Posts Tagged ‘Religion and Spirituality’

a dialog on God (definition of “God”)

March 19, 2012

A dialog on God

Have you ever reviewed the origin of the word “God?” All references to the English word “God” reference back to the Old Irish word for “voice” and further back to a Sanskrit word for the linguistic archetype “Indra” of Hinduism.

[Old English god;  related to Old Norse goth,  Old High Germangot,  Old Irish guth  voice]

god

O.E. god “supreme being, deity,”
from P.Gmc. *guthan
(cf. Du.god, Ger. Gott, O.N. guð, Goth. guþ),
from PIE *ghut- “that which is invoked” 
(cf. Skt. huta- “invoked,” an epithet of Indra),
from the root *gheu(e)- “to call, invoke.”
From http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/god

Where is God?

God is everywhere.

If God was only in one place, though, what would be the name for where God is?

God is in Heaven.

Where is heaven?

I don’t know, but it’s not out there. Out there is the world.

Dome of the Rotunda of the Church of the Holy ...

Dome of the Rotunda of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem, Israel (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

How does God interact with creation, like how odes God interact with the world?

God creates the world. God is in heaven and, from heaven, God forms the world. The world forms according to God’s Will. Whatever God wills in heaven to happen, the world out there fulfills or produces.

What does God do to produce things- like how does God produce a particular thing? Ow does God operate when willing things in to existence?

God just names things. God blesses things with attention and then gives them a specific name. God separates things in to categories, like sorting things in to groups of similar stuff. When God is willing for something to happen, then it just happens by itself, but I don’t know if God even knows exactly how things happen. Gods wills for thing to happen and then they happen. It can be instant. That’s what I read at least.

Can you describe to me how you run?

What?

How exactly do you run? What do you do?

I don’t know. I just basically think of running and then running happens by itself.

So how exactly do you digest things? Do you even think about digesting things?

No. It just happens without me even thinking of it.

Okay, so some things happen without you thinking of them in advance and some things happen just by thinking of them, right?

Right.

But there are other things that you focus intently on doing, like when you are figuring out what instructions to give someone to get from one place to another. There are things that only happen if you concentrate, right?

Sure , but what about God?

God just wills things- like naming an outcome- and then things can happen by themselves, right?

Sure, okay.

So, who has access to God?

Everyone has access to God. Anyone who can use words can talk directly to God.

So God is the capacity or function of identifying something as an outcome and then it just basically happens by itself, like for you running is a function at which you are competent to create at the level of God. You just think of running and then it happens by itself.

No, I’m not God. God is in heaven. I’m out in the world.

Are you out in the world?

Of course!

Look closely. Do you see yourself out there?

I could. I could see myself in the mirror or see my hand or feel my head.

Are you sure that’s you?

Yes!

It sounds like a body though. You see a body out there in the world, right?

Yeah.

But are you that body?

What are you talking about?

Can one part of your body see another part of your body?

Well, my eyes can see.

But people can have eyes without seeing- like blind people. Are you a body or do you just have a body?

Well, I guess I have a body.

So what are you? Are you the result of the body or can you direct the body?

I can direct it.

Great. Now let’s back up: where is the one place that God lives?

Heaven.

And where is heaven?

Well, heaven is wherever God is.

What is heaven like?

Well, everything is perfect in heaven.

Perfect! That’s it!

What?

Everything is perfect in heaven. If something is imperfect, that imperfection is in the world. Imperfection does not happen in heaven. God is in heaven saying that everything is perfect, then thinking about what God is willing to happen and they those things can just happen, like out there in the world, as distinct from in here, in heaven..

And where is heaven?

Yes, that is the ultimate question, isn’t it? Heaven is in here, where God forms the world out of language.

But what if the world does not form from out of language?

Well, then everything would be heaven.

What?

Language is what isolates the world from heaven or isolates God from anything else. God creates the world with language. Before God creates the world, there is just God in heaven. In fact, before language, perhaps there is no heaven and no God in it. God says how the world is going to be, and then the world is that way. The world is the way it is because God says that the world is the way that God says it is going to be.

So, are you saying that I’m God?

No, I was not saying that you are God, but you just did.

So who are you then anyway?

That is an excellent question. Who do you say that I am?

