner it is removed, the better
off all will be. So the indication is that
is should be done at full bore until its
action is complete (however long that
takes) (and then of course, the sogp
would rest for an equally long length
of time). But this puts that sogp out
of commission for that time, unable
to respond to other gray things.
And then there's the possibility that
the high ability material (generated
at full bore) used to cast out the evil,
may be infected by the evil and be
burned down. (Well, nobody said evil
had to be cast out always at full bore,
and if an evil seems to be able to
resist a full bore casting out, then a
medium bore casting out would be a
good thing to try before one thinks
the evil is unstoppable and unable to
be cast out.
Note that even if the sogp at full bore
is unsuccessful at casting out an all
evil (from a gray area)' it is successful
at preventing the evil from infecting
the high good (which is another
one of the sogp's directives). -While
the evil is detained dealing with
/infecting the lower ability sogp at
high bore, the high good is able to
get away. But of course the sogp is
burned down and is 'expended',
leaving the gray area still in need of
having an all evil cast out.
A solution to all this, is to have a two
tier structure.
To respond to a need:
One sogp only generates and grows
more new sogp, (doesn't do any
response action), and does so at a
cycle frequency that puts it at
medium ability. The newly generated
sogp from this, then does the
response action, and in this case
casts out the evil at a constant on or
full bore cycle frequency, (but some
medium bore casting out evil can be
thrown in if need be).
The generator sogp should generate
each new response sogp in separate
locations so if one response sogp
fails, other response sogp can step in
to take its place or not even if it fails,
but just to relieve older response
sogp after some point and let them rest.
The response sogp sometimes can be
considered as like gray material as
they often bear the brunt of
destructiveness; leaving the
generator sogp to actually experience
what a sogp was meant for.
Now, let's analyze how this new structure works with feeding gray
hungers. -(This has an additional
component that casting out evil
doesn't have, which is a smaller
portion of a non cycling moderate
intensity action which is not sogp or
when it joins the high parts will no
longer be sogp, representing a return
flow out of the sogp and gray area
back to the high parts.)
The task of generating new sogp, vs,
the task of response to satisfy a gray
hunger, may have different cycling
frequencies (to put them at medium
ability); and this can be achieved with
our 2 tier structure.
A trouble with the inherent cycling
frequency of a gray hunger though, is
that if done at full bore, the high
ability generated may be burned
down by the evil in the gray action
and it would then take a long time if
ever to satisfy the hunger, thus
making the inherent frequency
infinite. So that if one interrupted
their feeding of their gray hunger
with a cycling frequency that
generated medium ability, then the
evil in the hunger wouldn't be able to
burn it down, and this would put one
much closer to satisfying the hunger
in a much shorter time than if one
went full bore with no interruption of
their feeding. Once one is much
closer, one may opt to go full bore in
the final stretch, especially if the
moderate cycle interruption of the
feeding is preventing its final
satisfaction. But remember, going at
medium bore in the response sogp is
one of the things that differentiates
feeding a hunger vs casting out an
evil.
But of course, one never goes full
bore but always goes at medium
bore/cycling frequency with the
GENERATOR sogp. -and then may or
may not go at medium bore with the
responder sogp when satisfying a
gray hunger. -and when casting out
an evil, the responder sogp is done
at full bore all the time; and also,
there is no side by side non cycling
moderate intensity component
working to join the high parts when
casting out evil.
Now, after the hunger is satisfied, all
the sogp involved don't go into a long
cycle frequency as previously
thought, but go into a NON CYCLING
(perfectly balanced) moderate
intensity mode, and may join the high
good parts for a time -only to leave
the high good parts by cycling again
in response to a new hunger or
casting out evil. Now, casting out
evil doesn't involve any moderate
intensity non cycling material; and
the response sogp is mostly done full
bore without much medium
frequency/bore cycling -to medium
ability (unlike the satisfying of a gray
hunger). And when the response
sogp's casting out evil task is
complete, these response sogp go
into a long rest, and are out of
commission for a long time.
