People are so dehumanized and so numb that something that would have been an unbelievable unheard of outrage, such as this filmed stunt of a teenager flinging a crying baby across the room, several decades ago is now just the daily dose of people's hatred of babies and their inability to relate to babies as helpless humans, not small and tiny no talk fuck holes or abuse punching bags. I'm sorry to be so blunt but nothing seems to be getting through about the crisis that humanity (such as it is) is within. Every day there are more stories and every day there's the Greek chorus of Americans who think that it's just "one nut" doing these things. Each case is explained away as an individual event, rather than being seen clearly as being enabled by the tide of sewage and insane unreality of life that is engulfing "society" and this country as a whole.
http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/stories/2008/07/02/baby_thrown_video.html?cxntlid=homepage_tab_newstab
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
How cultists fool pious/needy gulliable Christians
Here's another lesson in discernment.
How do people who claim to have "visions" of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Jesus, or other divine beings do it? How do they get so many people to believe them?
Well, there's always a pool of spiritually poor people who are seeking. These people often lack confidence in themselves in their personal lives, and therefore they are very likely to believe that someone has a "special" ability that they themselves don't have. So people with poor self esteem are more likely to believe that some person claims to see Mary "daily" because they are vulnerable to believing someone else's "specialness," that they themselves don't feel. People who lack strong faith that is grounded on knowing that they are all equal before God tend to think that there are "special" people who have "special" "gifts" and "spiritual access."
The second way people are fooled is that these people are careful to give good safe messages, such as "Mary said to pray," "Mary said to pray," "Mary said to pray." They learned their lesson when they tried to manipulate September 11, 2001 to try to "predict the next attack" or milk some divine message out of it, but none of that panned out or made any sense. So they are back to the tried and true "safe" messages that have nothing to do with doctrine or warnings. So people think, "Oh well, what's the harm in believing these 'visionaries?' They are just telling us to pray!"
The third way people are fooled is the people seem sincere and modest. Trust me, if you really saw Jesus or Mary, you'd be transformed in a way that is indescribable. The gullible think that "Oh, she's the same humble person even though 'Mary speaks to her.' She must be authentic because she's soooooo humble and unchanged." Um, read the Bible. No one is the same after encountering true divine revelation.
The fourth way they fool you is they fool themselves. They really think they are seeing or hearing "Mary" or some other divinity. The innocent explanation is that they cannot distinguish between their own unconscious thoughts and urges and reality. This is quite common as people in this media crazy age are less grounded in reality, and less able to edit their own thoughts that come from a variety of personal issues or neediness.
The not innocent explanation is that they are hooked up with someone they believe is either the divinity reincarnated or someone who is psychic who is hooked up with someone they think is the divinity, either mentally or via stalking a person they think is the reincarnated divinity. So they get a photo of this person and can look you in the eyes and say, sounding like butter would not melt in their mouths, "I saw Mary today." What they mean is: 1) I saw the person I think is Mary reincarnated 2) I saw a psychic who thinks he or she is in touch with Mary and he or she "shared" their "channeling" with me 3) I took out my copy of a photo of someone I think is Mary or who talks to Mary and looked at it, and gosh, is that not "within the spirit of the truth so I can say I 'saw' 'Mary'?"
Oh, and here's another way to "smell a rat" among these "visionaries." Notice they tend to be obsessive about reporting the "times" that they have their "visions." They also tend to post their own birthdays on their web sites. This is because they are practicing occult beliefs, namely astrology and numerology. I mean, if no one else can see the apparitions, then who cares about exacts "times" that Mary or etc. appeared, and doubly "who cares" about the birthdays of these "visionaries?" We don't even know what century some true martyrs died, say nothing about ooooooh loooook she's an Aquarius...... no wonder Mary appears to her......oooooh ooooooh. And she appeared at 9:40! oooooooh that adds up to "Mary's" number of "13"......ohooooohhhhooooo how "holy" and "authenticating."
They think God does not see all of this manipulation and know the truth. Oh boy, are they in trouble, as are all who support them. Hell will be paid, and you can take that to your time stamped bank.
How do people who claim to have "visions" of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Jesus, or other divine beings do it? How do they get so many people to believe them?
Well, there's always a pool of spiritually poor people who are seeking. These people often lack confidence in themselves in their personal lives, and therefore they are very likely to believe that someone has a "special" ability that they themselves don't have. So people with poor self esteem are more likely to believe that some person claims to see Mary "daily" because they are vulnerable to believing someone else's "specialness," that they themselves don't feel. People who lack strong faith that is grounded on knowing that they are all equal before God tend to think that there are "special" people who have "special" "gifts" and "spiritual access."
The second way people are fooled is that these people are careful to give good safe messages, such as "Mary said to pray," "Mary said to pray," "Mary said to pray." They learned their lesson when they tried to manipulate September 11, 2001 to try to "predict the next attack" or milk some divine message out of it, but none of that panned out or made any sense. So they are back to the tried and true "safe" messages that have nothing to do with doctrine or warnings. So people think, "Oh well, what's the harm in believing these 'visionaries?' They are just telling us to pray!"
The third way people are fooled is the people seem sincere and modest. Trust me, if you really saw Jesus or Mary, you'd be transformed in a way that is indescribable. The gullible think that "Oh, she's the same humble person even though 'Mary speaks to her.' She must be authentic because she's soooooo humble and unchanged." Um, read the Bible. No one is the same after encountering true divine revelation.