The Child of God.

And so it is written- and it has been spoken for many centuries before it was written- that those who do the Will of God shall be called the children of God. Who would know God’s Will so perfectly to be able to identify those who do God’s will and then to call them the children of God?

God.

That’s right. So, who are you?

Well, I guess that if I’m not the body but just have one, then I’m whatever I say I am.

And what do you say that you are?

God?

Was that a statement or a question?

Well, that was a question.

Says who?

I say so.

Exactly. So if it is the way it is simply because you say so, then who are you?

God, I don’t even know what to say.

If you say so, then you don’t know what to say, right?

Well…

Anyway, I asked “who are you” and the first few words you said in answer were “God, I don’t know” or something like that, right?

Right.

So, I asked who are you and the first word you used to answer was “God,” right?

Oh yeah.

Yes?

Yes.

So you say you’re God because you say you’re God, right?

Wait, that’s not what I said.

Well then who said that?

Oh, so you’re just saying that God is language itself, right? God is just the one in heaven that is speaking the world out there into being, into form!

Well, that’s not exactly what I said.

Whatever.

Whatever?

Yeah, whatever. Anyway, I say that God is just the one creative process in heaven that is speaking the world out there into being, into form, by using language. God is the one word that language forms as a word symbolizing the creative function that uses the rest of language to form the world into being.

So who are you?

Who do you say I am?

You’re me. We’re the same.

Okay, and who do you say that you are?

Oh, that’s easy. I’m the one that uses language to form the world into being, including you. In other words, I’m God. I’m in heaven. The world only happens inside of my speaking. I speak the language of heaven and then heaven shows up out there, too. The language of heaven is a match between what is spoken in here and what happens out there.

Says who?

Exactly.

Related articles

faith of God or just faith in God?

March 14, 2012
03.365 (02.08.2009) Faith

03.365 (02.08.2009) Faith (Photo credit: hannahclark)

There is a kind of faith that involves the association with other people who use similar patterns in language, like having Bicycle club

Bicycle club (Photo credit: State Library of Victoria Collections)

faith in that particular group of people. That is very valuable.

However, there is another kind of faith that involves one’s own private exploration, like having intense curiosity and devotion to a particular book or a particular author. That is also very valuable.

Still, neither of those are the faith of God. Those may be faith in God, but faith in God is only of interest to those without the faith of God.
Does God need other people for encouragement and support in order to be faithful? Does God need to read books or write down any words that have been spoken?

When there is direct experience of something, there is a distinct faith from all forms of fanaticism or fundamentalism. For example, when someone mature knows how to ride a bicycle, they do not often argue about the fact that they can do it or that they have done it. However, people who have only read books about riding a bicycle, but have never rode one, they may want to defend their presumptions and attack others for daring to disagree, then try to convince them that some particular thing that they read about riding bicycles is very important and very valuable information. They may parade their confidence and their faith in bicycles. They may proudly say that they believe in the possibility of riding bicycles.

Bicycle joy

Bicycle joy (Photo credit: Comrade Foot)

However, imagine someone who is actually riding a bicycle. Do they argue about whether it is possible to ride a bicycle? Do they try to convince people that it is possible to ride a bicycle? Do they get flustered when people do not recognize their ability to ride a bicycle- or do they just keep riding?
When there is the direct experience of the faith of God, does one speculate about it at length or read books about it religiously? Does one with direct experience quarrel with others about it? The faith of God does not produce the activity of fearing or doubting, so there is no reaction to defend what someone is not afraid of exposing. It is if one is afraid of exposing something that one defends against it’s exposure, that one hides in groups of people who all agree to focus on certain specific experiences and avoid certain others.
The one with faith is not afraid of any experience, so does not defend against it or avoid it. The one with faith also does not seek any particular experience, so does not strive for it or brag about it.
The one with faith does not need fear or worry. The one with faith does not need hope or approval or pride.
The one with direct experience has a faith that cannot be eclipsed. Other people may either notice that faith or not notice it, but that faith cannot be eclipsed. Other people may label that faith as faith or label it as something else or not label it at all, but that faith remains.
Does one who is riding a bicycle argue with people who say “you cannot ride a bicycle?” Does one who has direct experience of the faith of God get disturbed by people who say “you lack faith, don’t you? Prove it to us!”
Does the one with direct experience have any interest in the approval or recognition of any particular group? Does the one with direct experience have any desperation to achieve an eventual direct experience? Such desperation could be very valuable as step in focusing attention toward some particular possibility, but what can also be very valuable is the direct experience of the faith of God.
A man praying at a Japanese Shintō shrine.