But once its rest is finished, it can go
to the non cycling (perfect balance)
moderate intensity, and join the high
parts for awhile, until it is needed
again for response action, or to now
be generator sogp (in support of
response action).
I have just been informed of a
potential flaw in these methods. The
reason we cycle between high and
low intensity doing of an action, is to
detain this material from passing to
the high good parts, so that we can
maintain a jesus representation, or
sogp, that is separate from the high
parts. But doing an action at high
intensity, and low intensity, at some
level, causes there to be rich areas,
and barren areas; which is just what
we don't want for separation of the
forces, (and then moving on to the
high parts). However, our human
earthly life if full of actions which do
all good to one area, while doing all
destruction to another area. This is
the nature of our gray/human actions.
And all we need to do, is to not afix
them to any one particular structure,
which allows them to generate
medium ability in these areas. The
moderate cycling frequency between
high and low intensity, or rich and
barrenness, allows this same medium
level to be obtained at some points in
time. So that although material may
be detained as together with evil so
as to maintain a jesus representation;
it is not held there for excessive
periods of time. As we cycle between
rich and barren intensity doing of an
action, a medium intensity doing of
the action is crossed many times as
we cycle at a moderate cycling
frequency; thus giving material there
many chances of escape/freedom
from evil, so that it is not detained
there indefinitely.
When the response sogp goes at full
bore in casting out an evil; and when
it goes at full bore in the final stages
of satisfying a hunger, note that when
the generator sogp comes back on
line (after its rest period), that it
generates new response sogp to
continue going at full bore, and that
the new response sogp does replace
the old response sogp so that the old
response sogp can go into a rest
period. This way, no response sogp
has to be in a rich environment
indefinitely, but can also cycle
between rich and barren, thus
generating the medium level in what
it is acting on. Of course, the cycling
frequency is twice as long as that of
the generator sogp, so its swings in
intensity may have to be lowered
compared to that of the generator
sogp, (for perfect balance).
Then there is the consideration that
because the high good parts don't do
casting out evil or feeding human
hungers, that to do this, itself, does
separate the sogp away from the high
good parts; and the cycling between
high and low intensity is thus not
needed to achieve this, and a much
simpler medium intensity (without all
this cycling) can be used instead.
There may be other reasons why we
may need to go at high intensity in
achieving satisfaction of a hunger or
casting out evil, but this main reason
would no longer be valid. However,
whenever any human material acts in
medium ability, it does free itself
from its evil and being evil free, is
ripe to join the high good parts. The
casting out evil acts may circumvent
all this cycling (and be a separate
entity from the high good parts just
by doing their action), but the
satisfying hungers does not, or not for
long. Note that action at high and low
intensity does cause rich and barren
areas in the material that is doing
these actions. And this does prevent
the human evil within it from
separating away. (This is what allows
a separate entity of the sogp to
exist.) But once the human hunger is
satisfied, we should then do that
material at medium intensity so it is
not longstandingly detained with its
human evil. When another hunger
pops up, this material (of the sogp)
can again leave the high good parts
to be the separate entity of the sogp.
And if too many hungers pop up in a
row, a break should be taken so the
sogp material can rest in the high
good parts (by no longer cycling, but
doing at medium intensity) and let
new sogp material take up the cause.
So as a result of this alert, the casting
out all evils that the sogp does, may
not have to be done as this
complicated cycling, but as a much
simpler medium intensity action. But
of course there may be times when a
high intensity casting out evil may be
needed, and then this more complex
cycling can still be used.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Here is an insert:
THE TRAP OF EVIL:
We live in a world with both good and
evil. Why couldn't we have had a
world with good only? The reason we
have evil along with the good in our
world, is because evil is one of the
POSSIBILITIES -that living things can
do. (Without life, no actions (good or
evil) are possible. But with life; both
good and/or evil are possible actions
from that life.) Given a world of both
good and evil; our actions thus then
contain (both) some good -(growth)
as well as some evil -(destruction).
