Theos-Talk Archives (January 2001 Message tt00117)

Here is the second part of my book.

 

 

 

 

HOW WOMEN HAVE GOTTEN THE SHORT END OF THE STICK FROM

HISTORY.

Life poses a whole new dimension compared to the inanimate. But life on earth isn't the best. Along with life on earth, is death. Without anything to compensate for the transient nature of life; life would soon vanish from earth. But not to worry; we have birth: Life on earth reproduces itself and creates new life. (This replaces what death takes away.)

In more developed animals, the initiation of this reproduction, takes the form of sex. (It is important then for higher animals on earth to have sex, so as to carry on their species and DNA. Animals on earth that don't have a need for sex, eventually all die off with no replacements; thus leaving only animals who do have sex.

›No Religion, can totally eliminate sex; as a religion that successfully eliminated sex, would die off with its people, on earth -where animals do not live forever (oops: cloning now makes this possible). So when religion allows you sex in marriage in the bonds of holy matrimony; they aren't necessarily being generous: they're forced to allow this for their own continuation and survival.›

If someone told me that sex had little effect on them (that they disliked sex); I'd be skeptical. It is our genetic makeup that determines a lot of what we are. It is our DNA that makes a mother's next baby a human, and not a space blob or apple tree. In a human's development in the womb, there's even DNA coding for a person's reproductive system. And even DNA that codes for the enervation of the reproductive system with the pleasure centers of the brain.

›It's hard to say what form our pleasure would take if life weren't forced by the need to reproduce; but this is irrelevant, because life on earth is forced to reproduce (or vanish): and our pleasure is tied to the task of reproduction.›

If there are any genetic or environmental (ex, family environment) factors passed from generation to generation; concerning the like or dislike of sex, then those factors coding for liking sex will be passed on, because sex leads to babies and a new generation. But those factors for disliking sex won't be passed on because a person who dislikes sex avoids having sex, and doesn't pass those genes or lifestyle on. Thus from generation to generation over history, there is a genetic bias for the liking of sex to be amplified. With each passing generation, this bias continues.

The temporary disabling nature of human childbirth has had its effect on women over history. Some of us are ambitious and competitive and some of us aren't. Those men and women who were ambitious, fought to make themselves master, throughout history. Each time an ambitious woman became pregnant, she was disabled for at least 3 months. The loss of 3 months may not seem like much, but over time/history, and over a whole population, it adds up. And then every month there is the period. In the old days before pads, this would take attention away from ones effort to better oneself. These factors over time, enabled ambitious men to get ahead of ambitious women, thus creating a male dominated society. And to the victor goes the spoils. The male, being master, set the work of raising the children solely upon the female. The fact that it is the mother who delivers the milk, and baby, also helped bring this about. With the woman busy taking care of the kids, this enabled men to further advance in leaderhood mastership and control over the resources needed to live and survive. (Even today, the 'mommy track' is a slower track.)

In the area of reproduction; male control over all resources, translated into men having a choice but women not having a choice. In the past, a woman had no choice about whether to marry and raise a family. It was her only way to survival. The man had the money and the job, and the choice whether to marry or not. If a man didn't like sex or was indifferent about sex, he was not forced to marry, and wasn't denied access to the resources of survival. Thus the dislike or indifference toward sex was weeded out (not passed on) in men. But whether a woman was indifferent toward sex, or not, it made no difference; as she was expected to marry and have a family to survive. Her survival was tied to this. Thus a woman did not have a choice, and the indifference to sex, instead of dropping out, was passed on, as indifferent women were forced to marry, have sex, and bear children; to survive.

Men and women have a slightly different genetic makeup. Men have that different Y chromosome that makes them men while women have another copy of the X. And obviously, some different genes are turned on to create a male, than a female. Because of the difference in the genetics, it's possible for men to have genes coding for a like of sex, while this not being as well expressed in women. -It is possible to have somewhat different responses to sex, reflecting many generations of men having choice and women not. Thus it can be said men constantly have sex on the brain while women can be passive to it. Being slaves to sex, is the price men pay for having been boss and running things for generations.

As an aside note learned from class: 'Concerning the mating position: Female animals don't have much choice when they get it from behind. Humans are the only ones who mate face to face; and thus the greater ability for choice in the human female compared to animals'.

Now that we've come a long way with women's lib, and women are no longer forced to marry to have a decent life, so much. Women now have more choice. If this keeps up over a number of generations, women will like sex just as much as the men do. Just ask some of the younger women.

Birth control is another way women can have choice over their destinies. Women who are indifferent about sex and/or don't want the bother of raising kids; can use birth control to obtain these goals; thus not passing these traits on, (genetically or in a family structure). If we experience women's liberation and equality of men and women over generations; women will come to like sex just as much as the men do. So here's a real good reason for human males to support equal rights for women.

MORE ON THE SOURCES OF SEXUAL DESIRE: AND RELATED ISSUES.

Because we all die eventually, and our women can no longer have offspring after menopause; those who lack reproductive desire will not pass these (their) genes on, including the genes influencing sexual desire. Yes, to have offspring and pass genes on, it's beneficial for two people to get together, get along, cooperate and help each other (raise a family). If people were all nice and friendly (everyone loved each other); then any pair could get together and raise a family. But when things aren't so rosy; where the trap of evil causes us to do necessary cruelties to each other; we could still carry on. With the help of sexual desire, people who don't cooperate well or get along well, can get together for a moment; continue the species; and this system of reduced capability. When survival time is short in a harsh environment, sexual desire can cause a species to reproduce enough offspring to make up for those killed off. Rabbits (bunnies) and mice, which have a lot of predatory pressure, are highly fecund to make up for these losses.

So sexual desire is a crutch that systems of low capability and togetherness of good and evil depend on to survive. (It's not that heightened sexual desires wouldn't exist in systems of freedom from evil; it's just there'd also be equally heightened desires, and doing, of every other good thing. The reproduction of life, (which is part of growth and the force of good), wouldn't be forced by a need to keep up with what death took away.

Earthworms are hermaphroditic; which means an individual has both male and female reproductive organs. However, evolution has found it advantageous for organisms to specialize. In most higher animals, an individual is either male or female. One group of the 'society' (the females) works on reproduction; while the other group (the males) works on the other tasks of survival. Specialization is another crutch used to survive the trap of evil of reduced capability.

Note that traditional evolution / survival of the fittest mentality, operates at low, reduced capabilities, in the trap of evil. There is an alternative of high capability free from evil, where the "laws" of evolution don't apply. -Failure to help all things, even those not as fit, results in incompatible interrelated needs-and-supplies unto reduced capability. If we helped all things we might escape reduced capability to where these evolutionary laws don't apply.

-The advancement that survival-of-the-fittest makes against one hardship, (in breeding better animals to cope with the hardship); is lost when the selection factor changes with time. When a new hardship comes along, and when the hardships keep changing over much time; the solutions for the previous hardships found by evolution are lost, because they're no longer selected for, while some other factor is. So when a hardship comes back a second time, after a few thousand years, no genes are left from the first time, and the problems have to be solved all over again. Thus time, in focusing on hardships and constantly changing its focus on hardships, wipes out the gains made by evolution, which is thus a reduced-capability phenomenon. (Survival of the fittest indicates that there is destruction and death, (and thus togetherness with the force of destruction/evil), as the weak (and young) are weeded out and killed off. This assumes togetherness with evil to kill off the weak.) Thus the phenomenon of evolution never leads us out of reduced capability. (Togetherness with death and destruction IS reduced capability.) To solve all the problems, we need all the solutions simultaneously in our genes. And the evolution phenomenon doesn't help to get us there (out of reduced capability) very well.

When at high capability, specialization gives way to versatility; where we still do what we once specialized in: just that we do so along with everything else.

The visual attraction to a man(1), and to a woman(2), both in our genes, is part of this sexual reproduction. If you are a man, #2 got turned on; if a woman, #1 got turned on, in your fetal development. But nature isn't always perfect. Sometimes #1 or #2 gets turned on when it should be the other. The Bible condemns homosexuality, but then it condemns all sexual desire (bit by bit). Nevertheless, we are all of the human generation, beset with sexual desire in one form or another: and although homosexuality is an imperfection in nature's design, all sexual desire is an imperfection in God's design that we all must deal with before we join God. Thus homosexuality is an imperfection of an imperfection. Not quite so bad after all. In my 'coming out', Alas, I would have to "come out" as a heterosexual.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 8

Our essentials; sex; and religion.

 

 

 

 

The question comes to mind "Is there a God or not?" But whether there exists a fogoHC or not, the choice is clear to believe in and worship the fogoHC, in either case. If there isn't a fogoHC, we still worship and seek togetherness with the fogoHC because: 1) It releases resources within us through our own faith and allows us to do what we can in this bleak situation. 2) Because when a fogoHC is created at a later date, They will be interested in resurrecting those who were interested in joining with Them.

On the other hand: if there is a God and He has provided a way for us to escape suffering and reduced capability; it makes no sense to wallow around in it and try to get out in our own strength. If we know the way to get in touch with God, we should do so so we don't suffer this reduced capability.

There are some things the fogoHC doesn't do. And there are many areas the fogoHC does get into.

If you avoid retaliating with evil, against evil attacks upon you; and instead get into surrounding God supported areas: If you do what 'God' wants, but it doesn't work out (›if no Godly parts are generated when destruction destroys a part of you›) -(if you're not sure of the existence of God); then you must cover the possibility that there is no God, and do all you can, including necessary evils to escape the stagnation and disrupt the balance of their stagnant system. But still note that doing necessary evils and standing and fighting is only part of our solution to evil attacks, even in a world without God. There is also the action of escaping and getting away from the evil attack. Since this does no destruction, it (might have been) suitable in both a world without God and in a world with God. Whereas the action of fighting works in a world without God; but must be dropped in a world with a God who believes in loving your enemies.

First try to get in touch with God to rescue you; and if that fails, then go ahead and include fighting and counter attacks. But don't relish it, and don't spend a lot of time with it. Even in a world without God: God will likely be created in the future; and this can still be accomplished by people who only use escape; although it may take a bit longer than from people who use both escape and fighting. But it will still happen. And when a God of love resurrects us all, he won't be wanting to get together with those of us who do a lot of fighting and destruction; until that destruction is cast away. So don't invest a lot of your life in plotting and planning in this destructive area, as you will loose it, and will have to loose it in your life with God.

In much of religion there is a prohibition against sex and sexual desires.

1 John 3, 9-10: Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God*.

In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother (loving the brethren almost a secondary consideration: thus righteousness may involve more than loving your brother; or John may just be mirroring righteousness alongside love to define it better, and/or apply it to the sexual area).

*(But note the connection between 'BORN of God', and, 'His seed remaineth in him', for a different and better interpretation. Yet perhaps both interpretations are valid and were intended. Or perhaps not.)/ (And when you're married to someone, you become one flesh, so the man's seed still remains in him so to speak. ›You are not forced to grow to join a new partner (done sexually), but once you do, you must love them in all ways, not just sexually›.)