Image via Wikipedia

WHO IS THIS?

February 13, 2012

 

I heard a sound, a loud breathing out, a voice with no name, no label to claim, the voice as mine

it may have been thunder, or my stomach rumbling, it may have been Godspeaking in tongues, undercover, in disguise
I didn’t recognize the words, I didn’t recognize the source, and if it isn’t me, then it simply must be somebody else, right? of course!
Maybe it’s a demon, possessing me with evil, maybe it’s an instinct, a genetic blueprint, a reflex older than people
Who is this moving my lips? Who is this singing the song? Who is this breathing my breath? Who is this talking to God?
I pray that I can overcome it, this ego hypnotizing me, I pray that God will save me from it and rescue me from all of it’s beliefs
I will resist it like a hero, I will defeat it like a pro, I’ll conquer it and hang it on my wall, to prove I’m in control
Who is this moving my lips? Who is this singing the song? Who is this breathing my breath? Who is this talking to God?

 

Who would I trust?

February 4, 2012
English: Santa Claus with a little girl Espera...

Image via Wikipedia (Photo credit: elycefeliz)

To have access to the whole series of videos, open this video in a separate window (click the bottom right of the video): Who would I trust? well, it depends on trusting them for what exactly… 1) only for basic, simple testimonies that they know through direct observation: I can trust the innocent/unsophisticated/naive. 2) only for doing things that they would expect to benefit by doing (AND suffer for not doing): I can trust those dependent on me (especially when I overtly use mutliple sources re info, bids, proposals). 3) for things that no one else would risk telling me or that others might not even notice, but that I can directly verify independently: I would trust those whose self-interests are conspicuous.  Now, let’s consider the mainstream media. I would not trust them for any of the above, perhaps other than basic, simple information, by which I mean things that involve little or no interpretation, like the current temperature or the scheduled times of upcoming movies. As for governments, there are times when I would put certain government agencies in the last category, such as emergency information about a volcano or a fire currently in progress- or for basic, simple information, like road closures due to snow or construction projects, that would be directly under the jurisdiction of that government. Governments are uniquely notorious for keeping secrets and for spreading disinformation propaganda.Trust

As for public education systems, including any institution regulated by the government such as colleges, I consider them no more reliable than the mass media: only for basic, simple principles, as in mathematics, spelling, and technical information like how to mix colors to make new colors. Any curriculum that involves interpretations or opinions, I may presume to be grossly biased by the commercial interests of government regulators, in particular the history of political systems but also even basic science like nutrition.  As for churches, I consider most of them to be the most extreme concentrations of bias as well as manipulation. However, because churches are open about their use of manipulation, such as the deceptive mythology of Santa Claus clearly used as bribery to attract the obedience of children, churches may be the most trustworthy in regard to their teachings about deception and manipulation. While many church leaders may have no direct experience or relevant authority in the matters they reference most, there can be notable exceptions.NYC - NYPL - Astor Library, Lenox Library, Til...

First, let us beware of those who worship symbolic language and then argue over literal interpretations, evidencing their proud ignorance of the meaning of symbolic language. They confuse the actuality of reality with mere words, especially the word “truth.” Dispute amongst the fanatical adherents of various religious beliefs is the key indicator of one more interested in words than in the actuality of what they reference using labels like spirituality, divinity, or God. They worship language, which is the perfect focus of attention for those who do not understand language yet. They may use the word faith frequently, but they are the enemies of faith and worshippers not of God, but of mere belief. They are fanatical idolaters, proud of their conflicts with other fanatical idolaters who happen to disagree with them. In regard to trusting such religious fanatics, all of those who worship conceptual ideologies of belief that are rooted in interpretations of the language of other people may as well be no more than politicians. Let them argue desperately, exhausting themselves, even tormenting themselves to earn their way in to a heaven that they may claim is eternal but cannot be accessed yet, and thus admit to have never visited personally.  If you are already firm in these distinctions of what works to trust, then you can trust yourself, right? If not, then you might partner with others who are perceptive enough to recognize these issues and to be selective in regard to trusting or not trusting any particular source of influence.