Thus when we do actions to obtain a
desired thing, we as life usually do
some of both good and evil, in
obtaining this thing. LIFE CAUSES
GROWTH Employers never consider
hiring my pet rock for a job. No,
rocks/inanimate objects are not
expected to produce growth. It takes
life and living things to cause change
and produce growth/ -The more 'alive'
something is, the more growth it can
cause. The idea of nurturing life to
get it to produce more growth, forms
one side of an argument/counter-
argument: On one hand, we can say
we should nurture life to the max so it
will produce more growth. But on the
other hand we can point out that if
we make life too cushy, there'll be no
motivation to work; people will take
advantage of our good nature; sit
around, relax (slacker), and won't do
any work. We must let them know we
mean business, and reward only
when the job is done, or even punish
for work not up to standards. (argues
those in favor of rewards). But
nurture is needed to edify life: -life
which enables us to produce the
required growths. -Two conflicting
arguments. What shall we believe?
Realize that just because you failed to
produce the growths they want,
doesn't mean you've done a
destructive act. But they may do
destructive acts to you for not
producing the growths.
Enter the factor of destruction: There
is usually more than one way to do a
thing. Some ways involve taking
shortcuts and disregarding the harm
they cause. But out of all the possible
ways; there is still usually one way to
do a complete job, without
destruction. -A way that contains no
harm. -And, It takes more resources
to do something in this 'right' way. To
obtain the thing without harm, we'd
have to neutralize the harmful parts
of ways containing evil, (Or, we could
severely limit our possibilities and
reject all ways containing harm). This
would require more effort than if we
did the thing the way it came
naturally -(with both good and evil).
Again: -The limited selection we have
when we reject ways containing
harm, often means we loose the
easiest ways, just by probability.
-Plus, it takes more resources to
neutralize a harmful aspect of a way
and do a complete job, than to just
let the harm happen. Thus it takes
more capability-power-life to obtain
things with a purity in our actions
(that is, free of harm). So we can do
much more individually with what
little we have when we're open to all
possible ways irregardless of the
harm they cause (in our search for
the most productive way), and don't
'waste' resources trying to neutralize
the harm of our ways. So when we're
short-on-resources, this often forces
us to use ways containing harm.
When short-on-resources we may not
have enough resources to do a thing
evil free, BUT we can still usually do it
if we lower our standards and allow
harm in our ways. (Because we can
do more* in the short run/individually/
locally if we allow harm in our ways;
(*with our scanty resources).)
Unfortunately, this harm we allow
catches up to us. As a collective
group we find ourselves trapped at
being short on resources because the
collective harm from our ways lowers
us all and keeps us short-on
resources; since harming destroys
resources. The harm we allow as we
strive to be the best, win the
competition, and produce the
absolute most; catches up to us,
collectively. When someone builds up
life, but then another person knocks it
down: and when life/things keep(s)
getting built up and knocked back
down over and over again; a system
of stagnation takes form. And this
stagnant system traps us, because
collectively we cannot get ahead.
Like a process may make a good
product and income for a few, but
also pollute the environment, and
overall cause more harm than good.
We can usually do more and be a bit
more productive in the short
run/locally/individually if we allow
harm in our ways. But this harm we
allow, keeps us all short-on-resources
in the long run. ((Statement#1;)-And
being short on resources forces us to
accept ways containing harm.) And
doing this harm destroys resources
and collectively keeps us all short on
resources. Go to Statement #1.
As we can see, This is a trap. That
once fallen into, cannot easily be
gotten out of. So we should not be so
concerned with winning in
competition and who can generate
the highest production as a sole
criteria. We should more importantly
look at how evil free a 'production'
is. So we should nurture life as much
as possible, so we are at as high
capability as possible and are not
short on resources, so that we do
things with much less harm in our
ways, -and thus avoid this trap of evil.
It is important for us to be well
nurtured (loved) and at high
capability to have the extra resources
needed to grow evil free. -So when
we produce and do things (in an evil
free way); that we do advance and
grow overall. We thus overall provide
escape from the trap and system of
destruction, which is the stagnant
system.
End important inserts)
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.