The fourth way they fool you is they fool themselves. They really think they are seeing or hearing "Mary" or some other divinity. The innocent explanation is that they cannot distinguish between their own unconscious thoughts and urges and reality. This is quite common as people in this media crazy age are less grounded in reality, and less able to edit their own thoughts that come from a variety of personal issues or neediness.
The not innocent explanation is that they are hooked up with someone they believe is either the divinity reincarnated or someone who is psychic who is hooked up with someone they think is the divinity, either mentally or via stalking a person they think is the reincarnated divinity. So they get a photo of this person and can look you in the eyes and say, sounding like butter would not melt in their mouths, "I saw Mary today." What they mean is: 1) I saw the person I think is Mary reincarnated 2) I saw a psychic who thinks he or she is in touch with Mary and he or she "shared" their "channeling" with me 3) I took out my copy of a photo of someone I think is Mary or who talks to Mary and looked at it, and gosh, is that not "within the spirit of the truth so I can say I 'saw' 'Mary'?"
Oh, and here's another way to "smell a rat" among these "visionaries." Notice they tend to be obsessive about reporting the "times" that they have their "visions." They also tend to post their own birthdays on their web sites. This is because they are practicing occult beliefs, namely astrology and numerology. I mean, if no one else can see the apparitions, then who cares about exacts "times" that Mary or etc. appeared, and doubly "who cares" about the birthdays of these "visionaries?" We don't even know what century some true martyrs died, say nothing about ooooooh loooook she's an Aquarius...... no wonder Mary appears to her......oooooh ooooooh. And she appeared at 9:40! oooooooh that adds up to "Mary's" number of "13"......ohooooohhhhooooo how "holy" and "authenticating."
They think God does not see all of this manipulation and know the truth. Oh boy, are they in trouble, as are all who support them. Hell will be paid, and you can take that to your time stamped bank.
Wow, Virgin Mary must be bored and blind
She "appears daily" to these couple of "visionaries" telling people to "pray." Are you sure you aren't misunderstanding her dialect, and maybe she's saying "Stop preying on people?"
Jesus needs to give Mary some real work to do if she's chosen these "visionaries" to appear to day after day after day after day after day (except when they are skiing I guess) just to tell people to "pray." Gosh, has Mary noticed abortion? Has Mary noticed mental illness crisis? The Sudan? The high price of oil making food unaffordable? Mary seems to have lost her touch as "full of grace" if all she does is have her daily chat with these "visionaries."
Give me a break. Folks hello? Can you spell hysterical and manipulative?
http://www.al.com/news/birminghamnews/index.ssf?/base/news/121498651550840.xml&coll=2&thispage=2
Jesus needs to give Mary some real work to do if she's chosen these "visionaries" to appear to day after day after day after day after day (except when they are skiing I guess) just to tell people to "pray." Gosh, has Mary noticed abortion? Has Mary noticed mental illness crisis? The Sudan? The high price of oil making food unaffordable? Mary seems to have lost her touch as "full of grace" if all she does is have her daily chat with these "visionaries."
Give me a break. Folks hello? Can you spell hysterical and manipulative?
http://www.al.com/news/birminghamnews/index.ssf?/base/news/121498651550840.xml&coll=2&thispage=2
Tuesday, July 1, 2008
Guilt free popcorn recipe
Warning: Experienced and careful adult cooks only please! This involves working with hot oil.
I don't like fake butter and I've read the same as all of you about the dangers of the ingredients that go into the yellow goop that bagged microwaveable popcorn contains. So here is how I make my popcorn.
I use a large frying pan with a transparent lid top. I use Emeril cookware and love it. Use popcorn that you buy in a jar or a sack that is not packaged for microwave, such as what I am using, "Orville Redenbacher's Original" that comes in a 30 oz plastic jar.
Pour olive oil into the cold frying pan to a depth that is more than coating the bottom. A good gauge is to put one kernel of popcorn in the center of the pan, the oil should come up about half way up the kernel in depth. Leaving the one kernel in the pan, cover and bring it to high heat (on my range I heat to 7 out of 10). Stand by and wait for the test kernel to pop. When it does, pour the remaining popcorn in quickly, which you have pre-measured (I find about 7-8 spoonfuls work in the large pan). Immediately cover. You don't have to shake the pan continually, but I tend to tip it from side to side so the oil moves a bit until the corn all starts to pop. It will pop quickly, and when the sound of popping stops take it off the heat right away. With a transparent lid you can also see how the popping is going, and that's always fun. Kids can peak but shoo them away before you remove the lid, for reasons I explain below. Also be sure the lid fits well and that you did not use too much popcorn. If the lid is not the right size for the pan it is very dangerous because hot oil will spatter through the crack. Likewise if you use too much popcorn it will force the lid upward as it expands, pushing it out of position and also creating a hot oil spatter hazard. Experiment with small amounts of popcorn first to see what amount fits your pan's capacity.
The pan will be enormously hot so be careful. When you remove the lid, tilt it slightly holding it over the popcorn still in the pan. Some hot oil will have collected on the lid and what you want is to tilt it so it runs back onto the popcorn. It will hiss and be very hot so be careful. When you've done that dump the popcorn from the pan into your serving bowl, and a glass one works great. Season the popcorn with salt (I like using coarse sea salt from a grinder). Serve.
See, you are not using butter or margarine (or fake goop) at all for the flavoring; it all comes from the olive oil, which is 100 percent healthy and safe. It's more subtle than butter but it is delicious. I'm eating some now in fact as I type this. If you just use olive oil instead of butter even half the times you have popcorn, it's a great improvement, since olive oil is one of those heart and other bodily organ healthy "miracle foods."