My word processor thesaurus defines righteousness as morality, probity, rectitude, and virtuousness. And virtuousness it defines as the condition of being chaste, or chastity. For chaste it defines as morally beyond reproach, especially in sexual conduct. Note the similarity in spelling between the word rectitude and rectum. Also note the similarity in spelling between probity and probe; as in a stiffened, erect probe. And what is more clear than "his seed remaineth in him", in reference to not sinning. Of course, the verse can be interpreted to mean God's seed remains in the person born of god, and this is what I prefer, but it also can be interpreted the other way (or both ways). Its just all the other references against sex, that have a cumulative effect leading me to believe the religious significance placed on 'keeping your seed in you', and 'keeping yourself'.

In much of religion there is a prohibition against sex and sexual desires. Why? What's wrong with sex? What does it hurt?

Well, just think of it. It is a method of communication, to communicate a lifestyle that God wants. Everyone is touched by sexual desires. Thus it is a common element that we can use to easily communicate a certain lifestyle to everyone.

And what lifestyle? Well, sexual desire can be quite intense and quite compelling and overwhelming. The drive to reproduce the species is one not easily set aside; seeing that those who are successful, and who die off, don't pass those "successful" genes on.

A more easily explained situation, is that of the drug addict. The pleasure is so intense and overwhelming, that they're desperate and would do anything to get their next fix: -lie, steal, rob, mug, etc. When the urge to get something is so strong and overwhelming (as it is with sex or drugs), that a person would do anything to obtain these growths: they would do "necessary" destructions (evils) to obtain these things. If we include and allow harm in our ways, we can obtain things quicker and easier. The lifestyle being communicated, is to abstain from using harm in our ways, even if it means doing without the growth (until we are ready for the growth -are able to obtain the growth without harm in our ways). -Of course, if harm occurs whichever way we go, then this doesn't matter, and can be disregarded.

(The word SIN itself can be seen as an abbreviation for "its in", as in the pole "is in" the hole.)

1 John 2, 16-17: "For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eye, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.

And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever."

The statement that the lust of the flesh and eye, is of the world, is true. Sexual desire it is logical, comes from many generations dying and only those genes coding for greater sexual desire being passed on. (And death isn't God's idea.) It's a result of death and the reduced capability stagnation of our world, where most everyone eventually dies. But doing God's will is the tricky part.

If you vacate your will out of most of an area, so God can do what He wills with it, then God's will has been done in this large area from you that was vacated; (and if it wasn't, you are not to blame for this large vacated area, as it now belongs to God). Of course, when you get to the point where you know exactly what God's will is, and are up to doing it, and YOU do it; that too is acceptable.

Over many generations of humans being subjected to death and the necessity to reproduce to replace what death took away; has had its effect on us; in that our genes code for the liking of sex, or sexual desire.

How does our body draw us toward sex? Well, presumably, our body could deny us its normal function, and irritate us until sexual release is achieved. In other words, without sexual release, our body puts itself into reduced capability (in failing to deliver needed brain chemicals). I hear that female ferrets die if they are not able to mate. This sucks. Reduced capability is what we're trying to avoid and escape from in the first place. The reduced capability of us/our bodies doing necessary evils in sexual release; and the reduced capability our bodies put us in when we abstain from sexual release; are both what I suggest we try to avoid. Abstinence is no answer in my book. Religion (our religious tradition) could be fatal, if you happen to be a female ferret.

We, by ourselves, are in reduced capability, the trap of evil. To holler at us and expect us to get out of reduced capability is frustrating, because we're mostly unable to do it in our own strength. (Only 1 in 7 billion will escape, to eventually create the fogoHC.) (Why do you think I call it the TRAP of evil?) No, we need HELP to get out on a regular basis. Help from God. Help from Jesus Christ.

When I live in reduced capability / the trap of evil, all I can do, is stagnation. In stagnation, there's no growth and life isn't much different from the inanimate and the dead. To me, this reduced capability and stagnation is eternal death. So, if a religion gives me a choice between eternal death and eternal death, I will choose the path that has the best chance of getting out of this reduced capability trap of evil and almost certain eternal death.

We are who we are. We didn't ask to be part of a world where death is a fact of life. But that's our situation. Because we are human; our affection and love are warped by sexual desire. Reproduction itself represents growth (of life), and is a valid and good activity in itself. Things would be different and we'd be different if our pleasure wasn't tied to the task of reproduction to make up for what death took away. But this is who we are. This isn't our fogoHC representation, but is 'our' representation. The fogoHC will have to free us from the evils of our essentials otherwise our obtaining freedom will be quite a long shot. And until we outgrow sexual desire and replace it with something better; we'll be at the sexual desire stage.

Everybody is effected by sex. Sex is a quasi essential. If you don't have food, your body consumes (destroys) itself, and you die. If you don't have sex, you may not die (unless you're a female ferret), but your life sure is irritated. When a quota of growth is required, as it is for essentials; it indicates some force of destruction is at work and is present. Since a quota of sexual release is needed to return our normal functions, destruction is at work in our body when it denies us our normal functions when we don't get enough sexual release. In this case, it's all a matter of brain chemicals. (Sex is a drug) But even before generations of life and death wrapped pleasure upon pleasure around the act of reproduction; the act of reproduction was a bona fide act, which represented growth. Growth of life is an important thing, and growth needs to be done free from evil to be our alternative of good only. Even God found it convenient to reproduce, as he had a Son (Jesus Christ). In a world without death, the act of reproduction wouldn't be so compelling with so much grunt pleasure as it is here; but it still would be a good thing.

As I have explained before: everything is interrelated with everything else. That's why I insisted upon equal increase of all good things. You see, each thing has needs for all the other things (in varying degrees); and it also supplies itself to all the other things to fill their need for it. Now if all things are of the right size in relation to each other; their needs are satisfied. BUT if things get out of balance and one thing becomes much larger than the others; then this large thing has great needs for everything else that can't be supplied; plus it produces too much of itself that the other things just don't need that much of. (There's little or nothing else out there that needs this large production of this thing.)

(So, if there's little else out there to need all the sex being produced, then there's no need to do more sex. No, its time to get out and do all the other things out there with the empowering brain chemicals that sex produced. There's many other things in addition to sex.)

The most strict religion picks out this one thing (sex), and says you loose your salvation if you have it (If you spill your seed). (1st John can be interpreted that way). This religion thus focuses all attention to sex. There are a whole bunch of other things besides sex. Sex is just one of the many things we can do. It tricks you into thinking it's either sex or nothing. Now, if you decide to disobey this command and have sex; then you do sex. But you don't do all the other thing there are. -Religion isn't prohibiting all the other parts of life: the focus isn't on all these other things (just sex). Since only sex (a good, valuable and gentle thing that you need almost like food/shelter) is in need of support against this religious prohibition; all we do in response, is sex. Sex is interrelated with all the other things of life. But all the other things aren't being done; only sex. There's nothing else there needing all this sex; and all this sex has needs for all the other things, but has none of them there to satisfy its great needs for them (because we didn't produce them). (Everything is interrelated.)

The reduced capability that our bodies would put us in without sexual release is avoided; but the reduced capability of uneven growth with its unfilled needs; is found.

So you might say all we need do, is to do the other parts of life, along with sex, and this would solve our problem. But remember, sex is a quasi essential, and has the force of destruction associated with it. So doing it along with all our other things of life, would allow the evil to feed off all these other good things, with the forces of good and evil together. And we don't want that. Religion has good reason for singling sex out. Well, we could do what the Bible says, and abstain from sex. This is not as bad as it sounds, because not spilling our seed includes everything else but sex. If we do everything but sex; these other things would still be interrelated with each other and would supply each other's needs to a good degree. So, we can go on like this for awhile. But we would not escape reduced capability, so don't expect to. We increase EVERY non evil thing. EVERY non evil thing is INTERRELATED with EVERY other non evil thing. (Sex has good in it; and we don't want the evil anyway). If we leave out sex because we're unable to do the good of it without the evil; then the reduced capability of unbalanced growth WILL catch up to us. Since sex is only one (lonely) thing and we have everything else; we may escape reduced capability for a time and in some situations; but eventually we will fall into reduced capability. Once in reduced capability, it doesn't matter if we abstain from sex or do sex; it is all reduced capability. What shall we do?

What I suggest, is a yin/yan sort of thing. We cycle between doing everything but sex; and then, sex alone. First we abstain from sex / (and other essentials), and do everything else. Eventually these thing's interrelated need for sex (or some other essential) begins to build, and pull us to it. Then we switch to doing nothing but sex (or one of the other essentials). This way, the destruction in sex (or some other essential) cannot spread to other things, but is quarantined. When an evil (a destructive force) is present, that indicates an essential. Where there is no destructive force, then that item doesn't need to be quarantined or done alone. We thus practice separation of the forces.

We have the produce of all the other things from the previous cycle to supply sex's needs; and the sex produced in the present cycle will supply needs in all the other things in the next cycle. What we need to watch is that we don't produce them (do them) together.

Doing the things of our non-evil-Non-essential group all together is so much better, because interrelated needs are satisfied instantly. It's when we're forced into our essentials that we need to remember we can't do this, and must quarantine each one of them.

I wish to expand this section and discuss it in more depth:

We want to separate things in our essentials as much as possible so the force of evil is separate from the force of growth. But we can go too far with this. When we divide a functional unit up too small, the narrowly defined part of our essential is without anything else, and is thus at reduced capability; unable to supply the growth we need in the time frame. Since our needs for that essential aren't met, we stay in that essential a long time; and aren't able to get back into our non-evil-group. What can we do? We could widen our functional unit to include more related parts of the essential. And we could move that width around by dropping older parts as we add new parts. Or we could even move that width around in both our essentials and non essentials. But if we did this, we wouldn't be able to do our nonessential-group as a whole. Yes, if we widen each essential too much to include their nearest related areas, then overall, there wouldn't be much left of the non-evil-group. (Talk about the good seed being choked out by weeds.) If we insist on quarantining all essentials, and give them all a wide enough functional unit to be bearable, then we'll spend all our time in our essentials, because there never will develop enough need for the non-evil-group (for what it supplies), to pull us out of our essentials. And this is because the non-essential-group is unfortunately mostly done piecemeal as the-related areas-part of each of the essentials. And the few things left not-done of the non-essential-group don't make much of a fire, in supplying their few interrelated needs instantly. What shall we do? We need to quarantine essentials; but we also need to allow our non-evil parts to come together in a group, to take advantage of the power of the group vs the reduced capability of our parts being separated-and-alone, -or-only-in-small-groups. We need to balance these two opposing directives. For one thing, we need to realize we can't quarantine all our essentials at the same time. We only pick one that is drawing on us the most at present. (That will change over time, as we satisfy one essential and move into another.)

OOPS! WE CAN DO THEM TOGETHER (CAREFULLY).