Note that a woman who is looking for
happiness through marriage to a
man, will be disappointed 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
unbalanced and severely beholding
to it.
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. 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 permitted 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
possible 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.
Some mock that others feel they are
entitled to this or that. And this is
understandable because even with all
the hard work these people do, they
have to fight management tooth and
nail to be entitled to the pay they do
receive. -So that how could one who
does no work at all ever hope to
receive/be entitled to anything?
But, now a call to all the self starters
out there/ self start this:
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 squawk 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 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 ourselves 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.
And while I am recanting positions,
let me recant somewhat my
opposition to the conservative
breeding program that creates
unbalanced 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 coming
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 presupposition
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.
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 successfully 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.
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 sufficient individuals
to achieve medium ability in this
situation, whereas non self sufficient
individuals would be at low ability in
this situation (which is undesirable). -
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 dissolve any
allegiance 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.
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.
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. (and it soon self
consumes itself and disappears).
(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).)
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. 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. 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.
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 the first read,
-too complicated:
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. Here is another
segment that is best skipped due to its overly complex nature: 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.
End SKIPPED SEGMENTS
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.
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(also referred to as 'sogp'), 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.
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 away 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. 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.
*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. 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
replenishments from the high good
area. Still, the connection to the
human gray area is tentative 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 vacuums 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 (and to
block any impure or all evil action
from trying to get to the high good).
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 simultaneously a
coordinated effort between the not-
human high-good parts of ourself,
and our one way gift, to keep the
high parts completely 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.
(This starts to get too complex) 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 coalesces
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
receive, 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. 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 coming 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 isolation.) 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 coming out of
isolation at this time, uses its
released half to also push into
release, that previously unreleased
material from the other half.
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 intelligence 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.
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 intelligence 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 intelligence then
chooses a part of itself to split off and
become a new level, which
commences 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 insufficient 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
satisfying, leaving the broader
hunger satisfying, with the broader
area intelligence (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
intelligence in the broader area is
wise to lay still and look to the aloof
one way gift part. Yes, in these
occurrences, the one way gift breaks
from its aloofness, and comes in to
replenish back to medium, these way
low parts; and then thereafter goes
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 /no longer as it is not
near the beginning/.
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.
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 it's 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.
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.
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.
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).
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 supersede 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.
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.
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 south park's 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.
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.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxx 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.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxx 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.
Speaking 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 reproductiveness 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. 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.
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.
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.
Note that there are those, mainly
conservatives, who emphasize the
negative/bad aspects of sexuality,
while omitting the positive/good
aspects. Yes, human sexuality is
imperfect. But are we of a caliper to
be able to replace it with something
better? If not, then all the bantering
and over emphasizing sexuality's
negatives, is just a ploy for them to
advance their conservative structure
on human sexuality; which itself acts
as an all evil to prey on human
sexuality; causing much damage. Do
not bring up the negativeness of
child molestation (which is most
probably all bad/destructive/evil) to
distract us from the all
bad/destructiveness/evil of the
conservative way. They should both
be cast out and off of human
sexuality.
I personally know of no child
molesters trying to infringe on my
personal sexuality nor the sexuality
of any child. But I am aware of many
people in the name of the
conservative way who make it clear
of their intent to regulate my and
everyone else's personal sexuality.
Thus I feel the removal of the
conservative way from human
sexuality is more urgent. End insert.
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. -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.
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 the
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.
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.
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). 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. This 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.
-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 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 evil, including 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.
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. 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 it's 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 it's
not for us to do this; that it's not our
job. (This is quite different from how
our richer more powerful bosses here
on earth treat us.) 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. 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.
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.
Next represents some very
interesting material, but not
necessarily completely what my
current position is.
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.
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.
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.
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, due to the fact that many
of the actions available to me
produce both good and destruction
(in destruction different areas) out of
the same action.
This just restates the previous
paragraph:
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.
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.
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. )
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.
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.
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. 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.) 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.
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. 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.
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.
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.
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?
|
Having problems with message search?
Fill out this form to ensure your group is one of the first to be migrated to the new message search system.
Offline 
Send Email