Tags:, , , , , , , ,
Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments »

* how to save the world

January 18, 2012

relocated to: http://jrfibonacci.wordpress.com/2012/03/29/how-to-save-the-world-parody

Tags:, , , , , ,
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

the four noble truths

January 10, 2012
Neuroimaging sheds light on the seat of suffering

Image via Wikipedia

This is a lesson based on a tradition called “the four noble truths.” Briefly, those truths are the first truth of suffering, the second truth of the cause of suffering, the third truth of the discontinuing of the cause of suffering, and the fourth truth of the way to live life after suffering.

The first truth of suffering involves relating to life as if there is some part of life that should not be how it is. Suffering is not simply pain or illness or old age or dying or even violence. Suffering is a way of relating to life. Suffering involves ill will as in contempt as in enduring madness as in mental illness as in agonizing as in hell. While there are a variety of forms and intensities of suffering, what I mean by the word suffering includes all of them.

The second truth of the cause of suffering involves the recognizing of the power of words. Words are symbolic codes with an origin as signals of sound, though words can also be written. The term “words” can even include gestures and hand signals or “sign languages.” 

Words are distinct from a mere signal because of the importance of the sequencing of the words. Words are the origin of what can be called nonsense, such as “this should be what should not be.” The second truth, briefly, is that all suffering is caused by nonsense made of words.

Specifically, “this should not be how it is” is the kind of formation in words that can correspond to the experience of suffering, at least if there is a belief in the nonsense rather than a recognition of the nonsense as nonsense. “This should not be how it is” is rooted in “there is exactly one way that this should be.” In other words, suffering is rooted in the linguistic model of “there is exactly one way that this should be,” at least as it applies to some particular perception or experience. “There is exactly one way that this should be” is further rooted in “there is exactly one way that life should be,” which is nonsense.

However, if operating as if it is inherently true that life should be a certain way, then suffering is the natural and inevitable result. That suffering could be in the form of ill will as in contempt as in enduring madness as in mental illness as in agonizing as in hell. Or that suffering could be mere frustration, worry, resentment, sorrow or grief.

Earlier than the belief that “there is exactly one way that life should be” is another presumption in language. That presumption is “there is exactly one way that life is,” which is also nonsense.

So, if there is a belief in the nonsense that there is exactly one way that life is, then that leads to the belief in the nonsense that there is exactly one way that life should be (which is also the way that it allegedly is), which leads to the various forms of suffering such as shame and blame and rage. If there is a belief that there is exactly one way that a particular thing is (which is also the way that it should be), then that belief in nonsense inevitably leads to various forms of suffering.

Beliefs are made of words. Beliefs are all nonsense. They are the origin of suffering.

Beliefs in what should be produce suffering. Beliefs in what is also produce suffering. Belief is also called idealism and idolatry and foolishness.

So, before we proceed to the third noble truth of the discontinuing of the causing of suffering, let’s review. The first noble truth is that suffering is relating to some part of life as if it should not be how it is. The second noble truth is that suffering originates in the belief that there is exactly one way that a particular part of life is and that is the only way that it should be.

Now, by summarizing those two truths close together, the nonsense of suffering may be extremely clear. If there is exactly one way that life is, but then life is not that way, then how can there be exactly one way that life is? Obviously, a linguistic construction of how life is exactly one way is part of life. So, if there is a logical conflict between a linguistic construction (or belief) about how life should be and the actual experience of how life is, then suffering is neglecting the actuality of life for the nonsense belief in words. 

In the Judeo-Christian terminology, neglecting the actuality of life by worshiping a nonsense belief in words is what is referenced by “placing another God before God.” In Muslim terminology, recognizing the actuality of life as distinct from worshiping a nonsense belief made of words is what is referenced by “there is no God but God.” Of course, because language involves codes, various interpretations of the encoded messages in words are possible. However, worshiping language instead of God is the root idolatry. 