We don't do our non-evil-group with our essentials, because the evil in our essentials would have the growth of the non-evil-group to feed on. But the thing about evil, is, that it tends to burn itself out if it doesn't have something good to feed on. Another thing about evil, is that its subject to the same laws of being at reduced capability, as anything else. You've heard the saying "a little leaven, leavens the whole lump." Well, in the case of evil, that's not the case. Depending on evil's capability, and the richness of its environment, evil may spread throughout its area; or it may consume only what's in its grasp and not be able to reach further into its area. Remember that evil has trouble bridging barriers because it destroys the key to crossing barriers. /(Evil is weak (and inferior -(excuse my prejudice: -its just that it happens to be true)). Sometimes it overstates its powers, and we give it credit for being stronger than it actually is. We needn't do so.)/

In our non-evil-group, we find a rich environment more or less, depending on how we're advancing. The new idea, is to actually combine our essentials with our non-evil-group. But the trick is to do it piecemeal. If we take a small piece of an essential and do it with our non evil group; the evil introduced into our non-evil-group will be small. A small evil is at reduced capability. Note: all of the non-evil-group is good; and part of the essential is good, while only a small evil part is evil. The non-evil-group provides a rich environment, but if the evil we introduce is small enough, things won't be rich enough for this evil to bridge barriers. On the other hand, the equally small good part (of the essential) is better at bridging barriers because it is good and doesn't destroy the key to crossing barriers but creates that key. Thus the good does cross barriers and escapes into our-non-evil group while the evil remains in our essential. Even though the environment of the non-evil-group is rich (or very rich); the piece-of-essential is made small enough so its evil is unable to cross barriers, while its good is still able (due to: the small size/reduced capability, (and the difference between evil and good)). This takes advantage of the difference between good and evil. Once the good of the essential has escaped into our non-evil-group, we discard that small piece of essential, and move onto the next small piece of the essential. Thus little by little (piecemeal), we wash our essentials clean. So this is the new idea: We do our essentials a little piece at a time together with our non-evil-group. (The same goes for evil attacks on us. When an evil person attacks us, there's too much evil there to handle the whole person, we just handle them a little piece at a time.) This plan emphasizes ceasing doing older actions while starting and doing the newer ones; and not letting any individual piece spend too much time. Yes we do only a small piece at any one time, and move through our whole essential a little piece at a time. If we do this fast enough (but not too fast), it delivers and cleans our whole essential. This is the important 'piecemeal method'. Note that when our non-evil-group isn't as advanced, it doesn't have to worry about this, as it isn't that much of a rich environment. But as our non evil group advances, it becomes a richer and richer environment, so that it can take less and less of a load of evil without the evil burning it down in a firestorm.

I want to go over our piecemeal method in more detail:

First we do a small beginning part of our essential along with our non-evil-group. In the rich environment, this small pat begins to grow. (Since we make the piece of essential small enough, the evil in it doesn't grow, but the good does.) In the stopping old parts of our essential, and starting new parts - action; let the new parts be started by the growth from the essential itself. Then once the essential has grown into a new area; then we shut off the old part. This way the good in the essential isn't forced to grow too fast using necessary evils. Now, concerning the stopping action we do. That action has a destructive force in it (and thus joins the essentials). So we must also have an action that diverts some of that stopping action back on itself. This second action I call the stopping stopping action. This action keeps the stopping action from growing too wide in the rich environment of our non evil group. This stopping-stopping action itself, remains with the non evil group even after the complete essential is finished. This is because it has no destruction (after its finished, and it finishes automatically), and can thus remain part of the non evil group. (Thus we don't have a stopping stopping stopping action etc.)

At this point, I leave this discussion, and begin a discussion on religion (the early part of which, lays background for this piecemeal method).

RELIGION

What is the difference between right and wrong?, good and evil? That which is good must be inherently different from that which is evil, so you don't need a 3rd party to tell the difference.

(The rules that require living and capable 3rd parties to uphold them, place a burden (a tax if you will) on us living/capable 3rd parties. The rules that are inherent, require no living capable 3rd parties to uphold them (thus are tax free), /and are also inescapable/. . . . I . am . . the . true . . Republican. Fancy that.)

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). (Not only do we have a bible to tell us what is right and wrong, we have the experiences-of-life that can show us right from wrong, when a thing is 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.

There are many or several types of love. (What do we mean when we say 'love'?) The only way that a certain type of 'love' would be rejected, would be if there were something inherently in it; something in the definition of it, that insisted evil or decrease in capability be done. Like my definition for evil, is something that decreases and destroys capability and life. If we call this evil, as love instead, then it would still not be a part of the other things we know as love, because when alone and separate, it shrinks and doesn't grow. Because of inherent differences, the evil would behave differently and would show itself incompatible with the other things we know as love. The other things we know as love, do grow when separate, and grow together, out of separation.

When there is no consequence when you don't 'get caught': When a 3rd party is needed to uphold the difference between right and wrong: What then is a 3rd party? Over the vast expanse of space, the amount of capability, intelligence, and life held within, is small (that we can see). Outside of earth, not much is visibly alive. We can see much lack and absence of capability and life. 3rd parties are alive. They have capability intelligence and life. This version of right and wrong (and there are many versions), occurs only in the vicinity and reach of the 3rd party. Outside their grasp, this version is no longer supported, and no longer applies. This is the difference between a version of right and wrong that needs a 3rd party to supply/support it; and a version that is inherent within the actions under consideration. The difference is that under the 3rd-party-supported-version, there's always the chance for escape: But under the inherent version, there is no escape. Under the inherent version, the laws apply even at the low levels (of capability). And if a version of right and wrong stagnates its life forms and 3rd parties (because it contains togetherness with cruelty/destruction), it is easily escaped from. There is no policeman looking over your shoulder to make sure you don't do what is wrong. There is no 3rd party that punishes you. Even so, there are some things that produce results on their own. If you are cruel, it comes back on you by itself. If you like it, then it's your choice. Yes, there are policemen and 3rd parties. But with them, there is always the chance of escape, no matter how remote (it can't be as remote as the no escape of the inherent version). No matter how remote the chance of escape; escape will eventually prevail. (See the beginning of this book where it is explained how the force of good overcomes the force of evil.)

The force of good(growth) produces capability and LIFE; while the force of evil(destruction), destroys it (leaving nothingness). Evil destroys what can support it. Evil destroys capability and LIFE; the keys to crossing barriers and getting around. On the other hand, good can get around (bridge barriers) because it produces the key to that: -capability and life. This basic difference between good and evil can be used to separate these forces of good from evil.

When good and evil are together, evil feeds off and destroys what good produces, and good doesn't grow. But when the forces are separate, evil consumes itself and dies while good grows and becomes very rich in all manner of life and very powerful. We want to accomplish separation of the forces so our life can be all life can be. (This occurs when life isn't constantly being destroyed by evil: -when life is free of destruction.) Now, if we put a piece of life (containing both good and evil) in a very nurturing environment; the good will be able to get around well, but so will the evil also have plenty of material to get around with as well as destroy. Here the forces won't separate. Or, the force of evil will grow strong with all this nurture, and do lots of destruction, bringing the whole system down to reduced capability. But if we put that piece of life in an environment that's not so nurturing and at reduced capability; then we can find a point where the good can still get around, cross barriers and grow out into the surrounding environment, while the evil is unable (due to it destroying what can get it around). In this environment, the differences between these forces makes a real difference: -the forces separate. Once the good grows completely out into the surrounding environment; the original piece (now containing all the evil, and non good) can be discharged, and the forces will thus be separated. So we can enact separation of the forces if we place the material to be separated in the right environment -that of reduced capability. ›And this separation of the forces involves an action of 'escape' where the more mobile good moves out of the area where evil remains.› When our child is bad and contains evil within them, we do not destroy our child, but instead, spank them -or otherwise punish them, (and thus place them in reduced capability). This allows for the good to grow out away from the evil and the evil to die: thus saving the good and not throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

One way to place a thing in reduced capability while doing minimal harm, is to fragment it. When evil attacks part of us, we can fragment that part (and all other parts within evil's grasp), putting it at reduced capability. When the evil has died out, we can then allow what's left to grow back together.

When something contains evil within it, we need to place it in reduced capability for separation of the forces. But when something contains no evil, we don't put it in reduced capability. Just the opposite, we nurture it. Even of itself, when something is free of evil, it grows well and creates an ever more nurturing environment. (To place something that doesn't contain evil, in reduced capability, forces it to do necessary evils to survive and returns it to the evil it escaped from.)

The question comes to mind: why does God allow us to suffer, and put us in reduced capability? And being in reduced capability is bad enough but when we're irritated as well by our predicament, that indicates a fore of evil is together with us and is eating us. Yet we cannot even try to get away and escape. We must stick around to turn the other cheek and walk the extra mile. If there is a God, why would He subject us to such abject reduced capability?

First of all, God puts us in reduced capability to separate the forces. There's evil in us, in our world and in our essentials. The good's growing out into god, while the evil's not growing, and is thus separated away and discarded. We must be at this level of reduced capability so the evil won't get out, while the good will. Otherwise, a more capable evil would make destruction out of God's rich nurturing environment. We're put in reduced capability, yes; but we loose any irritation. Being irritated indicates a force of destruction is eating us, as in the forces of good and evil together. That's the point of this reduced capability: to eliminate togetherness of these forces, and separate the forces. (If you think having the forces together is irritating at reduced capability, just think how irritating it would be at high capability.) So, being irritated isn't what God's trying to do here. Just the opposite: it's what He's eliminating. Once good has separated from evil, it no longer needs to be in reduced capability, and can be advanced to high capability.

When destruction DESTROYS part of us we would expect to loose that part and no longer have it, right? But what if a force-of-good-of-High-Capability caught the good of that part before destruction destroyed it? Well, the good of that part would still be alive; yet would be a separate entity -part of God. It'd be free from the destruction it passed through. It's a very special part because it is escaped from all evil, and can now advance and grow well. It has a very valuable status -that of being free from all evil.

If there was no God, then when destruction destroyed part of us, that part'd be gone and we'd loose it. But if it appears recreated as a separate entity, still alive, and able to make choices; then it seems to me there is a God, and this part is with God at the doors of heaven. Search inside yourself. Are some of your parts Godly parts? -Parts that shouldn't even exist that should be dead and destroyed, but are yet alive and exist as a separate entity from the rest of you? We have an evil free, non-coerced choice here. The wise choice is to keep what has escaped evil, to remain escaped from evil. So that when destruction destroys us in the evil, earthly arena; that us-translated-into God, doesn't replace what was destroyed. The earthly arena goes without until its own growth replaces that again.

John 3, 5-8: Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.

The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.

When the force of destruction comes and destroys part of you, you'd expect to loose what was destroyed. But what if a behind-the-scenes -fogoHC caught the good of this part? Then it would still be alive; and not only alive, but fast growing and rich because of it being evil free. So you notice that somehow you still have this part and that it has somehow escaped the destruction. And you unsuspectingly then use this Godly part like normal, and use it in your life here together with evil. This is where the mistake is made. The wise choice is to not turn these free parts back into the arena of evil, but allow them to remain as they are -evil free in God. But oftentimes we don't realize the value of what we have; and this Godly part chooses to come back down into the evil arena it escaped from to supply our remnant rest of us in our need (which is trapped of evil). In doing so, our Godly part looses its precious position of being free from evil and becomes trapped of evil again. Bringing these Godly parts down into evil's arena to supply us, is like antimatter trying to contact matter. You may want to bring your in-God parts down to help you deal with the problems you are having with evil; but that just destroys their evil free status (in a painful way). The solution to evil is already within you: to choose from you in-God parts to never come down together with your earthly parts. Because 'where your treasure is; there your heart is also'. By not returning these Godly parts to the arena of evil, you make a place for yourself in heaven and store up treasure in heaven; so that you may be in heaven, and not suffering with evil, on earth.