I re-emphasize only adult cooks experienced with cooking in grease or oil should do this. Remember that the pan will be very hot when you are done and will make a steam explosion if you put it into any water, so let it cool off first on one of the back burners of your stove. When you do start to cool it with water, use professional cook safety instructions which is to start with just a few drops of water to trigger the steam, very very VERY gradually dripping a few drops of water over the surface. One of the basics you learn in cooking is that a pan that has been heated with grease or oil becomes very hot and the remaining oil can create explosive and damaging steam if doused with water before it has completely cooled.
Enjoy! And please do this safely!!!
I don't like fake butter and I've read the same as all of you about the dangers of the ingredients that go into the yellow goop that bagged microwaveable popcorn contains. So here is how I make my popcorn.
I use a large frying pan with a transparent lid top. I use Emeril cookware and love it. Use popcorn that you buy in a jar or a sack that is not packaged for microwave, such as what I am using, "Orville Redenbacher's Original" that comes in a 30 oz plastic jar.
Pour olive oil into the cold frying pan to a depth that is more than coating the bottom. A good gauge is to put one kernel of popcorn in the center of the pan, the oil should come up about half way up the kernel in depth. Leaving the one kernel in the pan, cover and bring it to high heat (on my range I heat to 7 out of 10). Stand by and wait for the test kernel to pop. When it does, pour the remaining popcorn in quickly, which you have pre-measured (I find about 7-8 spoonfuls work in the large pan). Immediately cover. You don't have to shake the pan continually, but I tend to tip it from side to side so the oil moves a bit until the corn all starts to pop. It will pop quickly, and when the sound of popping stops take it off the heat right away. With a transparent lid you can also see how the popping is going, and that's always fun. Kids can peak but shoo them away before you remove the lid, for reasons I explain below. Also be sure the lid fits well and that you did not use too much popcorn. If the lid is not the right size for the pan it is very dangerous because hot oil will spatter through the crack. Likewise if you use too much popcorn it will force the lid upward as it expands, pushing it out of position and also creating a hot oil spatter hazard. Experiment with small amounts of popcorn first to see what amount fits your pan's capacity.
The pan will be enormously hot so be careful. When you remove the lid, tilt it slightly holding it over the popcorn still in the pan. Some hot oil will have collected on the lid and what you want is to tilt it so it runs back onto the popcorn. It will hiss and be very hot so be careful. When you've done that dump the popcorn from the pan into your serving bowl, and a glass one works great. Season the popcorn with salt (I like using coarse sea salt from a grinder). Serve.
See, you are not using butter or margarine (or fake goop) at all for the flavoring; it all comes from the olive oil, which is 100 percent healthy and safe. It's more subtle than butter but it is delicious. I'm eating some now in fact as I type this. If you just use olive oil instead of butter even half the times you have popcorn, it's a great improvement, since olive oil is one of those heart and other bodily organ healthy "miracle foods."
I re-emphasize only adult cooks experienced with cooking in grease or oil should do this. Remember that the pan will be very hot when you are done and will make a steam explosion if you put it into any water, so let it cool off first on one of the back burners of your stove. When you do start to cool it with water, use professional cook safety instructions which is to start with just a few drops of water to trigger the steam, very very VERY gradually dripping a few drops of water over the surface. One of the basics you learn in cooking is that a pan that has been heated with grease or oil becomes very hot and the remaining oil can create explosive and damaging steam if doused with water before it has completely cooled.
Enjoy! And please do this safely!!!
More about charitable giving / cult delusions
In my previous blog post I explain how a surprising number of people dispense their largess to the little people and call it "charity" according to how they think it will benefit them in their "astrology charts." They don't generally care or are not imaginative enough to think of where the need is truly the greatest, and the most logical. So people with "lots of Leo" will tend to give to "sports and arts" while those with "strong 12Th houses" will tend to "donate" to "hidden places" such as "hospitals and prisons." I wish I was joking but I am not. They tend to choose from a bizarre menu that they feel is "given to them" based on hokum about "karma," what I call "manipulative past lives" (people claim to have them and know what to 'do' about them and worse, abuse others according to their mistaken beliefs). So they honestly do not even think of doing charitable work "around the clock" in areas that are identified through regular normal fact based human kindness and logic.
Here's an example of the difference between me and them. When I first had generous paychecks with money that I could reliably spend on helping others, I decided to do sponsorship of children, like many millions of people do. In these programs you send money on a monthly basis in order to help a specific child stay in school, meet basic school needs, etc. There are many famous programs. I decided to select one that deals exclusively with Native Americans here in the USA. Why? Two reasons. One is that I grew up near a reservation, so to me it's not an exotic far away need but a "local issue." I saw as a child the poverty first hand, since my mother and I would drive to the reservation to buy apples and corn. Charity is best and strongest when you get involved with people and situations that you know something about yourself. The second reason is that there were many scandals during that time about poverty in the USA. The great expose about Appalachia and its hidden, deep poverty was a huge topic during my formation as a future charitable giver. I could not understand giving to international programs without giving even more to solve the poverty situation here in the USA. And so those were the two reasons I researched a number of worthy organizations but quickly chose the one exclusively for Native Americans.