Even the phrase “literal interpretation” is ironic because if something is recognized as an interpretation, then interpretation implies the use of symbolic codes of language. How can there be a “literal symbolism?” Such idealisms and idolatries are nonsense from the start.

However, nonsense is part of life. Should there be no nonsense? Should there be no beliefs made of words and no words? Should there be exactly one interpretation of anything?

Those ideas fall back in to the same trap of nonsense. It is not that there should be no suffering, nor that there should be any suffering. There either is suffering or there is not suffering. That is all.

So, the third noble truth of the discontinuing of the cause of suffering is simple. To discontinue causing yourself suffering, simply recognize how you have been causing yourself suffering through the inattentive use of language. That recognizing is sufficient to discontinue the causing of suffering. 

In other words, suffering does not need to fixed. Suffering can be distinguished. The distinguishing of suffering results in a relaxing away from the beliefs that cause suffering. Once the beliefs are distinguished as nonsense, no additional beliefs are required to replace the presence of the prior beliefs. More beliefs will only bring more suffering.

To review again, the first noble truth is that suffering is relating to some part of life as if it should not be how it is. The second noble truth is that suffering originates in the belief that there is exactly one way that a particular part of life is and that is the only way that it should be. So, the linguistic belief that there is only one way that some part of life should be results naturally in relating to one or more parts of life as if they should not be how they are, which is suffering.

Further, the third noble truth is to discontinue causing yourself suffering by simply recognizing how you have been causing yourself suffering through the inattentive use of language. Recognize the power of language and you will never worship any beliefs of language. You will be free of the suffering caused by the inattentive use of language.

So, there is no single way that life should be. There is no single way that anyone should be. There is no single way that I am. There is no single way of labeling life with language that is the only possible interpretations. All of those constructions in language are nonsense. Many interpretations in language are possible.

As for the fourth noble truth, the way to live life after suffering is basically to be attentive to language. Do what you must do. Do what you can do. Do what you should do. Do what you will do.

Now, there may be other interpretations of these four noble truths. Since these four noble truths are just symbols made of language, why shouldn’t there be multiple interpretations?

Is there exactly one way that the four noble truths should be? Is there exactly one way that the four noble truths are? 

Are there exactly four noble truths? Are these noble truths even true? What if there is no such thing as a noble truth except as a symbol in language?

If someone says “attention to language makes no difference,” so what? If someone challenges you with a nonsense belief made of language, so what? If someone says that their nonsense belief made of language is not a nonsense belief made of language, so what? If someone says that idolatry is not idolatry, so what? If someone says that their language is not idolatry but some other language is idolatry, so what? If someone says that there is no such thing as freedom, so what? If someone says that there is no such thing as language, so what?

Remember, when nonsense is recognized as nonsense, nonsense cannot cause suffering. Only believing in nonsense can cause suffering. So, one can play along with someone else’s beliefs or not. If someone is speaking the language of suffering, you can speak in that language as well, yet is there another form of language beyond suffering? Also, is there another form of interacting beyond the use of language?

Tags:, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Uncategorized | 7 Comments »

condemning condemnation

June 12, 2010

You may have the experience of setting yourself up as the judge of which expressions of “love’s essence” are the true ones and which are false. There may be the idolizing of “unconditional love” and the shaming of everything else (which is not especially loving, but just more idolizing!).  That to me is the pinnacle of silliness (and vanity/idolatry).

Consider that what some “spiritual people” may reference as “our essential nature” and “unconditional love” are like the seed or roots of a tree. All of the branches of the tree come from the root, but are distinct from the roots, right? The branches are all conditional, like affinity and personal relations like marriage and biological ancestry. Those are extremely conditional, but they are not “false,” just “specific!”

So, all of the branches are specific (as in conditional) yet they all proceed and are nourished by the roots. For anyone to “sit in judgment” of their own tree of life and say “those branches are good and these branches are evil” is living from sin, from maya/error, from hell, from agonizing, from guilt, from condemnation.

The branches are distinct. They are not better or worse from each other.

The branch of condemnation is also an expression of unconditional love. You cannot experience that through the rational mind, but consider it possible anyway even though it seems like a logical paradox.

