muddy waters

There are those who question Exodus as to just what was God trying to say? Notice He is trying, the first inkling of doubt is thereby introduced. They pile up words to cover the central meaning which confusion results in a multiple of meanings to the tangential, inadvertently giving muddying waters tongue for the devil.

binary belief

It is a problematical subject for me to get around the binary nature of so many things. There seems strong evidence for the requirement of another entity to play off the second, just in order for the potential power to be demonstrated in one of them.

Belief is the apparent avenue to influence the future. This means we would have to believe in something or someone other than anyone or anything at all within ourselves. If you can believe you have the possible power, the power itself must come from outside the believer. Belief in what or who, is not exactly left up to personal discretion it appears. 

The best source of belief of power is Jesus Christ because of his unique and only position above all other sources. He is the only one to say He was the Son of God, Son of Existence. He is the only one to conquer death. The main theme of his life's testimony was the importance of spirit over the concrete if we were to influence anything before us and around us or even within us. 

And are we not ourselves all sons and daughters of God? Jesus made reference to this fact, saying this was in the fundamental teachings. In order to believe this then we must believe He is the only source there is, without wavering. Without any power to plug into we are without  power. It takes two to multiply and it is not that automatically easy as some suspect.

when old was new in an idle moment of time

There once was a man who was 215 years old. This is all we know about him, that he was the last surviving solder who participated in the Revolutionary War. So I figured out at the time I learned about him, that if he had lived another second 215 years he would have been dead 34 years already. Is this what we can hope for?

If you live long enough we get the opportunity to ask a doctor or dentist, what happened to a procedure they used to do? The answer always seemed quite similiar each and every time which was, oh well, we don't do that anymore. If you make it far enough you should get at least three different times in your life to ask that question and get that similar questionable answer.

So I said well you seem to have a history of being wrong. The next question, I never ask it, what are you doing today you won't be doing anymore tomorrow? First they took x-rays in a checkup and now they don't. Tests during checkups that I paid big bucks for every year completely dropped altogether because it did not tell them anything. First the big number in blood pressure was more important, and now it is the small number the most important. Instances and example abound.

Decided to look at the hi-fi equipment to fill some time, this was awhile back now. Salesman shows me an hi-fi amplifier with tubes in it. This is the best there is he tells me. When I bought my tube amplifier years previous it was on sale because it was old technology making room for solid state, and that now was the thing. You don't have to wait for it to warm up I was told. Now I am to supposed to wait out the warmup because tubes offer better sound. This will never stop. The main attraction seems to be new. New used be old in new wine skins.

How did I get here? Everyday 100 years of age is getting younger. I don't want to be 100, but what is the alternative? One of the lines in the movie Bladerunner play peekaboo in the shadows. All those moments lost in time, like tears in the rain.

the binary nature of continuums

It is amazing to realize the millions of differentiations highlighted from only two indicators. It is somewhat of an illusion however in dealing with abstract concepts since they are each connected by a continuum. Shades of grey if you will. Nevertheless they are all the same single element. In the case of H for humans interacting the single dividing principle emphasized would be the group vs the individual. Only the individual has to learn how to accommodate the group whereas the group emphasized individual only has to let himself be absorbed by the group. This will be how the individual gets his personal direction, from his peer group. 
     It seems easy to divide the group emphasized individual from the  individual emphasized individual. The democratic group individual is of the varying degrees of socialism, globalism, or international communism. The individual leans on libertarian forms of government, encompassing republican forms similar to the U.S. Constitution. Here is found so far the only successful defense of the individual from encroachments of the group. There is no defense of the group in the Constitution, it is a singular defense of the individual and his rights which have no jurisdiction over other individuals. Therefore if it is erroneously said that individuals have a right to medical care then this is contradicting the rights of those that must give it. 

group salvation

The individual needs the group but the group does not need the individual. Since this is true the group does not need the individual for salvation because survival can only come to individuals. The individual needs the group for physical needs but the group does not need the individual for abstract spiritual survival which can only come through individuals the group does not need. Since the group could only experience the individual through survival then this salvation would mean the group could no longer stand within itself as a group. But if the individual experiences salvation then this could be reflected within the group many times over.

no fun being an atheist

Trouble with aetheism is that it doesn't have any holidays. Most of my fellow atheists at the time seemed to be more anti-christian than pro atheist. There was a lot of college childishness. If a church burned down this was an occasion for a party. There was always lurking a particular hint of nothing to do, no goals or any hope for anything better. It was a spiritual nausea, just like a Sartre novel. The boredom of a prison cell with no exit, just like one of his other so titled novels. The sense of sadness, of squeezing into a tiny car and driving down narrow roads cast a film noir over one's outlook.

the wise respect their ignorance

Physicists know a great volume of knowledge which very often tends to make them believe that because they know so much, that is all that is known. Therefore they, knowing all that is known, know all that is to be known. They lose respect for their unknowns dazzled by their knowns. An example of this is when when one knowledgable and eminent said that the concept of an after life was interesting, but that he would believe when he had proof. If one has proof no belief is required. His idea of belief as a birth place of knowledge was apparently limited. How do new ideas and knowledge spring out of that view?

Why do we personify God and Existence??

Since God is a Spirit and no one has ever seen him, why do we personify God? It was said by ancient writers that God wanted company so He gave us existence. If so, then He did this to objectify Himself, to experience Himself, just as we in turn do the same. When we personify a spirit even the Spirit of Existence, we do this in order to experience ourselves deeper into our psychological spirit. Also, we then can tap in on, or connect with, a source of power outside ourselves, which then releases the connecting power, or belief in it, that we have within ourselves to accomplish the purpose of the spirit that has risen within. If you ever felt angry then you are interacting with an angry spirit. Sometimes a spirit can consume a person. There are legions of spirits we can embody or connect with so we must be careful that that spirit does not consume us but rather produces positive results not only now but in the forever future.

illustrations illustrate - they do not prove arguments

So often when thinking things out or in a discussion with someone the first person puts forth proof for an argument and the second refutes it with an illustration of his proof. But notice the proof is glaringly missing. All we have is the illustration of it, like a phantom shadow cast on a screen that disappears when the shade is put up. Recently on Imus Dick Cavett gave an entertainingly put illustration to refute the argument that government gun control leads to more controls. It is obvious, forever it seems, a non debatable fact that government rules, like taxes and spending, just keep on eating obese like toward complete control of their goal. Dick Cavett appeared to refute this argument by saying not so, taking one step toward China does not get you to China. So what, one might ask? Well, for openers this should be refuted on the spot as nonsense but is often let go as unanswered proof, even pinning the nonsense on the other, opposing, argument. Therefore this sort of display is not a rational discussion and one is wasting their time listening to it. The best thing, when things this heavy, is to just lighten up.

the next powerful breakthru.. .

. . .will come to us from the unseen as if in a spirit and will be reflected in the seen as a technological tool which will expand awareness of our shrinking knowledge alongside the attendant growing awareness of our expanding ignorance. This is the way it has been and will always be, similar to an expanding universe. New knowledge of the now known always provides a greater multiple to knowledge of the unknown. In this view even knowledge of the previously unrecognized unknown is knowledge. Everything depends what we can persevere and believe for. Action generates the animation of energy and motion, i.e., emotion.