Matthew 6, 19-21: Lay not up for yourselves treasure upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal:

But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal:

For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.

The process by which we are born (again) into God's Spirit: (Matthew 16, 24-25): Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it.

John 12, 24-25: Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit.

He that loveth his life shall lose it; and he that hateth his life in this world shall keep it unto life eternal.

Here we see that separation of the forces has occurred through death. The corn of wheat had died; and in so doing, the good parts of it have been translated into God's Spirit, where they are separate from evil and can thus grow well (bringing forth much fruit). But the corn of wheat before it dies, represents us here on this earth together with evil, where we thus stagnate and don't grow (due to our being together with evil).

Since the good parts (which were once part of you before destruction destroyed their connection with you) are now separate from the destruction and are now a part of God: we can now call them (part of) God. These Godly parts then do not deliver themselves (or earthly parts) to evil, nor do they help in the growth of our earthly parts within evil's grasp.

These Godly parts then are not subject to your obedience of the commandments in your earthly situation; but are subject to their own obedience to the commandments in their own situation, since they are a separate entity from you. Note that if these parts of God cannot be compelled or smitten, or be made subject to the authority of men; (and they can't since they have already escaped and been made separate from these things (God is Holy)); then they are not required to go the extra mile or bring themselves to be destroyed by the commandments. 'Give unto God what is God's, and unto Caesar what is Caesar's.'

Our earthly parts are under the coercion of evil, and are in no position to change or obey anything. It is from our Godly parts that we have a free choice. If these Godly parts choose not to come down nor supply our earthly parts (this is the dying to ourselves Christ wants us to do); then our earthly parts will be at reduced capability. At reduced capability, separation of the forces is achieved in our earthly parts; which causes the evil to die and the good to grow. And without evil to bother us, we can do good even in our earthly parts. (At reduced capability, the good in our earthly parts is able to grow away from the evil. Remember, the evil is also at reduced capability, and can't get around. Thus separation of the forces is achieved.)

But if we choose instead with our Godly parts, to bring them down and supply our earthly parts, then our earthly parts will be well nurtured and not at reduced capability. In this nurture, the good will be able to get around, but so will the evil, due to the rich environment. As long as this continues, stagnation will be the result, as the evil continues to survive and feed off what our Godly parts bring down. So, the way to disrupt stagnation within us, is to deny our earthly self our Godly parts: -to not bring down our Godly parts to supply our earthly parts. This is a wonderful and powerful thing. Now our earthly parts can be evil free and can be accepted of God. This placing our earthly parts in reduced capability is just the opposite of what I had argued for earlier. Then, I argued we should be well nurtured, so as to avoid evil. Well, that's still true but only when there's no evil within us. If evil is present in our earthly parts, then instead of the nurturing environment, they need just the opposite -a reduced capability environment (for separation of the forces).

If an evil finds you after you've grown to be nurturing; a way to bring things to reduced capability, is through fragmentation. If we fragment or atomize (disbanding the central government), our parts will be at less capability, and the evil can be denied the growth our union would have produced. The evil can then be on its way to self destruction, and what good parts can grow away and escape the new evil, can regrow a nurturing environment and union, utilizing the fragments present, which it is able to put back together.

In a Biblical context; we recall that Jesus said that if a part of our body offended us, we should cast it from us. This is a fragmentation. In the light of turning the other cheek, it has application: The entity required by Jesus' command to turn the other cheek, is only what is attached to the cheeks. (If a neighbor is struck on the cheek, are all Christians required by the command, to come and offer their cheeks? Recall the condition at the beginning of the command 'if you are compelled or smitten' -and that all these others have not been compelled nor smitten (still, if we're all together as one . . .). -and the 'command' to give to God what is God's, and to Caesar what is Caesar's.) Only entities attached to, and part of, the cheeks would be required to do the turning. Otherwise we'd not be able to obey his other command about casting what parts of us that offend us, away. (If you are turning you cheek, it's not cast away.)

Note: what is a cheek? Is it the mental connection and image; or the physical matter? A mountain is big, but without a living human mind to conceive of its largeness, a mountain is unable to be big. In reality, a puny human is much bigger than a mountain, in terms of life. All our possessions have no life, but the effect they have on our nerve impulses and in our mind.

ie: there is more than one way to cast a part of us away. And the mental way is preferred as it does less destruction. Although we still amputate when something gets gangrene. Now, if the action to cast away, offends us, we can cast away casting away.

A real point here, is: do you want to preserve your entity/identity and suffer destruction; or do you choose to escape destruction but loose your (previous) entity/identity? If a destructor is unable to smite one of your cheeks, then you are not required to deliver cheeks to the destructor. But if a destructor IS able to smite one of your cheeks, then the command requires you to deliver your other cheeks to the destructor. However, if you fragment yourself so that the entity known as 'you', is no longer composed of 2 cheeks, but that there now exists 2 separate entities of one cheek apiece; then the entity required to turn the unsmitten cheek, no longer exists. With the original entity unavailable for the command requirement to lock onto, the requirement is unable to apply. (Perhaps the new entity containing the smitten cheek could still be required to turn the unsmitten cheek. But if it cannot deliver the unsmitten cheek (if the unsmitten entity acts to get away), then only the entity with the smitten cheek has broken the command and will suffer hell for it. But then, it is already in torment from being smitten. And now will live eternally (with eternal chances for material to escape it), instead of dying and coming to an end from being smitten.

Of course, there are times when the smiting of our cheek, is just a minor necessary evil we must endure to obtain some good. In this case, we wish to preserve our entity and not fragment. So the command here, instructs that all cheeks should bear the burden of being smitten. You rich guys should not have your cheeks spared while we working poor must be smitten day in day out by this work for wages stuff; -as long as you want to remain part of the society and enjoy the benefits of it (which you so richly do).

When evil attacks us, we go to an environment of reduced capability for the separation of the forces. We accomplish this, first, by not bringing down the Godly parts (created as a result of evil destroying parts of us); and secondly with our earthly parts by decentralizing, dissociating and fragmenting our earthly selves -where evil has a grasp. (We never bring down any Godly part to do fragmentation, though. That's done only by what earthly parts we have.

When evil dies, it no longer destroys, and Godly parts are thus no longer generated. (the existing Godly parts of themselves do plenty of growth anyway).

There is a force of destruction in our essentials in that they require a quota of growth. In the essential of eating, our bodies are continually burning the food to make energy. Our periodic eating is just the uptake of additional food material to await destruction. The act of eating in itself, doesn't have to be destructive. That's not the main destructive force. That just represents the taking in of more food. It is the continual burning of that food within us, that is destructive (of the food), and is the main destructive force. Although this main destructive force probably resides near its 'food' source.

There's a destructive force in our bodies we're born with. Our bodies continually burn food to supply us with energy to live. We must periodically take in new food to replace what our bodies used up (destroyed). But whether or not we eat; our bodies still always burn (destroy) food for energy. If we don't eat, our bodies consume us and we starve to death. If we eat, our bodies consume the food instead, and we're able to live awhile longer. In both cases (eat or fast), destruction to (food) material is done, as the body burns it for energy. So, Godly parts are continually being created from this.

At this point I want to review the possibilities that are available to the force of good (growth) vs the force of evil (destruction): When the force of evil is alone, it consumes itself and disappears; so this isn't a viable option. Evil needs a force of good to supply it with material to destroy.

So when evil is together with good, this is one viable possibility. But this is the possibility of torment because the evil never dies and goes on forever.

The other viable possibility is that of the force of good alone. When good is alone, it builds itself up to high capability and is very nurturing. Life here experiences its best and full potential.

When our body burns (food) material for energy, that is a force of destruction (in that we'll always need to take in more food to replace what our bodies destroy). We were born with this force of destruction in our bodies; but we have a mind to think and choose with. When our minds choose to eat; that is a choice to feed this destructive force. It's a choice for the forces of good and evil together with that choice's corresponding torment. But what other choice do we have? If we choose to not eat, we starve to death. And that's no choice at all. If we examine what we're choosing if we choose to starve, we'd find we've chosen to not-choose (between good vs destruction). When the destruction in our bodies consumes us, our minds could choose to eat, and this'd be a choice to feed the evil. It'd be a choice for evil and good together (one of the viable options). But when our minds choose not to feed the evil, and when the evil in our bodies consumes us and we starve to death, then we've NOT chosen the option of evil and good together. But we haven't chosen the viable option of good only, either, since we denied ourselves any good (any food in this case). We're stuck with the evil in our bodies (which we did not choose), and the evil is alone (since we didn't take in any good). The option we've chosen (the option of destruction alone), is a NON viable option where both forces are eliminated (so we end up with neither force) after we've starved to death and gone to nothing where once we were alive.

What I want to choose, is the viable option of good only. And the option of good only can be achieved by the separation of the forces from a system (or entity) containing good and evil together. And this separation of the forces can be achieved by bringing this system to reduced capability.

Now in the starvation example, our system goes to reduced capability naturally when we choose not to eat. The destruction in our bodies brings our system to reduced capability as it destroys, and what it destroys isn't replaced. And so here, separation of the forces can be achieved.

Unfortunately we haven't included a force of good to separate out. Since we aren't feeding the evil, we have thus included no force of good and our system contains only the force of destruction (that we were born with in our bodies). Thus although the reduced capability environment, generated (as the destruction destroys us down) would allow for any good to become separated from evil; this doesn't occur, since we included no force of good. This is the flaw with the self denial, discipline and pious (religious) ways and republicanism in our world today.

The destructive forces in our bodies aren't things chosen by our minds, but are things we're born with. When we choose (to do) good things with our mind, these good things become part of our system. Also part of our system are the destructive forces in our bodies we were born with. So when we choose good things (any good thing), this thus then throws us into a situation of torment of the forces of good and evil together (where the worm never dies and the fire is not quenched -where the destructive force remains alive and doesn't burn itself out). But this good and evil together is only one of the viable options. What about the viable option of good alone? We haven't tried that yet (we aren't capable of that yet, especially when we choose starvation). (The starvation choice was the non viable option of the force of evil alone.) But can we even accomplish good alone? Often it seems we really don't have a choice. We're forced into either destruction alone vs good plus destruction, and we're unable to achieve good alone (as we have trouble shaking the destruction in our bodies we were born with). Not being able to have, obtain, achieve what we want; describes a situation of reduced capability. If we choose to bring a force of good into this reduced capability environment, then separation of these forces will occur because separation of the forces occurs at reduced capability. When the forces become separate, the evil alone will consume itself and disappear; and the good alone will provide us with what we were seeking. So don't tell me we're incapable of the viable option of good only. It's one of the possibilities. If the environment is too nurturing with evil also present; we can always fragment and thus bring it to reduced capability. ('Those who abase themselves with be exalted; those who exalt themselves will be abased.') The way we'd miss achieving good only is if we choose not to choose, by choosing the non viable option of evil only (which is what we do when we self deny, choose not to eat, choose to be celibate). In this situation of evil only; evil consumes all within its grasp, consumes itself and dies. But there's no good left after the evil has died. Thus we achieve nothing with this choice. We do no evil, but neither do we achieve any good. The inanimate does just as well as this (this stagnant system). Life can do better than this. Life by definition hopefully, is above the nothing and the inanimate.