Try this instead first. Everything is an expression of “god’s will” or it would not exist. That is logically solid. The idea that there is some other will in operation besides God‘s will is not consistent with the definition of God that I use. That is foolishness, silliness, vanity: “my will is not god’s will.” What? That is like saying that this one branch over here is not part of the tree. That is total nonsense. Only one deep in maya/error/sin would assert a personal will that is not itself the expression of divine will.

So, if you get the logic of the analogy, then it is possible to experience the behavioral process of condemnation from an entirely distinct perspective. Condemnation, like so many processes in language, is always an expression of an inner purpose. It is always the will of God or it would not ever happen.

Condemning something sets up a hypothesis or theory focusing on that something. It is a sorting process of rejecting something consciously while still giving it some energy and attention (like a root system feeding a branch). \

As the condemnation “hypothesis” gets explored, people eventually may come to appreciate something they previously condemned. It is like 7 year old boys making fun of girls then, by the age of 14, reversing their rejection to adoration… for the exact same girls perhaps (now young women).

At age 7, the boys need to develop certain qualities of masculinity, which means getting the distinctions of masculinity. By age 14, the same feminine traits that were repulsive may suddenly be attractive (of course, noting that there is an immense physiological difference between 7 year old girls and 14 year old girls) – a new polarity or charge is created, but first we may express our divine purpose by condemning something as we focus primarily elsewhere. “That energy is too much for me right now!”

Later, at age 14, a boy tends not to ridicule 7 year old girls with antagonism, but perhaps with appreciation or at least neutrality. Thus what before was actually in some ways truly terrifying (yuck, 7 year old GIRLS!) is later the object of light-hearted teasing, like saying nonsense things to a neighbor or cousin: saying “oh, now you are acting like a 7 year old” to someone who actually is 7.

7 year old boys can be quite mean to little girls, with the classic behavior of pulling pigtails and so on. 14 year old boys do not typically do that, right? They may tease little girls, but they just are not INTERESTED enough to actually put out the energy of condemning 7 year old girls because 7 year old girls are no longer a THREAT to the average 14 year old boy.

What is the bottom line of 7 year old boys condemning and ridiculing girls? “I am too immature to contain my intense attraction to the feminine, so it is best for now for me to push away any feminine magnet in my midst. When I mature further, I may chase after what I have chased away. I may even use the same words like ‘I hate you’ but said with a ‘devilish’ smile, a lusty honesty, a playful non-chalance.”

Condemnation is simply revealed as a developmental stage. Those in the middle of that stage may not see that. To them, one part of the tree must be good and one part must be evil. They simply condemn condemnation, establishing behaviorally that they are still in that stage of condemnation.

Instead of condemning many branches as evil, they condemn the behavior of condemning as evil. Again, that is the extreme of irony, of silliness, of vanity.

Upon recognizing this, the tree of life is revealed to be holy- complete. Then, unconditional love shifts from being a good idea that we may talk about until we are blue in the face to something we do, a behavior, the activity or process of loving. Every stage on the way to the process of unconditional loving is part of the process of unconditional loving, just as every stage on the way to being a butterfly IS itself already the process of the emergence of a butterfly.

Some caterpillars may go around condemning butterflies (or caterpillars). That may change nothing as to their future.

Words are trivia. Notice the energy patterns directly.

Caterpillars are part of the process that is butterfly. Yes, a butterfly is a PROCESS, a development, an activity, an act of God- which includes “caterpillar.”

Condemnation is part of the process of unconditional loving. Yes, unconditional loving is a PROCESS, a development, an activity, an act of God- which includes “condemning.”

Do not miss the forest for the tree. Or, if it fits for you, focus elsewhere and miss the forest for the tree! FINE, JUST BE THAT WAY! Either way, there is no forest except for a mutltide of trees.

Tags:, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Uncategorized | 3 Comments »

Anti-Negativity Counter-Revolution

November 23, 2009

The Anti-Negativity Counter-Revolution

“Just say no to reverse psychology.”

First and foremost, I deny my own existence (and, only secondarily, the “alleged” existence of the words “existence,” “alleged,” “deny,” and “words”). You, however, are another matter entirely. Without you, I would not have any reason to stick around here at all!

Very soon, but certainly not right now, stop believing that you can stop having beliefs. You are just an accumulation of beliefs. That’s it. Specifically, you are all of the things that I believe that I could not be- or at least should not be.