Now, I know, even though no one has ever said this (or anything else honest) to my face that the cultists who stalked me never realized that I selected Native American charity for such a simple reason. They are blinded by their own lenses of stereotyping everything as having hidden motivations. And so my several decades of sponsorship and even more "incriminating" (from their point of view) interest in Indian culture could only mean.... yep, you guessed it, "past lives," "Karma," "the great injustice of the robber baron white man," "where are Injuns in her astrology chart, drool" and all sorts of conclusions that I was "drawn" to the Indians for "spiritual" reasons. Yes, I liked reading about their culture (not so much the history) and also their religious practices. I mean, duh, you know who I am by now. Of course I'd be interested in their religious practices. But that doesn't mean I was going at is as a "questor" who is "trying to find answers" or worse, "endorsing a *said in pretentious tone* P-A-T-H-W-A-Y." Yikes.
And so over the past several decades there have been HORRIBLE cascading events and oppressive decisions made by cultists in control because they were too damn arrogant and stupid to actually ask me, "Why did you choose to select Native American child sponsorship?"
If they had asked me this question, they would have learned not only the truth about many things (there is no such thing as reincarnation, it is always a good time to be charitable, and the best charity is where the need is the greatest when the need is the greatest) but they also would have learned another essential thing about me. They would have learned that I am vehemently against abortion and that by investing in the Native American families who I sponsored, many of whom oppose birth control because of their understandable genocidal concerns, I was expressing in the pragmatic dollars and cents way my support of large families that use neither birth control nor condone abortions. My conversations with them were very informative of my previously held belief that the way to fight abortion is to coalition with people who love children and who want to have large families, it's as simple as that. By coalition I mean to make it financially and otherwise feasible for those who might feel pressure to abort to be able to have their child, even if it means subsidizing them. Yes, I told you, I'm a liberal, in the proud, not dirty, sense of the tradition. As I've blogged before I believe that if society organized around charities in order to help surprise pregnancies result in live births instead of abortions, through money and educational/job alternatives and a strong system of adoption and orphanages, we'd not have seen the murder of millions of preborn babies in this country. My long term commitment to the Native Americans was the amount that I could personally afford of expressing support based on this set of values and how I felt practical help is better than confrontation or ignoring when it comes to the scourge of abortion in this country.
Now, my families were not ever thinking of abortion, as I said, they told me this is a dire reminder of genocidal times and against their pro-life values (though this of course is changing as the pro aborts and secular society target the poor young Indian youth). So I'm not saying that my sponsorship was necessary for them to have their children, as they would have done so anyway. But my point is that my sponsorship was my way to glorify and support those who were so determined to be pro-life and produce large, loving families. I did so as long as I could, until the cultists caught up with me and cost me my career, my means of earning a living, and my home. I had to stop sponsorship then, and it's been more than a decade since I've been able to participate in that way. There's worse to this story, but no reason to go into it now, except to say, use your imagination about what people who think that I'm interested in Native Americans because of their stupid, mean, ignorant and craven "past life" and "karma" would do (imitate me but with an ugly twist, since there's the assumption of that light and dark "war" that they live in delusion of, and also, well, think about casinos and so forth). They would assume to be "charitable" where there is lots of money and "luck" involved too. Also, since the cultists did not recognize my Catholicism and my authority to speak to its everlasting truth (even though the evidence was no secret and right in front of them), they assumed all sorts of conclusions about divinity and faith matters on sometimes "evidence" as weak as whatever dorky book about Indian lore I might decide to peruse or to buy. I've explained in previous blog postings that like the Buddhist search for "reincarnated lamas," these unfunny clowns stalk what people read and buy, to see "what objects" they are attracted to because they "tell you about what they are *said in pretentious tone of voice* D-R-A-W-N to spiritually." Cultists would manipulate which children were assigned to me for sponsorship, what would happen to them at work and in school (what opportunities they got, for example), and "study" how "lucky" or "not" my "involvement" was with these different kids and their families and then either infiltrate the families on their own for their own "spiritual benefit" or conclude that "bad karma" was being "worked out" and terminate relationships. It's an ugly, ugly, UGLY problem and one that they think I'm too stupid to know how pervasive it is, but I know, oh Lord, do I know. More importantly, though, they forget that God knows all along and does not depend on human witness, deduction or clues. He knows even when these pathetic thoughts of the cultists were formed in their deluded and sick minds.
So much that is simple and good has been ruined.
Here's an example of the difference between me and them. When I first had generous paychecks with money that I could reliably spend on helping others, I decided to do sponsorship of children, like many millions of people do. In these programs you send money on a monthly basis in order to help a specific child stay in school, meet basic school needs, etc. There are many famous programs. I decided to select one that deals exclusively with Native Americans here in the USA. Why? Two reasons. One is that I grew up near a reservation, so to me it's not an exotic far away need but a "local issue." I saw as a child the poverty first hand, since my mother and I would drive to the reservation to buy apples and corn. Charity is best and strongest when you get involved with people and situations that you know something about yourself. The second reason is that there were many scandals during that time about poverty in the USA. The great expose about Appalachia and its hidden, deep poverty was a huge topic during my formation as a future charitable giver. I could not understand giving to international programs without giving even more to solve the poverty situation here in the USA. And so those were the two reasons I researched a number of worthy organizations but quickly chose the one exclusively for Native Americans.
Now, I know, even though no one has ever said this (or anything else honest) to my face that the cultists who stalked me never realized that I selected Native American charity for such a simple reason. They are blinded by their own lenses of stereotyping everything as having hidden motivations. And so my several decades of sponsorship and even more "incriminating" (from their point of view) interest in Indian culture could only mean.... yep, you guessed it, "past lives," "Karma," "the great injustice of the robber baron white man," "where are Injuns in her astrology chart, drool" and all sorts of conclusions that I was "drawn" to the Indians for "spiritual" reasons. Yes, I liked reading about their culture (not so much the history) and also their religious practices. I mean, duh, you know who I am by now. Of course I'd be interested in their religious practices. But that doesn't mean I was going at is as a "questor" who is "trying to find answers" or worse, "endorsing a *said in pretentious tone* P-A-T-H-W-A-Y." Yikes.
And so over the past several decades there have been HORRIBLE cascading events and oppressive decisions made by cultists in control because they were too damn arrogant and stupid to actually ask me, "Why did you choose to select Native American child sponsorship?"
If they had asked me this question, they would have learned not only the truth about many things (there is no such thing as reincarnation, it is always a good time to be charitable, and the best charity is where the need is the greatest when the need is the greatest) but they also would have learned another essential thing about me. They would have learned that I am vehemently against abortion and that by investing in the Native American families who I sponsored, many of whom oppose birth control because of their understandable genocidal concerns, I was expressing in the pragmatic dollars and cents way my support of large families that use neither birth control nor condone abortions. My conversations with them were very informative of my previously held belief that the way to fight abortion is to coalition with people who love children and who want to have large families, it's as simple as that. By coalition I mean to make it financially and otherwise feasible for those who might feel pressure to abort to be able to have their child, even if it means subsidizing them. Yes, I told you, I'm a liberal, in the proud, not dirty, sense of the tradition. As I've blogged before I believe that if society organized around charities in order to help surprise pregnancies result in live births instead of abortions, through money and educational/job alternatives and a strong system of adoption and orphanages, we'd not have seen the murder of millions of preborn babies in this country. My long term commitment to the Native Americans was the amount that I could personally afford of expressing support based on this set of values and how I felt practical help is better than confrontation or ignoring when it comes to the scourge of abortion in this country.
Now, my families were not ever thinking of abortion, as I said, they told me this is a dire reminder of genocidal times and against their pro-life values (though this of course is changing as the pro aborts and secular society target the poor young Indian youth). So I'm not saying that my sponsorship was necessary for them to have their children, as they would have done so anyway. But my point is that my sponsorship was my way to glorify and support those who were so determined to be pro-life and produce large, loving families. I did so as long as I could, until the cultists caught up with me and cost me my career, my means of earning a living, and my home. I had to stop sponsorship then, and it's been more than a decade since I've been able to participate in that way. There's worse to this story, but no reason to go into it now, except to say, use your imagination about what people who think that I'm interested in Native Americans because of their stupid, mean, ignorant and craven "past life" and "karma" would do (imitate me but with an ugly twist, since there's the assumption of that light and dark "war" that they live in delusion of, and also, well, think about casinos and so forth). They would assume to be "charitable" where there is lots of money and "luck" involved too. Also, since the cultists did not recognize my Catholicism and my authority to speak to its everlasting truth (even though the evidence was no secret and right in front of them), they assumed all sorts of conclusions about divinity and faith matters on sometimes "evidence" as weak as whatever dorky book about Indian lore I might decide to peruse or to buy. I've explained in previous blog postings that like the Buddhist search for "reincarnated lamas," these unfunny clowns stalk what people read and buy, to see "what objects" they are attracted to because they "tell you about what they are *said in pretentious tone of voice* D-R-A-W-N to spiritually." Cultists would manipulate which children were assigned to me for sponsorship, what would happen to them at work and in school (what opportunities they got, for example), and "study" how "lucky" or "not" my "involvement" was with these different kids and their families and then either infiltrate the families on their own for their own "spiritual benefit" or conclude that "bad karma" was being "worked out" and terminate relationships. It's an ugly, ugly, UGLY problem and one that they think I'm too stupid to know how pervasive it is, but I know, oh Lord, do I know. More importantly, though, they forget that God knows all along and does not depend on human witness, deduction or clues. He knows even when these pathetic thoughts of the cultists were formed in their deluded and sick minds.
So much that is simple and good has been ruined.
Just did four loads of laundry & quote of the day
I know, you must be thinking, "So why is this newsworthy?" Ha ha, you know I have a reason. I've let the laundry pile up pretty high lately because I live in an apartment and the laundry room is across the parking lot, and it's been either hot and muggy lately or actually raining with lightning (and there's a tall and inviting tree right in front of the building that contains the laundry room). Also I have to go when I have many quarters in change, so I got my supply of two rolls of quarters from my local (otherwise unhelpful) bank. I say they are unhelpful because they refuse to accept line of credit checks of any sort for deposit, and since that's what I live on and how I transfer money, that bank is as nice and useful to me as tits on a bull. They actually embarrassed me to tears when they first refused to do this, and didn't give one rat's ass about my discomfort or subsequent problem with what to do next.
Anyway, I bought some orange sheets at the local Goodwill and I've been eager to launder them, so that is what motivated me to do four full loads today. Also the maintenance guy is supposed to get the rusty (post Katrina damage) garbage disposal to work again, and while I have a messy place anyway, I don't like having the laundry undone when folks let themselves in my places.
The orange sheets are not because I'm going Protestant, or want to make Buddhist monk robes, or because people used to chant to Eric Clapton aka "God," "More orange, Eric, more orange." I got them because I wanted cheap orange fabric to try out a design idea that I had to see how it would look in actuality. I've been doing a lot of quilt making and I wanted to see how a Hawaiian "snowflake" applique leaf design would look in bright orange on white background. Using a sheet one can get a large size motif without having to piece together smaller sections of fabric, so I thought I'd make of model of the design idea that I have in my head.
Soooooo, why I am I blogging that "today is the day" to do laundry? Because dumb maggot astrologers would otherwise jump up and down and go, "I knew it! I knew astrology 'worked' 'even on her!'" See, today Mars moved into the constellation Virgo (if you are using Western system). So "Mars" brings "energy" and "aggression" to "Virgo" "types of activities" such as "cleaning."
When I was undercover with astrologers I could not believe how unimaginative they are, which is strange because they live in their own self created imaginary world. What I mean is that one the one hand, while they believe that there is manipulative reincarnation, astrology, aliens, blah blah blah, and thus have over inflated imaginations and delusions, within their own beliefs, if one is to actually "use" them, they have little imagination about how to be constructive and positive with the so called "universal forces" that they actually claim to believe in.
I'm going to exaggerate only slightly with these examples, so those of you who, thankfully, have not been exposed to their garbage will know what I mean by this observation that I have made of my years of "talking" with them (the "talking" was mostly my listening and doing the occasional "reading" for them, but I've discussed that in other blog postings). These astrologers would let a starving person go hungry because "the moon is not in the right place to be kind to that type of person." Or they would not scrub a hospital room clean because "oh no, that activity is best done when there is good aspect with Virgo." So tough luck to charity because they dispense and withhold kindness according to their sick beliefs. That's the one thing I was trying to get across to them through "my style" of astrology reading. I always illuminated that it was always a "good time" to "be good." But they don't want that. They want to know the "dark," to feel that they are "light warriors" against the "forces of darkness," and hence they have to "hold themselves back" in order to "restore the balance" blah blah blah blah blah. I guess it makes sense if you are a pot head. But it's anti-Biblical. There is never a time that it is good to withhold charity and alms from those who need it most. These scumbags will give charity to causes that they feel are "favorably aspected" "in their charts," and the heck with where it is really needed. That's why arts and sports causes get lots of moola from people with "strong Leo in their charts." The heck with the baby about to be aborted; there's only one tiny and depressing part of the chart that deals with one's own children, say nothing of the crying needs of the many.
So, I did the laundry, and yes, Mars is "in Virgo," but I had sane reasons for doing what I do, as always, and just thought to be on the safe side and mention it for those die hard hypocritical "spiritual" morons.
And here's my quote of the day. "Stupidity and depravity are not passed on via reincarnation (which does not exist). Each person and each generation has done splendidly inventing their own personal and societal stupidity and depravity."
Anyway, I bought some orange sheets at the local Goodwill and I've been eager to launder them, so that is what motivated me to do four full loads today. Also the maintenance guy is supposed to get the rusty (post Katrina damage) garbage disposal to work again, and while I have a messy place anyway, I don't like having the laundry undone when folks let themselves in my places.
The orange sheets are not because I'm going Protestant, or want to make Buddhist monk robes, or because people used to chant to Eric Clapton aka "God," "More orange, Eric, more orange." I got them because I wanted cheap orange fabric to try out a design idea that I had to see how it would look in actuality. I've been doing a lot of quilt making and I wanted to see how a Hawaiian "snowflake" applique leaf design would look in bright orange on white background. Using a sheet one can get a large size motif without having to piece together smaller sections of fabric, so I thought I'd make of model of the design idea that I have in my head.
Soooooo, why I am I blogging that "today is the day" to do laundry? Because dumb maggot astrologers would otherwise jump up and down and go, "I knew it! I knew astrology 'worked' 'even on her!'" See, today Mars moved into the constellation Virgo (if you are using Western system). So "Mars" brings "energy" and "aggression" to "Virgo" "types of activities" such as "cleaning."
When I was undercover with astrologers I could not believe how unimaginative they are, which is strange because they live in their own self created imaginary world. What I mean is that one the one hand, while they believe that there is manipulative reincarnation, astrology, aliens, blah blah blah, and thus have over inflated imaginations and delusions, within their own beliefs, if one is to actually "use" them, they have little imagination about how to be constructive and positive with the so called "universal forces" that they actually claim to believe in.
I'm going to exaggerate only slightly with these examples, so those of you who, thankfully, have not been exposed to their garbage will know what I mean by this observation that I have made of my years of "talking" with them (the "talking" was mostly my listening and doing the occasional "reading" for them, but I've discussed that in other blog postings). These astrologers would let a starving person go hungry because "the moon is not in the right place to be kind to that type of person." Or they would not scrub a hospital room clean because "oh no, that activity is best done when there is good aspect with Virgo." So tough luck to charity because they dispense and withhold kindness according to their sick beliefs. That's the one thing I was trying to get across to them through "my style" of astrology reading. I always illuminated that it was always a "good time" to "be good." But they don't want that. They want to know the "dark," to feel that they are "light warriors" against the "forces of darkness," and hence they have to "hold themselves back" in order to "restore the balance" blah blah blah blah blah. I guess it makes sense if you are a pot head. But it's anti-Biblical. There is never a time that it is good to withhold charity and alms from those who need it most. These scumbags will give charity to causes that they feel are "favorably aspected" "in their charts," and the heck with where it is really needed. That's why arts and sports causes get lots of moola from people with "strong Leo in their charts." The heck with the baby about to be aborted; there's only one tiny and depressing part of the chart that deals with one's own children, say nothing of the crying needs of the many.
So, I did the laundry, and yes, Mars is "in Virgo," but I had sane reasons for doing what I do, as always, and just thought to be on the safe side and mention it for those die hard hypocritical "spiritual" morons.
And here's my quote of the day. "Stupidity and depravity are not passed on via reincarnation (which does not exist). Each person and each generation has done splendidly inventing their own personal and societal stupidity and depravity."
Gays today compared to Biblical times
I've had a series of blogs that attempt to help readers, especially young people, to be more intellectual in their discernment of fact from fiction, and in making mature decisions regarding their policy decisions. Here is one that helps gays, especially young ones, better understand that they are victims of a great misconception.
Let us compare gays today to gays during Biblical times, since much of the misunderstanding and hot debate is around "what Jesus would think" and "what the Bible says." But you cannot possibly interpret the Bible without understanding it's "lingo," in other words, the language it is written in during the cultural times within which it is set.
Gays today live in a society where people either earn their living via jobs and paychecks, or through social services, private wealth, or some other support network. In Biblical times the family unit was your ENTIRE source of "income." No one "had jobs" or "earned paychecks." The "treasure" was your family, both the size of it (more hands and feet to feed more people) and the agricultural or craftsman know how that was entirely taught from parent to child.
Gays were not "oppressed" and the last thing that they wanted was to be "free to be gay." Gays were family men. They would have dropped their "gayness" in a New York minute if it meant that they no longer had a family. A man and a woman's wealth was their children. Examples of where dowries and so forth meant additional children were a burden was a minority position in remote cultures during Biblical times. 99% of society could not wait to get married and have children. Children were loved and treasured, if not for the reasons that some do in more affluent times (when you can just dote on them and raise them privileged) nowadays, then certainly for the two reasons that 1) your family heritage, whether it was farming, shepherding, or even being a slave was passed on, with hope that the next generation could purchase one's way out of slavery, or till a larger field, or gather a larger herd and 2) more hands could do more work. Remember, there were no "mod cons" back then. Both men and women needed children to help with food gathering and preparation, kindling for fire, drawing water, making clothes, hunting, helping their parents in their craft trade, etc.
So what is condemned in the Bible is the vast minority of people who would want a lifestyle that was completely unproductive. This is why it's called "spilling the seed on the ground" and other what you might think are quaint phrases. But what they meant is that they understood that the vast majority of people who have a gay tendency were also able to have families and indeed, would starve and perish without them. So it was only the few who wanted to live a total hedonistic "gay" style that would have been forbidden and to whom these quaint phrases really address themselves. Trust me, if a guy was married, had kids, but then also had a gay tendency on the side, this was not so uncommon nor was this a threat to his own survival (as far as having a family to support and in turn be supported by, such as agriculture for example) nor to the community. What people did not want, and this is where both God and Jesus are quite clear, is that the "gay" sexual drives overcome the common sense reality that people needed families with children in order for themselves and the entire community to survive. Remember, the Bible is just as tough on prostitutes. Notice the Bible does not zing a woman who gets a little action on the side (not that this would be approved of, or happen a lot, but the stuff that makes it into the Bible and has God's attention are things that are anti-life and anti-human survivability).
I hope this helps you in your personal contemplation and research to better understand the context of the reality of how to scratch out not only a living but survival in those days. No sane man who was "gay" would have traded having a wife and children to run around and have his "gayness." Men with "gay" tendencies back in Biblical times would think, for the most part, that gay men today are insane and irresponsible, and have a death wish. (And that would be even more so true with women who had what we would call "lesbian" tendencies today. They would never have given up having a normal family and children in order to "actualize their lesbian sisterhood.") The poorest Biblical man had enormous pride in his family, both his wife and his sons and daughters, and that is true if the Biblical times man was totally straight or had what we would call today "gay" tendencies. Life was very short back then (someone who lived into their fifties was considered old). Rich or poor, one's legacy and reason for being (and means of survival) was having a spouse and having children.
This is why in the only passage that one can glean Jesus' attitude toward gays he calls them "eunuchs." Jesus is not being literal, as in these are castrated men, because he says "some are born that way." Jesus calls them eunuchs because anyone who could not or would not have children (unless they were of a hermit or otherwise austere religious life choice) really stood out as a rarity in that society. In other words, "gay" men did not by and large choose to be "eunuchs," which means someone who cannot father a child. Jesus uses the word "eunuch" because the disgust with a totally gay lifestyle would come from their shirking their own family survivability and that of their whole community (everyone depended on each other for water, farming, and pastoral livelihoods). So Jesus says that there are three types of eunuchs, where eunuch means "men who do not father": ones who are born that way (so gay that they cannot be aroused by a woman or totally biologically, like a testical birth defect, unable to father children), made so by society (castrated) or by choice (here he refers not to gays but to those men who refuse to be fathers because they have dedicated themselves to a life style that is solitary, usually for contemplative religious reasons). There were lots of single Jewish men without children, but they were not gay, they were usually men who were very zealous regarding religion. An example of this would be Saul who became St. Paul. The other obvious example and role model for many is St. John the Baptist. Biblical times had a rich community and tradition of male single men who were hermits, zealots, preachers or scholars. They therefore were "eunuchs" "by choice" because they would not father children. Jesus is saying this is OK, because a calling is worth pursuing, even if it means that not everyone is to "be fruitful and multiply." "Choice" in the Bible does not mean what choice does today. Choice today tends to mean "options." In Biblical times people had few options and did not want options. They wanted a spouse, children, and a way to expand and support their family and its holdings, or gain freedom if they were slaves.
See, you must understand that the Bible and God's entire interest is toward the survivability and wholesomeness of humanity. God is less concerned with individual intimate acts than he is about the destruction of the family and of love for children turning to indifference or even hatred. So during those times the vast majority of men who had some sort of gay tendency would never have thought of themselves as either "gay" or being "eunuchs from birth" because they would virtually all of them been happy to have a wife and children. Doing so was their survivability, their treasure, and their vocation. Gay urges would not at all represent either their overall personality or their "lifestyle choice."
Let us compare gays today to gays during Biblical times, since much of the misunderstanding and hot debate is around "what Jesus would think" and "what the Bible says." But you cannot possibly interpret the Bible without understanding it's "lingo," in other words, the language it is written in during the cultural times within which it is set.
Gays today live in a society where people either earn their living via jobs and paychecks, or through social services, private wealth, or some other support network. In Biblical times the family unit was your ENTIRE source of "income." No one "had jobs" or "earned paychecks." The "treasure" was your family, both the size of it (more hands and feet to feed more people) and the agricultural or craftsman know how that was entirely taught from parent to child.
Gays were not "oppressed" and the last thing that they wanted was to be "free to be gay." Gays were family men. They would have dropped their "gayness" in a New York minute if it meant that they no longer had a family. A man and a woman's wealth was their children. Examples of where dowries and so forth meant additional children were a burden was a minority position in remote cultures during Biblical times. 99% of society could not wait to get married and have children. Children were loved and treasured, if not for the reasons that some do in more affluent times (when you can just dote on them and raise them privileged) nowadays, then certainly for the two reasons that 1) your family heritage, whether it was farming, shepherding, or even being a slave was passed on, with hope that the next generation could purchase one's way out of slavery, or till a larger field, or gather a larger herd and 2) more hands could do more work. Remember, there were no "mod cons" back then. Both men and women needed children to help with food gathering and preparation, kindling for fire, drawing water, making clothes, hunting, helping their parents in their craft trade, etc.
So what is condemned in the Bible is the vast minority of people who would want a lifestyle that was completely unproductive. This is why it's called "spilling the seed on the ground" and other what you might think are quaint phrases. But what they meant is that they understood that the vast majority of people who have a gay tendency were also able to have families and indeed, would starve and perish without them. So it was only the few who wanted to live a total hedonistic "gay" style that would have been forbidden and to whom these quaint phrases really address themselves. Trust me, if a guy was married, had kids, but then also had a gay tendency on the side, this was not so uncommon nor was this a threat to his own survival (as far as having a family to support and in turn be supported by, such as agriculture for example) nor to the community. What people did not want, and this is where both God and Jesus are quite clear, is that the "gay" sexual drives overcome the common sense reality that people needed families with children in order for themselves and the entire community to survive. Remember, the Bible is just as tough on prostitutes. Notice the Bible does not zing a woman who gets a little action on the side (not that this would be approved of, or happen a lot, but the stuff that makes it into the Bible and has God's attention are things that are anti-life and anti-human survivability).
I hope this helps you in your personal contemplation and research to better understand the context of the reality of how to scratch out not only a living but survival in those days. No sane man who was "gay" would have traded having a wife and children to run around and have his "gayness." Men with "gay" tendencies back in Biblical times would think, for the most part, that gay men today are insane and irresponsible, and have a death wish. (And that would be even more so true with women who had what we would call "lesbian" tendencies today. They would never have given up having a normal family and children in order to "actualize their lesbian sisterhood.") The poorest Biblical man had enormous pride in his family, both his wife and his sons and daughters, and that is true if the Biblical times man was totally straight or had what we would call today "gay" tendencies. Life was very short back then (someone who lived into their fifties was considered old). Rich or poor, one's legacy and reason for being (and means of survival) was having a spouse and having children.
This is why in the only passage that one can glean Jesus' attitude toward gays he calls them "eunuchs." Jesus is not being literal, as in these are castrated men, because he says "some are born that way." Jesus calls them eunuchs because anyone who could not or would not have children (unless they were of a hermit or otherwise austere religious life choice) really stood out as a rarity in that society. In other words, "gay" men did not by and large choose to be "eunuchs," which means someone who cannot father a child. Jesus uses the word "eunuch" because the disgust with a totally gay lifestyle would come from their shirking their own family survivability and that of their whole community (everyone depended on each other for water, farming, and pastoral livelihoods). So Jesus says that there are three types of eunuchs, where eunuch means "men who do not father": ones who are born that way (so gay that they cannot be aroused by a woman or totally biologically, like a testical birth defect, unable to father children), made so by society (castrated) or by choice (here he refers not to gays but to those men who refuse to be fathers because they have dedicated themselves to a life style that is solitary, usually for contemplative religious reasons). There were lots of single Jewish men without children, but they were not gay, they were usually men who were very zealous regarding religion. An example of this would be Saul who became St. Paul. The other obvious example and role model for many is St. John the Baptist. Biblical times had a rich community and tradition of male single men who were hermits, zealots, preachers or scholars. They therefore were "eunuchs" "by choice" because they would not father children. Jesus is saying this is OK, because a calling is worth pursuing, even if it means that not everyone is to "be fruitful and multiply." "Choice" in the Bible does not mean what choice does today. Choice today tends to mean "options." In Biblical times people had few options and did not want options. They wanted a spouse, children, and a way to expand and support their family and its holdings, or gain freedom if they were slaves.
See, you must understand that the Bible and God's entire interest is toward the survivability and wholesomeness of humanity. God is less concerned with individual intimate acts than he is about the destruction of the family and of love for children turning to indifference or even hatred. So during those times the vast majority of men who had some sort of gay tendency would never have thought of themselves as either "gay" or being "eunuchs from birth" because they would virtually all of them been happy to have a wife and children. Doing so was their survivability, their treasure, and their vocation. Gay urges would not at all represent either their overall personality or their "lifestyle choice."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