We do need a moderate amount of good things. But don't overdo it. Having too many good things puts us above reduced capability: And, in the presence of evil (especially if we did much necessary evil to obtain the many good things), this results in the forces of good and evil together where the forces do not separate due to being above reduced capability. We don't want the viable option of good and evil together, as that is the option of torment. (Recall the parable of the bigger barns.)

We can still achieve the viable option of good-only in choosing lots-of-good; but in addition to choosing much good, we must deal with the destructive forces in our bodies we were born with. And we do so by creating an environment of reduced capability around (only around) those destructive forces. We can do this by fragmenting everything near these destructive forces (within us). But the parts of us not near (or separate from) the destructive forces; don't need fragmentation, and can enjoy the good life. /They will also be the doers of fragmentation unto our parts near and belonging to our destructive forces. Oops. Recently I've found this isn't a good idea to have the evil-free areas do fragmentation. (Fragmentation invariably includes some destruction). It's better to have only the things near evil do fragmentation unto themselves. This includes fragmenting the fragmentation action itself (which is done simultaneous with fragmenting everything else near evil). Now, if we fragment the fragmentation action, it ceases to function after a certain point, and the fragmentation stops. (We won't have done a complete job (a complete fragmentation) here.) But that's just what we want. Our purpose is to bring everything here (in the vicinity of evil) to reduced capability so things no longer function; but not much below this point. We want to create an environment of reduced capability for separation of the forces where the good is still able to grow, but the evil isn't. And if we brought things to too low capability with a complete fragmentation, then the good wouldn't be able to get around either; and separation of the forces wouldn't be achieved. We want an environment of reduced capability, not desolation. The fragmentation produces a reduced capability environment where separation of the forces occurs. Thus we achieve the wonderful viable option of good only. Only where evil is, should be at reduced capability: the other locations should be nurtured. And if Godly parts aren't being generated, then fragmentation doesn't need to be done.

Our living in a world with death, where generation after generation dies and is replaced by the newest generation; has had its effect on us. Species and individuals lacking a drive to reproduce, die off, and don't pass those genes on. Thus there's a bias for increasing the drive to reproduce. How is this drive enhanced? Well, I theorize a defect in our body has been selected for, that slowly destroys brain chemicals (hormones),-and that sexual release is needed to restore those brain chemicals and brain function. This then makes sexual release a quasi essential, in that we feel compelled to produce a quota of it. And we need to deal with the continual destruction here within our body, through ›'choosing away'› / fragmentation. (But even in a world without a bias or drive, the action to reproduce is an important one, representing growth; although it wouldn't be so driven.)

The destruction is continually destroying (brain chemicals), but we don't necessarily continually replace them. Whether or not we are replacing brain chemicals, or in between replacement, or not replacing; the destruction continues, and is somewhat independent of our sexual arousal/release. And Godly parts are continually being created. What can we do? Well, we could choose to stop feeding the destruction and no longer replace the brain chemicals. But this would throw us into reduced capability in other areas that depend on these brain chemicals, that were otherwise good and contained no evil; which should remain nurtured and not be thrown into reduced capability. What can we do? There is another way. Our mind can choose fragmentation (simultaneous with Godly parts choosing away) as a means of putting the evil into reduced capability to enact separation of the forces.

But even when not acting to PRODUCE brain chemicals, we must continually fragment in the area where our body destroys brain chemicals (where Godly parts are being generated), so when we do produce brain chemicals, it doesn't become a choice by us for evil (and good together) with its corresponding torment. Of course, our Godly parts aren't involved in this fragmentation in any form, but choose away from all this. -(Which helps further in creating a reduced capability environment here). (Our earthly parts do the fragmentation.) And everything is incompletely fragmented in the area of evil (our consciousness, any brain chemicals, the production of brain chemicals, etc). /Note that these methods can also be used on the occasional evil that comes from the outside. But just remember to continue dealing with the evil within our body that is occurring continually, simultaneous with external evil./

In more detail: Other non-evil areas may be elevated out of reduced capability by the brain chemicals; but if our production of brain chemicals contains an evil, then we should do without, even though our other good areas shouldn't be put in reduced capability, right? Well, no. If doing without puts us in reduced capability: (but since it contains evil, going with it will also put us in reduced capability -(therefore our previous directive to abstain in order to avoid reduced capability, doesn't apply)): then we should go WITH it, so that the good of it will be separated by the reduced capability environment; as opposed to not including it, which would loose the good of it altogether. The reduced capability environment is ripe for processing this thing with good and evil together, so we can take advantage of that. -Even (especially) if all we're able to do, is this thing with good and evil together(, or, nothing).///

If we're unable to fragment, then we're already at reduced capability and needn't do the fragmentation. When we fragment, we also fragment our fragmentation action itself. And when that is fragmented until it no longer functions, this fragmentation stops. So concerning an evil attack: we fragment once where evil affects us, and we don't fragment again (except in small areas where evil affects us, and we don't fragment again (except in small areas where evil's changing attack may catch small new parts of us). When we've fragmented in an area once, the reduced capability environment has been created and no more fragmentation over and over is needed. We may not always do fragmentation continually (over and over), but one thing we do continually, is choosing away with Godly parts; since Godly parts are continually being created in our essentials.

But what if we're incapable of doing both fragmentation and 'choosing away', or can only do fragmentation? Well, the purpose of fragmentation was to put us at reduced capability for separation of the forces. But since we're unable to do things, we're already at reduced capability and thus don't need to do this fragmentation much at all.

One of the benefits of choosing away with Godly parts was that it put our earthly parts at reduced capability (for separation of the forces). But since we're already at reduced capability, this benefit is of no consequence. Yet that's not the only reason we choose away with our Godly parts. Choosing away with our Godly parts saves them from earth's evil and its stagnation, and allows their life to grow and develop well into its full potential. It's for this purpose we continue to choose away with Godly parts first, as a priority over other things (such as fragmentation to deal with evil).

Now it's true that Godly parts start out at the same low capability as the earthly parts, but once they choose away from earth (and to stay in God), they grow well and much beyond their beginnings. It is these beginning Godly parts in their low capability beginnings which we can't distinguish from earthly parts when we ourselves are at reduced capability. So to ensure that our beginning Godly parts choose away, we just choose away from earth/stay safe in God with all that we are, both earthly and Godly parts.

Now, there are certain things that our bodies do on their own (naturally). Our heart beats, we breath, we burn food for energy, we utilize/replenish brain chemicals. These things have been programmed into our bodies since birth, and are not of our mind's doing or initiative. So, to stop these things, would actually be an act by our mind to do something and that our mind was the cause of; whereas if our mind did nothing, our bodies would continue doing their thing. Before our mind does anything, including interfering with the natural programming of our bodies; our mind should first accomplish 'choosing away'. Once 'choosing away' is being done, we can additionally then do other things. This not-interfering-with-our-body's-actions includes not detracting from its action, neither adding to it. All our mental resources are in first priority devoted to 'choosing away'; and not towards changing our body's course as a first priority.

Many are called but few are chosen? What about that Bible passage? Well, we believers are all supposed to be one in the lord. We make up the bride of Christ. Who else but the bride will be chosen by Jesus? When we were called, we were many; but then we became one and formed the bride of Christ. God the Father will choose Jesus, and His bride. That's the few who'll be chosen. (From Matthew 22, 2-14). I also believe this interpretation applies to the few that get in at the straight gate. So everybody who wants to be chosen will be; its just that they will be one, as part of the bride of Christ when they are chosen.

Matthew 7, 12-14: Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.

Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

When we die we supposedly go to heaven (if we're born of God). Does it then follow that if just a part of us is destroyed that it too goes to heaven and exists alive; as a Godly part?

You may say that this Godly/earthly part idea makes us double minded, and that our Lord is one Lord. But on the contrary: When we choose with our Godly parts to come down / supply our earthly parts, that makes us double minded (as the two are near together). (They can never be one in a single mind though, due to the basic difference between them, in that one comes from freedom from evil, while the other comes from being evil laden.) When our Godly parts choose to move away from our earthly parts, that makes them a separate entity, with a single mind; that loves God with all its mind. Whereas the entity/union of Godly and earthly parts together cannot love God with all its mind, but can only love God with the Godly part.

God is no respector of persons and He reaps where He has not sown, in that He allows the good in a person to escape into Him and be separate from the evil in that person; thus dividing the person up; even freeing the good that an evil person must bring along to feed themselves.

Our earthly parts are of secondary importance. It is God who creates our Godly parts. When God shines His intense nurturing face on imperfect life and causes it to die; this is what happens: the good in that imperfect life is able to grow out into God, while the evil is not and remains behind in death. (And if the good doesn't include the person's consciousness and will -due to that being totally evil, then that too is left behind./ Since evil must have a good to feed on; evil no longer has a good to feed it here.) What's occurring here is separation of the forces. God saves the good parts up into His Spirit. Nothing good is lost. Even when a force of destruction tries to destroy us, God shines his intense nurture, and our good parts are saved. When destruction is destroying an earthly part of ours, God can increase His presence and nurturing environment, so that in the short time it takes the destruction to act, the good parts have grown out into God while the destructive parts haven't. Once the good has grown out into God, God can move Himself away so the environment is no longer nurturing, so the evil cannot also get out. God can bring His nurture upon us in enough intensity whenever He feels like so all our good parts would grow out into Him, leaving the evil behind. We'd no longer have an earthly life, but would be in heaven with God. Those on earth would say we were dead. But until He does this, we have an imperfect earthly life and earthly component. What's the purpose of our earthly life? We could bring it to death by self denying it. But why should we tell God when to take us completely? Let God decide when we're ready to be with Him.

But a willful self destructive act by us to cause ourselves to be killed, can never be (in a world with God). You see, we as imperfect life still have good in us. And if we also have a self destructive directive to cause us to be killed (for whatever reason); then that's a force of destruction within US. When that force of destruction attempts to perform its directive; God will shine His brilliant nurture causing our good parts to escape into Him, while the destruction will be left behind. This means our self destructive directive will be separated from us, no longer part of us. It will never achieve its directive (in a world with God). So why try to achieve something that's not allowed and will be separated away if you try it? Your attempt to do self destruction is close to a choice for evil; -for togetherness of good and evil. That's a bad choice. God will not have that without your free choice for it. So, if you have the free choice; choose good alone instead like God chooses, and drop this self destructive bent.

'Resist not evil". There's a fine line between not resisting evil done to us, vs, not being a doer of evil. If we allow something that is part of us (that belongs to us and responds to our will); to cause destruction; then this can be construed as our will causing destruction. We're not to be doers of evil. (We are commanded to love. And doing destruction isn't loving.) If we put our hand on a hot burner, we don't keep it there because we're supposed to 'resist not evil'. No, this'd be destruction done by us to ourselves; and we're not to do evil. So, with what's ours and under our will, we act to not do destruction. But when something not under our will causes destruction on us, this is where we're to resist not evil (after our will has done what it can in an evil free way).

I don't see God standing over us with an iron rod, making sure we obey. No, God has pretty much let us have our way with this world (He has chosen not to bring His Godly parts down to us, except for the time when Jesus came for a short while). Here on earth, the force of destruction often prevents us from being who we are and what we want to be. In our daily lives, it's not God, or Jesus Christ who stands in our way, but the force of destruction. If God isn't going to help us overcome this destruction, then very few of us will escape/overcome it. (In all history, we've not yet overcome it.) But if Christ came and separated the forces while He was here, then many of us (all who want to) will be able to be free of destruction (except we won't be as many, but will be together as one). Hey, I'm not going to pass up an opportunity like this if Christ has brought it about. God (Christ) is the one best suited to cause separation of the forces in the first place, because of His great power. We humans at our low power, have little chance at overcoming destruction, ie (growing powerful as God, then dividing in two and one part coming and accomplishing separation of the forces with its great power). Hey, if Christ as God has made it now easy to choose/have life free of destruction; then I'm going to join the band wagon and go with Him. He says that his yolk is easy and his burden light.

Well, truth is a hard thing to understand; and a person devoted to saying the truth as Jesus was can be misunderstood and misinterpreted and can offend; but that doesn't mean He shouldn't say his piece.

Matthew 11, 6: And blessed is he, whosoever shall not be offended in me.

Realize that it's easy to obey a commandment to not do destruction (and to choose not to do destruction) from a vantage point of being well nurtured at high capability; but not so easy from a vantage point at reduced capability. For us at reduced capability, we're forced to do destructions just to maintain our being alive.

The Godly parts (generated from earthly destruction) are not subject to you obedience of the commandments in your situation; but are subject to their own obedience of the commandments in their own situation, since they are a separate entity from you. After something has passed through destruction, it has already 'died to itself' and given up its (earthly) life; hopefully for its friends. Thus these commandments have been filled by the life belonging to God.

John 1, 3: All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

If you believe in the God of the Bible: God owns everything. Everything belongs to Him. Anything you do according to your will: if it uses something that belongs to God, then unless you have obtained God's permission to use it; that makes you a thief. You may ask God in prayer for permission to use his air, water, food, etc; but if you don't hear Him answer back and give you permission; then it's still stealing. -If you asked someone if you could use their stuff and they didn't answer and you went ahead and used it anyway, that can still be called stealing. We're all a bunch of darn thieves. And to not steal is one of the commandments.

Well, you can say we have to work for what we get. Well what job has God offered mankind? The only job in the Bible God offers man, is to spread the Gospel. (and all work related to spreading the Gospel.) But even so, most of us are still guilty of 'stealing from God'. (This is how God can forgive our debts as we forgive our debtors. This is why we are saved by faith, not by works and obeying commandments.) God loves us, and does not deny us any good thing and it is His will that we should grow and prosper. It is the force of destruction that causes us pain and denies us the good life. When we, out of the system of private ownership, deny people the goods of this world (that we have plenty of) that they need to live, we frustrate the love of God. Don't do that. Or God will require the very last mite from you for your use of His stuff, as you did here on earth. -If you sow strict private ownership, you shall reap strict private ownership.

There is a problem with obeying a commandment for the reward. There's often an evil or destruction associated with obeying ANY commandment. When you do things, you first do them according to who you are and what you were created as. So if you're not currently doing what the commandment commands, then you have to change from what you're doing, to what the commandment says. And this involves shutting off part of who you are. In this case, the commandment is outside you will; and requires you to decrease yourself and who you are. This is a decrease in capability and life (which is what destruction is). So if you're not presently obeying the commandment in consideration, then right from the start, you commit destruction (against yourself) in trying to obey it. (Of course, if your way is also destructive, then this is irrelevant.) Since destruction is not a loving act; and we are commanded to love as our most important commandment, there goes our salvation and eternal life from obeying the commandments right there. You may say that you are supposed to deny yourself like this. But that's just imperfection trying to improve itself. A person has to already have eternal life within them to be able to obey these commandments of God/Jesus. One cannot hope to gain eternal life by obeying these commandments, if they don't already have it. The only thing the commandments are, are a gauge to tell you if you have eternal life within you, or you need to get eternal life within you.

Finally, we come to the source of that eternal life. Christ always said when He healed, 'your faith has made you whole' throughout the Gospel. If we don't have that eternal life we cannot hope to obey the commandments. If we have eternal life, we obey the commandments naturally, as from our own self. The big question is, is God going to help us out. Is He going to make it easy for us to choose good only vs good and evil together. And the answer is Yes as expounded upon in John 3 16.

John 3, 15-19: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.

Here we have linkage to eternal life. The other commandments of Jesus aren't individually linked to eternal life; but this saying is. All we need do, is believe on Him, and He will do the rest. Once we have the eternal life, we will do according to that eternal life.

This believing on Christ, is not a commandment. We aren't commanded to believe on Christ. It's a choice. It is a trusting in God.

Note that not believing on Christ is related to evil deeds. This is the choice I've spoken of. Do we want to do good things alone, or to include destructive things? We ultimately must make the choice. And what we choose, will determine our relationship to God. If we like to do evil deeds and can't see ourself living without them (and don't want to change), then there's no point believing on Christ and getting saved, because God and Christ are on the opposite choice which is for good only; and they'll not have themselves present in the choice for including evil. We cannot make God/Christ choose to suit us. They have their own mind, and have chosen good only.

›Which came first -the egg or the chicken? Which comes first? God, or Creation?

On second analysis, it may seem haughty and high minded to think that we can be changed and saved by the word or a blessing. We could analyze God, here, as a 3rd party stamp of approval: depending on whether we believe on Jesus, or not. And this is true. This is the one and only time when I accept the 3rd party approval, as quite valid. You see, we are trapped of destruction. Our society has been since its beginning. All this is, is a recognition of our situation and a reaching out and admitting we need outside help. I do this. I admit my trapped situation and open myself up and accept what God has to offer, by believing on Christ. But God is no ordinary 3rd party. Unlike other 3rd parties, God does not need my help or work to free me from evil, other than my OK and permission to do this in me.

It may seem silly that if the blessing of God is put on a thing, it is made good; while if the blessing of God is not put on that very thing; it is bad. And even though it may be silly, I make this one exception to be silly. You see, in this case, the blessing of God, is under my control. If I believe on Christ, then I am blessed. If I refuse to believe on Christ, then I am not blessed. Since it requires my choice and participation; this allows me to express myself to God, and communicate that I accept His help and acknowledge my trapped state.

But if I am told that if I do something one way; it has God's blessing and is therefore good; but that if I do a similar thing another way, that it does not contain Gods blessing and is therefore bad (even though the 2 acts are very similar (nearly identical) and seem to contain similar inherent substance): then in this case, I do not have control or decision over God's blessing in this area. I do not decide here where God's blessing will be or won't be, over a certain situation. That has already been decided. Since I have no decision here where God's blessing will be present (vs not present), then this situation provides me no opportunity to express myself to God, other than by following the 'right' path, the blessed path, and not committing any of the non-blessed paths. But I say that a true God, does not need my work nor this complicated form of communication (of my showing my allegiance through obedience in actions in the conduct of my life to follow only the blessed path -some of which relate to my trapped state and which because of my trapped state are difficult/painful for me to perfom), and that my word should be good enough. Since this situation doesn't give much opportunity for the expression/communication to God of my word or decision that I need His help, then I disregard it as a direct communication and refer back to where my word and decision is more directly communicating. However, if an indirect and roundabout communication is sought; my failure to obey some of the difficult commands (relating to my trapped state); should actually communicate to God that I need His help in these areas.

I have tried God's word and blessing in the direct way of communicating with God and asking God for help for my trapped situation. But if I still find myself trapped of essentials: If I still hunger, then I shall say that I still need help getting out of the trap of evil. If I still need, and hunger, then I am still trapped. And until I am freed from my need and hunger, I will not be free to do good only, like I want. And I will still have to deal with the evil within myself. If I am still hungry, then God has not (yet) freed me from my hunger. And if I still have hunger, then I still have it to deal with (in the best way I can), as I still have it, as God has not freed me of it (yet). -If I still have hunger after God has done His part, then any additional dealing with that hunger falls solely on me to do it. And for God to dictate to me how I should do this: this dictating to me by God, is an act by God to do something in me. But this act (of dictating) by God upon me, has not relieved the hunger, which still remains. After God has done His part, and with the hunger still remaining, any additional dealing with that hunger falls solely on me to do it. And if the way I deal with it is contrary to God's blessing, in some parts, then this is my way to communicate to God that I have not yet been freed of my hunger, that I am still trapped of it, and that I still need help. If you leave dealing with hungers/ and being trapped by essentials, up to a powerful and almighty God, what would you expect? (I'm not going to answer this one.) But if you leave dealing with hungers/ and being trapped by essentials, up to a puny, low capability, trapped-by-hungers-and-essentials little guy like me; then you get what you pay for; and I think you know what you most probably will get from me. Sure, reduced capability is the best environment for separation of the forces and for me to become purified; but until I am purified, -(I am yet in the process of being purified); things won't always be done in the pure, God accepted ways, until I am pure, because I'm not pure yet! And WHEN God chooses to free me of my hunger, is up to Him and His time table. If you wish to dispute God's timetable concerning me and my hunger; take it up with God, not me. Cause if you do take it up with me, I'll just have to deal with you, right along with my hungers, as best I can in the ways I know how. -and those actions may or may not have God's approval. What else did you expect from a reduced capability human who is still trapped of hungers and essentials?

I have asked for God's help part ways. But when asking God for help requires that I need no help; then I find myself unable to communicate with God in this way (since I am still trapped, as I still hunger). What God does about my silence in this area, is up to God. But what I do about it, is to not dwell on what I can't do, but work with and do with what I am able to do. And this involves dealing with destructiveness in actions as best I can, which due to my trapped situation, are ways that are not always in line with the pure ways that are blessed by God.

Because I recognize that God is not just any 3rd party, but is the 3rd party who is powerful enough to free me from my hungers without my work, but only needs my non coerced, unpressured word and decision to ask for it. If asking God for help requires that I jump through hoops and prove my allegiance and be tested, tempted and tried and then overcome -essentially that I am in no need of help: then why am I asking God for help if I don't need help? But if I am in need of help, then I'll have to ask God for help (in ways I'm able;) in ways other than those requiring that I need no help.

If you wish for me to act like I'm not hungry, then I must be free from my hungers. I will not pretend to be not-hungry by acting like I'm not hungry, when I'm really hungry. I've tried God's blessing (part ways -or as best as I'm able: I won't take it back and you can't blame me for asking), but if I'm still hungry, then I additionally act ((to attempt to be free of my hungers as best I can)-this is concept A, and also to feed), and also to apply concept A in my feeding. I do not blame God for not freeing me from my hungers. God is not obligated to give me anything. God gives what He gives and I accept whatever help God makes available.›

One thing I'd like to emphasize about Jesus Christ: It is He who brought an emphasis on LOVE and the importance of LOVE, above all other things. All you need is love (The Beetles). So what's wrong with love and being kind to each other? Hey. I'm going for that. It should be obvious that love is the way to go.

Mark 12, 28-31: . . . Which is the first commandment of all?

And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel:

The Lord our God is one Lord:

And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength; this is the first commandment.

And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

There is none other commandment greater than these.

Matthew 22, 37-40: Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

This is the first and great commandment.

And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.

On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

So, if another commandment seems to contradict; which one wins out? -The commandment of love.

1 John 4, 7-8: Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God.

He that loveth not, knoweth not God; for God is love.

1 John 4, 17-18: Herein is our love made perfect, that we may have boldness in the day of judgment: because as he is, so are we in this world.

There is no fear in love: but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love.

1 John 4, 16: And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us. God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him.

Let's say I were to obey the commandment to love God with all my heart. Since God IS love, to obey the commandment would be to love, love. When I see love, I see part of God. To love and love it; is to love God. Not out of a sense of duty. I love to love. And that is loving God (because God is love). Love is so satisfying to me.

The first commandment is to love God. But since God is love, that becomes to love Love. To love ourselves is one kind of love(1). If we treat ourselves poorly, that's not loving this love(1) at all. Thus the first commandment among other things, commands us to love ourselves. And then we are to love our neighbor as ourselves.

Since God is Love, it is reasonable to assume He would care about matters of love. He'd want to protect love, and not want it treated frivolously. He'd want it treated with respect and valued highly; not trodden underfoot when it became convenient. So it's reasonable He'd write commandments protecting the actions of love. But the result seems to be that people are so scared of breaking the commandments and getting in trouble with God, that they just stay away from the game, and don't bother trying to love. But a God who is love, would want more love not less.

What I want to discuss now, is what Jesus means by his saying to deny yourself (and take up your cross). Note that we are commanded to love. We are commanded to love our neighbor, our brother, our enemy, and God. But we are not directly commanded to love ourselves; although this can be inferred, as I have shown. To ourselves, we are told to deny ourselves to die to ourselves and loose our life for Christ, and give up our life for our friends. You know, it doesn't make sense. We are a person too. Why can't we be loved too? (I've heard that to love others, spreads this love, while loving oneself then, does not. If everybody loved others, then this love would grow, and the group would be brought together as one. But if you loved others but no other loved you, then you would not be brought together with these others, and would remain alone. -Maybe they just don't want you to be part of their group. In this case of being all alone, is where the directive to only love others breaks down and where I se the logic of also loving yourself. We are a person and a friend to ourself, too!)

In a world with destruction, it is true that the greatest love a man can have is that he lay down his life for his friends. But to sacrifice your own life for your friends, involves DESTRUCTION just the same. Love does better when it is free from all destruction, including self destruction. Destruction is the big problem. Over all the passage of history, it remains with us. (Individual) Mankind has not been able to solve this problem. /(Being one, and not as many-individuals, is so important, even to die for?) /The obtaining of our essentials has caused us to develop appetites in obtaining them. Our essentials and quasi essentials have evil in them that compels us to obtain these things. Is it these destructive forces that Christ is trying to deal with in telling us to die to ourselves?

Perhaps I'm just misinterpreting 'lay down your life'; in that Christ really means 'to utilize' your life, (doesn't involve destruction and sacrifice of that life unless forced to). And since you are a friend to yourself (ie: lay down your life for your friends) as well as others, you also are loved. Then again, perhaps I didn't misinterpret.

What is Christ trying to say? What is so different between us loving others and us loving ourselves, that we sould love others but not love ourselves? The thing is that when we love ourselves, we bring down our Godly parts unto our earthly parts to do so. Yet we often don't recognize the Godly parts as a separate entity, (as they still respond to our will). But they are a separate entity, and the consequences of bringing them together with our earthly parts (to love ourselves), destroys their evil free status and growth. /To love others, recognizes a separate entity, other than ourselves, and joins them together. (But there is no joining together of entities gained in self love, as the self is already a together entity even before any additional self love.)

It is our Godly parts that have the power and capability. Jesus is instructing us not to invest in our earthly parts, which we'd do by bringing down our Godly parts to feed them (in a self love).

When the evil of this earth destroys part of us; we don't replace what evil destroys with our Godly parts. The evil thus boxes itself in while our good parts escape into the Spirit of God.

What I think Jesus is trying to say here, is to forfeit your individual life, living alone as an individual separate from God; in favor of a life together with others and God. Here we are all one (with God). Bear one another's burdens; if one suffers, we all suffer. If one rejoices, we all rejoice. As a union, we are above reduced capability, and are thus out of the trap of evil. Godly parts are one and together with God, whereas earthly parts are not. When we become a new entity ie as part of a new entity by being one with God and one in the bride of Christ, we hae thus denied 'ourself', and an individual existence (also denied). What good is it to live life alone (in a reduced capability position), when we can become one and join together with others and God (and be at high capability, no longer in the trap of evil)? Perhaps this is the idea behind 'deny yourself'./

We are imperfect because we're forced to do destruction to survive and we have destruction within us. But does Christ want us to self eliminate because we aren't perfect? (so as to make room for more perfect life forms?) Is self elimination the way to go? Love others, but deny ourselves? We are person's too. Why can't we love ourselves as well as others? Why can't we be loved too? How can we love others as we have been commanded, if we self deny and self destruct? If we self destruct, we won't exist to love others nor self deny nor do any more self destruction.

This idea about dieing to yourself, or not feeding the evil by not bringing in good things: The contrast between eternal life and our life here on earth, is made with respect to this dieing to ourselves (in the verse(s) Matthew 6 v19-21; 16 v24-25; John 12 v24-25 -namely John 12 v25). Our life here on earth is a life caught in togethrness ith evil; whereas eternal life with God is life free from evil. When it comes to dieing to ourselves or allowing ourselves to be killed, that involves destruction. My point, is we don't allow this dieing to carry over into our eternal life; so that we don't do harmful things in our eternal life that's free from evil (according to the text). -We are instructed to self deny in our earthly life. Do we continue this self denial in our eternal life? (No.)

The difference between our earthly life and our eternal life, is destruction: our earthly life is trapped of destruction while our eternal life is not. (Self denial can also be (self) destructive and (when it is -and it is when self denial of essentials/quasi-essentials is involved), can thus be classified as part of earthly life). The question is what do we do about the problem of destruction? It's not Jesus Christ or God who stands over us in a Holy presence and gives us a hard time all day; but it's the force of destruction we're trapped of in our earthly life that does this.

One of the more important precepts Jesus taught and elevated to importance, is that what we do to others should be done to us as well. -What goes around comes around. (I get this from 'Do unto others what you would have them do to you'.) This shows a difference between good and evil. If you do good to others, you don't mind when it comes back to you and others do good to you. Good is not scared of having it done to itself. But if you do evil to others, the last thing you want is for others to turn back the evil you produce onto yourself so this evil is done to you.

If you make this self-denial a part of yourself then you are thus instructed to deny this self denial itself, by Jesus' command to deny yourself. (And when we fragment, we also fragment our action to fragment.) A reduced capability environment results. We are instructed to bring our earthly life to reduced capability. (And this mirrors what we've been discussing.) If you self deny and self eliminate, there'll be no mind left to know about religion, but the forces of growth and destruction will continue in your area, but without mind or intelligence to care about obeying anything. This is one scenario of what might happen if we were to self deny. But if we actually attempt to self deny or self eliminate, then the denial/elimination itself will have become part of ourself (part of the self); so that when we continue to self deny or self eliminate, we also deny or eliminate the self denial/elimination action itself. We deny self denial, and eliminate self elimination, if we actually obey the command to self deny. Some denial and elimination will be accomplished, but it will come to a stop after a certain point, as we can never achieve complete denial or elimination because the denial and elimination will knock themselves out after a certain point. This thinking about self denial and self elimination, and religion, takes intelligence and thought power above an animalistic instinct driven mentality. Once the intelligence to consider and obey self denial has knocked itself out, what's left is our animalistic instinct driven mentality, which still exists (due to incomplete elimination and denial) and this thus then takes over and we do according to it. In short, the message of self denial is to cast religion and complex thought aside, and do according to our lower basal instincts; until a complex thought system is created which contains no evil. This is the environment of reduced capability but not total desolation we've been discussing for separating the forces when there is evil. But where there is no evil, we don't need this environment of reduced capability. But where there's evil; and there is lots of evil and mean spiritedness out there; then this is just the ticket. Go ahead and fragment them, yourself, everything. There's no religion, or teaching of self denial that can stop you. Unfortunately for that religion, any religion or system with lots of self denial and self elimination, self eliminates itself and returns the fragments (the individuals) to reduced capability; out of which develops new religions and systems. And this cycle repeats until a religion or system free from/of destruction, develops.

In our solution to evil, (after our Godly parts have left), we fragment ourselves where we're trapped by evil, in as non destructive a way as possible, where our fragments can be put back together by a force of good but not by a force of evil (due to evil being the weaker force). Our fragments provide a rich environment for forces of good to grow in, but not too rich so that the force of evil cannot grow here.

In fragmentation we have denied ourself; as 'ourself' no longer exists as an entity -only fragments. We do this to deal with the problem of evil/destruction. And Christ doesn't instruct us to self deny in our eternal life -only in our earthly life, where life is trapped by evil.

Advanced capability groupings such as ourselves shouldn't exist where there is evil. We should fragment so the evil is separated from the good and dies, and so the good-alone will then grow/produce advanced capability groupings such as us free from evil.

///Jesus says not to fear man who can only destroy the body, but fear He who can destroy the body and soul in Hell. -And how God in the judgment has his enemies who'd not have Him rule them, slain at His feet. And Jesus made a whip of cords and cast the money changers out of the temple. (Yes, without access to money/banks, the rich and poor would be the same and shops'd be forced to extend credit to all. But the they'd just tattoo a chip under the skin -the mark of the beast- to handle transactions.)

But the Bible says God is love. Jesus says to love your neighbor and your enemy. But if God eternally tortures people in Hell/the Lake of Fire: is that loving your enemy? If this passes for love: anything goes. Won't God reap what He sows? Yet if people torture each other so and choose/create a God who does this; then they are the source of this. -It is from them; and I don't have to follow in those footsteps. I choose otherwise. I choose Love.

Note that the Bible saying of how God will have his enemies who would not have Him rule over them, slain at his feet; is just unnecessarily irritable. You see, since God is Love: those who would not have love rule their hearts, will suffer the destruction which they instead choose to have rule them, without God having to lift a finger. It makes a big difference who God is, and what God is like. And God is Love.///

 

 

 

Chapter 9

"Intricasies and Details"

 

 

 

Chapter Introduction:

This chapter deals with what religion (the Bible) says concerning sex, as well as a few other things; and some detailed ideas on how to do our essentials, including sex. The chapter is divided into 2 parts A and B. Part A deals mostly with religion and sex. Part B deals with the discussion of doing our essentials. Note that I no longer practice many of these mental techniques, and I put them out mainly as a type of journal to show may passage through this area, and also to offer possible ways and possibilities.

In part B some serious abbreviations are intermittently used. These are: 'inc' means incomplete, as in inc (incomplete) fragmentation;

'red cap' means reduced capability, as in red cap (reduced capability) zone.

END CHAPTER INTRODUCTION.

Part A

Jesus Christ came here on earth to confront the problem of evil, by separating the forces in all areas. I don't specifically find this in the Bible, but it does say He came to destroy the works of the devil.

Once the forces have been separated, this is finished, and no more of it needs to be done. There is no more growth of this. In the Bible, it says that Jesus Christ (not God the Father), is the same today, yesterday, and forever. This means that He is not growing. And this is true. Evil doesn't grow and generate new things like good does, so once evil is dealt with, that's it. No more action is needed. Because the body of Jesus Christ (that is, Jesus Christ as a man), had no growth, the Holy Spirit extended beyond His body from the Father. It is this Holy Spirit that can then have all manner of growths free from evil.

So you don't believe God the Father grows. Well, not according to the Bible:

Colossians 2, 18-19: Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind,

And not holding the Head, from which all the body by joints and bands having nourishment ministered, and knit together, increaseth with the increase of God. (increase means growth)

God causes other things to grow:

1 Corinthians 3, 6-7: I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase.

So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase.

God IS growth:

Hebrews 6, 13-20: For when God made promise to Abraham, because he could swear by no greater, he sware by himself,

Saying, Surely blessing(1) I will bless thee, and multiplying(2) I will multiply thee.

And so, after he had patiently endured, he obtained the promise.

For men verily swear by the greater: and an oath for confirmation is to them an end of all strife.

Wherein God, willing more abundantly to shew unto the heirs of promise the immutability of his counsel, confirmed it by an oath:

That by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the ›hope› set before us:

Which ›hope› we have as an anchor of the soul, both sure and steadfast, and which entereth into that within the vail;

Whither the forerunner is for us entered, even Jesus, made a high priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.

It says that God sware by himself. And He called Himself "blessing" and He also called Himself "multiplying". God is Blessing; and God is Multiplying. Multiplying represents growth. If you're going to multiply, growth is going to be involved. And the blessing part represents that the growth is above reduced capability; that it is free from evil.

(It is also written that God is Love. So we see that love is also blessing and multiplying. Love involves growth (IS growth).) You know, they could have said, "God is loving". The Bible may say God is Holy, and God is righteous. But it doesn't say that God is Holiness or God is righteousness. But it does say that God is Love and God is Multiplying and God is Blessing. And it is clear that it is God the Father being referred to here, as that is who is "within the vail" at the temple being referred to.

Next we'll portray an interesting twist to Bible verses concerning sexual love:

Mark 10, 6-9

But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.

For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;

And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.

What therefor God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

Matthew 19, 4-6

And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,

And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

Matthew 19,9

And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, comitteth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery(although this doesn't directly relate to 'putting asunder').

There is the commandment to love your neighbor as yourself. But since you don't love yourself in a sexual way, this wouldn't apply as to loving your neighbor in a sexual way. But if you are married, and you love your spouse in a sexual way; you ARE loving yourself in a sexual way because the twain have become one flesh. So the commandment can be seen as instructing you to love your neighbor in a sexual way if you are married. This is a very liberal view of how we should be behaving towards each other sexually. But it has a restraint that I agree with. That what is being spoken against in adultery and fornication, is not love making, but love breaking. When you love your mate sexually, and then you love a second person sexually; it usually happens that you are required to (or you) break it off with one or the other. It is this love breaking that is the wrong being committed. "Let not man put asunder what God has joined together". When young people are fornicating; one set of partners make love; but soon they break off and find a new set of partners. It is this love breaking that is wrong. If you're going to do all this sex, well fine. You can interpret these Bible verses to OK that. But you've got to keep your old partners. You can't discard them. You've got to keep loving them. Also, when a man has sex with his wife, since they are one flesh, 'his seed has remained in him'.

The release of seed is not the evil, it is the body's prevention of the release of seed, or destruction of brain chemicals, that is. But, the creation of seed is a fragmenting of one's genetic make-up (unless one is pure breed); and fragmentation has some destruction in it. So, it may not be good to create seed at all; but fragmentation has its uses in removing evil: but when there's no evil to remove, there's no need for fragmentation. Now, we are also commanded, that if a part of our body offends us, we are to cast it from us. This is a fragmentation. The creation of sperm involves a fragmentation; and if our sperm offends us, we are instructed to cast it from us. (a fragmentation of the product of a fragmentation. thus when we fragment the production of sperm via temporary abstinence, we have a fragmentation of fragmentation, and incomplete fragmentation.)

What I'm looking for, is why. What's wrong with sex? For sure, we can get all moral and morally indignant, but I not interested in that. The Bible may have an anti sexual directive; but if so, I want to know why and for what reasons. That way, if we know what the trouble is, we can work around it in the most positive ways. Well, here, we see that Jesus speaks against the breaking of the bond God joins between two sexually connected individuals, concerning the wrong of adultery. But there's more. The sexual area goes deeper than this. Because we feel compelled to sex (because we live in a world with death which is not of God, where we must reproduce or die off as a species), there is an evil in sex where our pleasures, which should go evenly to all things, are removed from other things, to surround sex with maximum pleasure to compel us to sex. This leaves the other things lack luster and lacking in pleasure, and this is the destructive part. And with destruction also being selected for in sex, this glut of pleasure is slowly destroyed, leaving us completely lack luster and lacking in pleasure and enjoyment of life.

Matthew 5, 28: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

The key word is lust here. (Define lust.) Even if you're married, if you look at your wife the wrong way, its adultery. So if you're not allowed to have sexual feelings for your wife, then I guess you don't love 'yourself' in a sexual way. (Still, there remains something sexual between a husband and wife in what is allowed in marriage.) Well, like I was saying, there's an evil or destructive force in sex we all need to be careful of. If we refuse to allow the pleasures from our other things from entering into our sex, for as long as we can hold out, then the evil in sex which consumes our pleasures, will not be fed. The time spent doing sex at reduced pleasure capability allows the good to separate from the evil, and the evil to die. And even if we're not able to hold out till complete separation is achieved, some separation is achieved, and we can then do a special series of fragmentations. So what does Jesus have to say ultimately about sex? Lets continue on in Matthew:

Matthew 19, 10-12

His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry. (Here, point blank, they are considering if any sex at all is OK; and Jesus' answer in the next verse:)

But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying (the saying, Matthew 19,9), save they to whom it is given.

For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.

Well, the answer I get from this, is that it's not as simple as yes or no, but that sex is a complicated thing, that we need to figure our way around the dangers.

We were born with hungers and desires that are not of God. We were born with what we are. Call it 'the flesh', 'the natural man' or 'mammon', but we were born with desires of the flesh (hungers) that we did not ask for. Also a part of us, is a desire for God, goodness and to please God. What we have; who we are; and what we were born as: is this body and mind. We may not have asked for these hungers and we may even choose against them, but they are part of us just the same. Any religion that does not recognize this, sells us short. OK, go ahead and say that these hungers are wrong and bad. I will agree that it is OK to list and acknowledge what is evil in us, and call it what it is. But to expect us to do something about it, is another ball game altogether. And religion expects us to overcome our desires and hungers. We have to eat. That is destructive to plants or animals (other life forms). (What about the commandment: Thou shalt not kill?) I acknowledge that this is so and that I eat; but there's nothing I can do about it. I am not able to live otherwise. Would you like to be eaten? The golden rule condemns eating.

What we have, who we are, and what we were born as; is this body and mind. This house; this body and mind, which serves as a house or container to hold our consciousness; is composed of both God and mammon. What I suggest is that we let the parts of us that want to serve God, go and do that; and the parts that want to serve mammon (our hungers), go and do that. My point is that we have no interest in seeing such a house as ours to remain standing. There is no benefit to have Godly parts be together with mammon parts. This 'house' our body contains both God and mammon -two opposing directives - together, within us. It is not in our interest to maintain this togetherness. Thus when Jesus instructs us that we can't serve two masters (you cannot serve both God and mammon) and that a house divided against itself will not stand; we go ahead and be a house divided against itself (which is what we are and were born as), and let this house (which was not of our making or choosing), to fall. And that is gravy for us as we'll be eliminating togetherness of the forces and obtain separation of the forces. Jesus says that 'we' cannot serve two masters (God and mammon). And this is true. The entity we know as ourselves, will no longer contain both God and mammon. The part of us that wants to serve mammon and go to excess in the desires of the flesh, will go and do that. And the part that wants to put God first will go and do that. But they will no longer be one entity, but separate entities.

Getting back to sex and religion: One may wonder, is there sex in heaven?

Mark 12, 25:

For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven.

What is the sex life of an angel? Unknown. But we may speculate that since the only sex allowed here on earth is in marriage, and since there is no marriage in heaven, that therefore there is no sex in heaven. But just because the only sex allowed by God on earth is in monogamous marriage, doesn't mean that holds true in heaven. Now, I wouldn't give this much weight, except for the EXAMPLE that God has set.

Jesus Christ: He was (is) the son of God. He was (is) God's only begotten sone. You know, from first glance at religion, you'd get the idea that we were beneath Him, and basically the scum of the universe (an evil and adulterous generation) (violence and sex). But then God goes and has an offspring with an earthling. God chose to REPRODUCE with one of His creations, an earth woman, and had an humanoid son, Jesus Christ. He must care about us a lot. I wouldn't go as far as saying God had sex with an earthling, as God is free from the hunger and coercive force we know as sex which has been shaped by death through the generations, and the need to reproduce to replace what death took away. And the Bible says that the Word (which then became Christ when the Word took on humanoid form) existed with God and as God from the very beginning. But human reproductive function free from coercion and evil, with the human woman Mary, did take place; and a humanoid offspring was then generated after Mary's conception. Perhaps only Mary's genes existed from her virgin birth. But at age 12, the spirit of God descended upon Jesus. -The life essence from a human woman (12 years later) was combined with the life essence of God (a spirit), and in a loose sense of the word, an offspring (Jesus Christ) was created. Luke 1,35: "And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the son of God." If God did it (although only once) I don't see why a loving God wouldn't sanctify and purify an already existing action (reproductive function) that represents growth, (Growth being what God IS).

Oh yes, was there a marriage license? Was there a courtship? Was Mary even taken out to supper? Never mind that Mary was already betrothed to another man. Basically, Mary was told not to fear, and that she had found favour with God, and that this was what was going to happen. At least she was notified of the coming event.

Now, sidestepping the sex issue, we note that we believers are supposed to compose the bride of Christ. We become one as part of the body of the bride of Christ. This being so close together in one, is closer than even sex could bring us. Remember that sex causes people to be joined together as one flesh according to the Bible. Being part of the same body, we can probably feel what each other is feeling. Here is the oneness that Jesus wants for us:

John 17, 20-23,26

Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;

That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou has sent me.

And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:

I in them and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them as thou hast loved me.

26: And I have declared unto them thy name, and will declare it; that the love wherewith thou hast loved me may be in them, and I in them.

And here is a Biblical account of a big group hug that Jesus did:

Mark 4, 19-21: . . . and they (the disciples) went into a house. And the multitude cometh together again, so that they could not so much as eat bread. (a euphemistic way of saying they were touching.)

And when his friends heard of it, they went out to lay hold on him: for they said, He is beside himself.

When we're considering what's wrong with sex; what is the difference between right and wrong, good and evil? Well, the Bible and Jesus tells us of the golden rule, which is: Matthew 7, 12: Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.

This rule is given a high place by Jesus, because it can be used as a test to tell if something is good or evil, right or wrong: thus Jesus raises this simple rule to be the whole law and the prophets. Recall that the 10 commandments are part of the law. We can use this rule to tell the difference between good and evil; right vs wrong. Good doesn't mind having it turned on itself and it done to itself. But with evil, that's the last thing it wants. For