You must exist, by the way, because I am of course not how you are, because I am right and that means that there must be someone else who is not. How about… you?

So all this must mean that if any of those “wrong” ways of being exist at all – which of course are not how I am, right- then that obviously must be you! I mean, otherwise, that would be me, and those “wrong” ways of being just cannot be me, because I must be perfect, right, good, and so on. You do know that, right?

Since good is not evil, then if there is anything that is evil, it obviously is not me! Remember, I’m the good one. Do not question this, by the way, because if you question this, then you will live an evil life of permanently eternal suffering and torment and guilt and shame and other really scary words like negative and fear and anger or unconstitutional sex and illicit poop and extra-marital bankruptcy and unauthorized plant species and lonely alien nationality or even, gasp… college algebra!

If anything is not good- are you starting to see this- then that is where you come in. I must be ONLY good, and therefore you must exist, you know, in order for there to be a someone to be all of the other things that are not only good, which, by the way, is how I am. I think I am going to call you the Devil (or maybe Satan). Oh, and you can call me Santa.

Now that we have all of this clear, it’s almost time for me to pretend that all of that was not really about this next thing. So, before we go any further, I have one question for you: am I ready?

No, that was not the question. The question is… what do I hate most about you?

Yes, that is the issue. For instance, do I hate that you are rich? Well, then I obviously am resisting the possibility that I could be rich!

After all, we all know that the love of being rich is the root of all hatred. At least I know that I hate rich people, so you probably would hate me, too, if I was rich, right- so I just won’t be rich, you know, so that you will like me.

What? You think that the worship of vanity is the root of all hypocrisy? Well, I don’t know what words you are worshiping as holy, buddy, but I just do not think that any of that is a direct verbatim quote of any popular scripture, and if something is not popular scripture, than how could it possibly be worth even considering as possible?

You might as well just start a whole new religion basically, you know, and then write down your own little oral traditions as if they were the words of God or something. You know, you could do like all those folks did who started all those other religions whose scriptures we have been worshiping as holy for the last few thousand years.

But seriously it can take several decades for that kind of thing to catch on, so don’t say that I did not warn you, alright? People get crucified for heretical comments like “the worship of vanity is the root of all self-righteousness hypocrisy.”

What are people going to think if you just come out and say that kind of crap? I’m telling you: stick with what obviously works, like “you are all evil sinners and therefore you are definitely going to hell unless you come to my church and give me ten percent of all your wives, I mean, all your wages.”

Or, speaking of ten percent of your wives, is the thing that I hate most about you that you are so young and sexy? Well, in that case, then I will just shave my body hair to trick everyone into thinking that I am a pre-teen (or was that a newborn infant… remind me?). Whatever… oh, and I will also tell all of those young and sexy people that they can suck my… my words. Yes, that is what I was going to say all along: suck my words.

I mean, what did you think I was going to say? You have such a creative mind, don’t you? Did you think I was going to say “suck my thumb?” That is very clever of you- because, yes, that is related to the whole infantile reference I made earlier. I just can’t get anything by you, can I?

Be ashamed. Come to my church, like, every single week or something. Oh, and bring your money. Just remember to leave some of it here before you go.

What? Did I say something that offends you? I’m sorry, no, I’m really really sorry.

What? You want three in a row of ”really” and then you will believe that I believe in my own guilt. Sure, okay, then: I am really really really really sorry. See- I put in 4 of that word really so that you know that I am being sincere, because I could have just used 3 of them in a row, right?

Anyway, I did want to let you all know that the patriotic thing to do is to put all of your assets into your own name and under our social security account number that we have provided for you. Do not ever use tax-exempt shelters because that could slow down the advance of global communism.

Make sure that you invest a whole lot into real estate, too, especially using really aggressive borrowing, okay, because we are about to deflate the whole lending market. That will totally collapse the prices of real estate so we can extract all of that accumulated ownership of the naive middle classes and concentrate it all over here in our Fund for an Impoverished God, AKA the Bank for International Settlements (www.bis.org, the “hub” of all the world’s central banks).

Oh, and as for investing in gold, there has never been a better time for throwing all of your eggs into one bucket with holes in it… than right before a huge deflationary concentration of wealth into very few hands. Buy lots of gold just like at the peak in 1980. Sure, that was a horrible investment then, but if you fell for it then, well then- hey, you might fall for it again…. even though the fundamentals of precious metals markets are not especially any different at all than in recent years or decades.

Just keep thinking that gold is what makes governments tick, rather than organized violence. By the way, that whole thing about the organized violence being a factor at all in how gold got to be so valuable just because governments (with armies of mercenaries) required payment in gold coins, well, that is just a myth thrown about by insane conspiracy theorists.

Gold is magically powerful. A gold coin can protect you from nuclear blasts (and cell phone radiation), as well as the effects of bad words that do not exist like “poop,” plus, as an added bonus if you order in the next 90 seconds, gold allows you to enjoy sex twice as much as without that gold coin, because you will only be half as guilty about enjoying sex. This offer is good while supplies last, except where prohibited by ink on paper.

Oh, and that myth about the armed mercenaries being the foundation of the currency system is silly. It is the ink on the paper. That ink is very special. I think it is even the color of gold or something.

On the subject of ink on paper, remember: do not ever settle your debts. That would be sheer stupidity, and just plain wrong. Let the courts take everything from you and then sort it all out for you because they are very nice people and you owe it to them (no, not the creditors… the bureaucrats).

Also, do not ever sell your assets, especially if markets are de-stabilizing. Again, when an investment is the least safe is of course the safest time to own it and ignore all clear and obvious indications that nothing different could ever happen in financial news, which is why we have something like 5 different 24-hour news channels dedicated to how it is always exactly the same.

Just keep buying lots of gold and, of course, real estate. Even when you retire, do not sell your assets- none of them. That would be a horrible investment strategy: to sell your retirement investments and live off of them when you retire. I mean, if all of the baby boomers who are retiring did that all at once, things would be like- wow- exactly like they have been looking in the last few years… go figure!

But that means that if you are a youngster (under 66.6 years of age as of 1980) then it is your duty as a good Muslim (or Jew… whatever!) to always borrow more, no matter how in debt you are. Remember, that is just what a good patriot would do, and you do not want to be bad, do you? Santa wouldn’t like that, now would he? Okay, I’m glad that we have settled that once and for all.

Please focus more on the scandals that the mainstream news focuses on, or the scandals that Alex Jones focuses on, or some scandal somewhere that is very provocative and controversial and scandalous. Be sure to alienate lots of people who are not ready to question their own governments by aggressively yelling at them about how governments conduct wars and wars are bad… or how spies tell lies.

Wake up, people! Spies do not even exist. That is just in the movies, right?

The next ridiculous thing you are going to tell me is that propaganda (which I clearly deny could possibly exist) suggests that public schools have never been essential for combating domestic communism. No, when the government starts regulating and then running various industries, that is not communism, that is… sewing.

If I tell you that something could not be true because it should not be, why the hell are you still talking to me about it? What the hell? Are you some kind of an idiot… or just some kind of an idiot?

Communism cannot be already present in any country that openly and publicly asserts that communism is bad. That would be lying, and lying is so non-existent that there is not even a word for it, and when I say it, what I mean is “lying.”

These are not words or letters or shapes. You are not here. Here is not you.

Stop pretending that you exist. By the way, before you go, one more thing though: you can make your checks out to “Fund for an Impoverished God.”

Oh, and please stop being so negative, especially about the revolution. Your negativity is quite annoying, rather rude, and shows a severe deficiency of spiritual development, characterized by lower vibratory consciousness such as having a body, which is extremely sinful, after all.

You should really be ashamed of how you have not been thinking as positively and evolved as I have. You should stop comparing yourself to other people so much and thinking about the past. Memory is the root of all memory. You should devote all of your time to developing higher consciousness (like me) so that your ego can be humble about it’s superiority over the false ego which does not exist.

Um, hello, but this check is for less than the suggested donation. And we do not accept out-of-state checks, anyway.

Okay, so is that going to be debit or credit? Yeah, I know it says it is a gold card, but we had to call it something, alright, so just answer THE real question: debit or credit?


If you are intrigued by this post, join this facebook group now:

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=181630248281

Tags:, , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Uncategorized | 9 Comments »


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 290 other followers

%d bloggers like this: