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 example, ask yourself if you like to kill. If you got mad enough at someone, you might; but then ask yourself if you changed places, would you like to be killed? The answer would be NO. So, killing is thus wrong and evil. Ask yourself if you would like to steal. Well, if it meant you would get something nice, you might say yes. But then switch places and ask yourself if you would like to be robbed. The answer would be NO. So, stealing is wrong and evil. But if we apply the golden rule to the sexual area, things aren't so cut and dried. If we have a man and woman (or even homosexuals) who both like sex and who are sexually active: if the man does sex to the woman and asks himself if he likes it, he will say yes. Now if the two changed places and the same question was asked, the answer would still be yes, because the woman enjoyed it too. And if they didn't mind multiple partners, that would be a yes all the way around too. (Why limit your love (to just one person)?) So here, sex would not be considered evil or wrong by the golden rule. And since the golden rule represents the whole law (according to the Bible), sex would not be wrong or evil according to the golden rule. (Now this is not to say there isn't an evil in sex. There is the evil in sex of an essential. So if we are to choose whether or not to do sex because it contains an evil (whereby we're unable to do sex without the evil): well, then just do the sex in an environment of reduced capability; and take advantage of the difference between good and evil, which allows the good and evil to separate in reduced capability, thus purifying the good of sex to now be without any evil (the evil dies in separation). Whereas if we said NO to sex altogether, we'd have nothing. -No good and no evil: which is the same as the inanimate, and stagnation; and also the end result of destruction alone.)

(Now of course, if the situation is where the man wants sex, but the woman does not want sex or doesn't enjoy it, then that's different, and the golden rule turns this out as evil. But I'm not talking about, or trying to defend that situation.)//////////////////////

///You may have heard 'If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen'. But I just want to warn them not to burn down the kitchen.

The condemnations of the law seem to say: 'we'll flush you if you don't flush yourself'. Either way, you get flushed (down the toilet). Instead of expending your energies to 'flush' yourself (according to the law), expend your energies to deal with 'flush', while letting others expend their energy to flush you and themselves. Because it is 'flush' itself that causes all the problems. If God or the legal system is going to either eternally destroy (kill) you in Hell or capitally punish you for murder (or other sins/destructions); then they themselves have broken their own law (thou shalt not kill), and should also carry out the same sentence against themselves and their law, thus bringing everything to reduced capability so that there is nothing beyond what we are now here at reduced capability life here on earth.

It just doesn't make sense: An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. Do you believe in capital punishment? yes. Do you believe in even enforcement of the law? yes. Well, somebody has to put the murderer to death. (The murder will not kill himself will he?) (Let the murderers kill themselves and leave me out of any killing.) Is not he who put the murderer to death: hasn't he also killed? And since he has killed, shouldn't he also be put to death, according to the law that if somebody kills, they should be put to death? The thing is that what the law attempts to stamp out (destructive behavior), the law does so by engaging in destructive behavior. The law (both of man and the Bible) brings in and engages in and contains what it aims to stamp out. Will it ever stamp out destruction? The answer is, yes: when the law and lawmakers/enforcers do to themselves what they do to others, they will then bring our whole society to reduced capability where separation of the forces can occur and the evil (destruction) die. Only when the law and lawkeepers do to others, will the destruction be ended. Otherwise, the law and lawkeepers just keep introducing the destruction they act against and it will always be with us, keeping us in the stagnation that comes from having evil around. Since the law contains the destruction it seeks to stamp out, the law seems to say that we must have destruction and we can't be without it. Well, there is another way. Destruction is not the only way. There is alternatively the possibility for life free of destruction. This is the possibility I will be seeking to obtain.

One of the differences between good and evil is that Good is not scared of having it done unto itself. But evildoers don't want the evil they do, create, and bring into the world, to come back and be done to them. The law just completes the cycle and returns what the evildoer produces(evil), back to the evildoer themselves, without having to drag the rest of us and the whole society down to get to this point (where the evil the evildoer does, returns to them). Yes, murderers will kill each other, but not until they have brought us and the rest of society down to depravity. The law just shortens the process (of the destructor receiving the destruction they produce) so we who want nothing to do with destruction, don't have to be dragged into it. This is the major purpose of the law. We who have no interest in doing destructive things, have no kinship with the destruction of the law because we have no destructiveness within us. With no destruction within us, the external destruction of the law has little hold on us, and we are able to shake it off and deal with it in peace of mind, as we do with all other external evils we encounter.

But if you are going to participate in the destructiveness of the law, then destructiveness is already within you. And if a whole society craves to participate in the destructiveness in the law (craving revenge on criminals), then there is no need to have the law, because all the law is for is to hasten the day that the evildoer's evil returns to them, so the rest of us who want no part of destruction, won't have to be dragged into it. But if everybody already craves destruction and has destructiveness (of the law) within them and everybody hates each other, then there is no point to the law as far as protecting those who want no part of destruction because there is nobody who isn't into destruction. -They all have destruction within them. So it would be better for this society to be lawless. Otherwise it would destroy itself and cease to exist.

We want an environment of reduced capability, not total desolation. And the added destruction from the law would move the society towards total desolation. But in a reduced capability environment, the forces separate, and the evil dies, so that some good comes out of this society. So it's better for there to be no law and for God to give these people up to their own cravings, in a society that hates.

When the law picks on people who don't have (much) destructiveness within them (such as being arrested for chewing gum or not flushing a public toilet, or not washing your hands before eating or healing on the Sabbath), then the law introduces destruction where there was none before. One purpose the law can have is to shorten the process by which the evildoer's evil comes back upon them so the rest of us won't have to be drawn into their destruction. But in this case, the law here has subverted that purpose and has taken the role of the evildoer in a lawless society; as this law drags people into destruction who don't have such destruction within them. This law needs to have hastened, the day the destruction it does, comes back upon it. (If it can't take what it dishes out; it shouldn't be in the kitchen.) (Eventually the destruction it produces WILL come back upon it, but in this case, all involved will be dragged into it like it or not.)

If you insist on an eye for an eye, and a life for a life, (in order to insist on executing murderers): realize that this system uses destruction in order to stamp out destruction. If destruction works so well and is the preferred choice of the system; why is it then trying to stamp it out?

And if you insist on strict adherence to this system, then you must be consistent. If a lecherous man stalks, hugs and kisses an attractive member of the opposite sex, then his punishment must be for a member of the opposite sex to stalk, kiss and hug him; according to this system of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.

Concerning sexual love:

How can a thing be right and wrong at the same time? I say it can't. Either an action is good, or evil, or a combination of the two in different areas. When a husband has sex with his wife; that is supposed to be OK. But when a man has sex with a woman not his wife, that is supposed to be terribly wrong. (If the same man and the same woman have sex, but with different marital ties, this act can range from acceptable and OK, to terribly wrong, depending on the marital ties.) But it is the same act in both cases. A man is physically capable of loving only one woman at a time. When a couple first gets married, their sexual passion is as hot as ever. But after a time, due to sameness and lack of variety, that passion may wane. I mean, if you ate the same meal day in and day out; you might get bored with it, even if it was your favorite food. But if the intense sexual passion between a newly married husband and wife is OK, then why is that intense sexual passion not OK between any man and woman? Either a thing is good, or it is bad. But we go about treating an action as perfectly acceptable and good and then due to a few technicalities, we treat essentially the same action as totally unacceptable and terribly wrong. And we do so without a second thought. Essentially it is the same act in both cases. The inherent goodnesses and/or destructivenesses are going to be present in the act in both cases. Simon says touch your nose. Touch your nose. (Simon is a 3rd party bureaucratic rule maker). Can a thing be changed from good to evil, evil to good, just by putting the word or a blessing on it? If that is so, why has not all the wrongs been righted, and paradise on earth yet been created with the word and a blessing? More specifically, why hasn't the word or a blessing been used to free us from our essentials and quasi essentials instead of leaving us trapped of them? We can have Jesus' word or blessing upon us if we choose, but that does not yet free us from our essentials/quasi essentials. "Give unto God what is God's, and unto Caesar what is Caesar's". (In this case, our eating, and our reproductive function appear to be yet Caesar's, as they are still our essentials/quasi essentials. Dictating how we are to do these, is definitely Caesar's way, and they are thus correctly rendered to Caesar. But let us try to escape Caesar and Caesar's controlling dictates that hide behind Biblical commands.)

The only logical assertion that makes sense is that all sexual desire contains some error/destruction and is wrong: but that like eating, we can't get by without it. (So that God is willing to process and purify a certain degree, a limited amount, of sexuality; but not an undue amount of it.) Therefore allowances are made to allow a limited amount of it. Well, if allowances are going to be made, then I'd like more of a selection of ways; and I'd like to have a hand, and understanding in the fashioning of these allowances: since this area so deeply effects us all. Its obvious that sexual passion is being limited by these rules over sex. But sexual passion itself, is defective. If we love only those whom are attractive; whom we are sexually attracted to; then this limits our love. The love of God will not be limited. And God loves everyone irregardless of their attractiveness. In this respect, God is a more prolific lover than any sexual lover. What I suggest, is that we are what we are and all we need do, is acknowledge this and that our sexuality is defective (imperfect); take additional action to quarantine or deal with the evil in it. And that once we do this, we do not need to try and prevent it from coming out.

In the Bible it says "To those that have, more will be given and to those that have not, that little they have will be taken away and given to that has". Or the rich get richer, and the poor get poorer. Doesn't it seem like this is the way it is? -That the rich are getting richer, and the poor getting poorer. Well, what about God? God has done very well and is far richer than the richest man. Thus between God and the rich (and all the rest of us), we will all loose it all to God. But if we as the poor make ourselves part of God, we will inherit a share of it all because we are part of God. How do we do that? The Bible says God is love. If we act in loving ways and generate our income through loving ways, then we will have made ourselves a part of God through this. If we believe on Jesus Christ we will have made ourselves part of God. So this is how many of the last can become first and the first last. But those who become rich through meanness and underhandedness, will loose this wealth to God who is far wealthier and more powerful. And since they have not made themselves a part of God, they won't get any of it back as inheritance and will loose it for good.

One thing about welfare I have to admit, (although I don't like what the republicans are doing when they cut off welfare); is that if you refuse to give someone a handout, you haven't done destruction to them. You aren't helping them, but you haven't done a harmful act to them either. Now, if you control their environment so you hinder their access to materials and prevent them from making a living like you do, then you are the cause of a destructive act. But just refusing to help someone (that you've never helped before), contains no destructive action.

Likewise, when a woman brings a child into the world through sexual activity, it's not her fault that human children are born with a destructive force within them whereby if they're not cared for, they die. I mean, its not the rich man's fault that humans are under the condition whereby if they don't get enough food they starve to death. Yes, one would hope that a mother would love her children and care for them out of her own choice. And if she doesn't, the state should step in and do so out of its own choice. But to try to hold mothers accountable for neglecting their children, I think goes a bit far. (I'm not talking about abuse here. Abuse does contain destructive acts.) If we are going to hold mothers accountable and punish them, then we should hold rich men accountable for the plight of the poor and punish them, because neither has helped when help was needed. Are we going to legislate love? Now you may say that because a mother created and brought into this world, a little baby; that she is accountable. (We have to put the burden off on someone when the rest of us don't want to help out.) But if that is the case, then we must hold this woman's mother (and father) accountable for creating this woman in such a way, that the babies she had, have this destructive force within them that without care and food, they die (which is the human condition: we are trying to blame the human condition on the mother). And not only the mother of the woman, but her mother, and the mother before her, and before her, all the way back to Eve and Adam, helped contribute to the existence of the destructive force within a baby which kills it if not given care and food. And then not only them, but also God, because He created these people in such a way that they could fall from grace. If you're going to hold a mother accountable because she created a child, you must also hold God accountable because HE created us. And I think to myself: they have already held God accountable: -they nailed Him to a tree. So if you want to take your place with those who crucified Christ, then go ahead and be judgmental and condemn those mothers who you feel haven't sacrificed enough for their children. I'm not saying it's right or good to not help your children. It's not. But if you're moved to do something; help the child, don't judge and condemn the mother, nor force sterilize the mother, nor imprison the mother.

The work mothers do in raising their kids is just as important if not more so than any work done in a factory. It is fitting that mothers should partake of the materials our society makes. They should be paid. I've been told that the Bible tells mothers to take care of their kids. I'm not surprised. It's just common sense. But the Bible here also states that every 'man' shall be rewarded for their own labor. And if we pay a factory worker for their work, we should also pay a mother for hers. Many mothers have raised kids for no pay, but I'm saying and the Bible is saying that it's right that they should be paid. Now if the republicans take away welfare for these single mothers, and these single mothers can't find a job or a high enough paying job, then they won't be able to take care of their kids, and social services will take them away from their mothers; and put them in foster care. It costs money to pay people to take care of foster children. And if you eliminate foster care, destitute mothers will just drop their kids off at hospitals and someone will have to pay to take care of them and it won't be them without money. It's going to cost more this way than before. Why not just pay the mothers in the form of welfare? When will you realize that raising the children is as valid a job and deserving of pay as any office or factory job or capital gain from smart investment, that you do for a living? Why do you single out certain types of work and say that they are less worthy and refuse to pay? (Just because men and women naturally form family units and tend to take care of their kids naturally without pay: ie human sexuality provides the incentive for a little free labor.) May the stripping of pay you've done to these mothers, come back on you, without the rest of us having to be drawn into it. -You produced it. It stinks. We want to be far from it, leaving you with it.

Some mothers may think they own their children (whether 5 or 55) because they brought them into the world and are required to take care of them: therefore that care doesn't ever end. But no one can own another. Remember that we shall all lose ownership to God (and only by being part of God do we inherit all).

Jesus Christ rose from the dead. Now that's really something -to overcome death. But if Jesus is still alive, we can't talk to him in the flesh these days. He said He went away to heaven so He could send His Holy Spirit to us all. Well, God is a Spirit first and foremost, and only took on a fleshly form for our benefit. But because God is a Spirit, while we're flesh and are either spiritually dead or infants; this poses a difficulty in communication: a communication barrier. So, our relationship with God is difficult. It's not 'ideal' or the finished product. It's like us and rocks. If rocks had some slow say of talking to each other, and they discussed whether humans existed. They might have a suspicion we were there, but wouldn't be able to be sure, due to their lack of being alive in our plane of life. We know we exist, and just because some rocks don't believe it doesn't change it.

But I'm not so much concerned with the question of the existence of God; but about the communication barrier. It's possible God could exist. It could happen. But if so, it's difficult to have a relationship with a life form you can't see, can't hear, and can't be sure if its not just your mind playing tricks on you, or it's Him communicating with you. Or if it's an evil spirit fooling you. Yes, we have the Bible a written instruction manual, but written material can be interpreted differently if the author is not readily available to clarify His writings. For example,

John 6, 52-54/61-63: The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying,

How can this man give us his flesh to eat?

Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.

Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life: and I will raise him up at the last day.

/When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?

What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?

It is the Spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

Does this have something to do with sucking someone off? Or perhaps, His epiglottis grows out for each to take a bite: or perhaps He gives milk. How does one eat and drink of Jesus without hurting him?

Then there is the Biblical statements that if a man commits sin, he is a slave to sin: and later the command: 'slaves, obey your master'. OK, we slaves to sin will just go ahead and obey our master: sin; and thus become those vessels created for destruction (so that our entity will no longer exist so that the good parts of us will be set free from the destructive parts built into us). The commands about obeying authority and obeying our masters, are irrelevant for the most part, because it's not so much that we obey, but it's who we slaves choose to be our master and ruler over us in the first place. (If you don't like your master, choose another one/join a better group.) Unfortunately for us, one master (sin), is born into us, and we're not able to choose away from it (there are some hungers and needs we're unable to choose away from).

John 7, 38-39: He that believeth on me, as the Scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.

(But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)

John 14, 16-18: And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;

Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him hot, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.

John 16, 26: But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:

John 14, 26: But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

Here we see that God doesn't want to impose His presence on those who don't want Him, and thus preserves free choice; -enhancing our advancement in choice. (Of course, it might be just our mind playing tricks on us. But if God doesn't exist now, we seek to create a benevolent God.)

But this preservation of free choice, if God does exist, hinders our communication with Him and makes the relationship difficult. But in a world or evil as ours is, this is just the strong medicine needed to separate the forces. So if you want for a loving God to show His face, let's get rid of all the evil (lets allow the forces to separate and the evil die).

 

Part B

The whole 'choosing away' (from earth) idea: This most important 'choosing away' action we plant in our earthly-parts so it will be present in our young-Godly-parts; is ill named. Actually, it should be 'choosing to stay put' instead of 'choosing away'! When a young Godly part is created, it is created safe in God. If it chooses to stay there and not come to the evil of the earth, it has then chosen wisely. A choice not to run away but to stay put and stand one's ground in our earthly parts will serve us well as it passes into Godly parts, when destruction destroys (parts of) us. Once translated into our young Godly parts; this directive to stay put will keep our young Godly parts safe (in God). However: if this directive isn't there or contains a directive to flee, then our young Godly parts may wander or flee from their safety-in-God and find the evil of this earth. So, we must replace 'choosing away' (referring to choosing away from earth) in the previous writings (which are still valid), to 'choosing to stay' (put in God).

When we stop and do nothing, this is the same as doing all choosing to stay, because when destruction generates Godly parts (from either one), they don't wander off or join earthly parts. This may be why we feel hesitation to doing things and would rather sit and do nothing.

The following is a continuation of the discussion of essentials vs non essentials -that is the non evil group; and separation of the forces in reduced capability.

In reduced capability (where we've done incomplete fragmentation), separation of the forces occurs. As the good becomes separate (even the good from non accepted 'mammon parts'); our higher earthly parts (which we didn't fragment), then reach out to join these separate parts ONCE THEY BECOME SEPARATE. Once all the good has made it into the safety of these higher parts, then one of two things we make happen:

(1)-If the good is from one of our essentials or quasi essentials where evil is always lurking nearby, and total separation from evil hasn't been obtained; then we do an inc fragmentation near the border of that evil. The size of the inc fragmentation zone is determined by how lively-and-capable the evil is. But since most of the life and good from this area has just transferred to our 'high parts', there is little life remaining for this evil, thus the zone needn't be large. But we still must do some inc fragmentation here to keep the evil from getting into the rich high parts here.

(2)-Now, if the separated good (out of the red cap zone) is from a Non essential and thus has no evil close by and is completely separate from evil; then no elaborate inc fragmentation need be done to protect the high parts that moved to contact this good part.

A short contact by 'high capability earthly parts', with good that partially separates in reduced capability; helps separate this good further: (as it grows into the high parts, while the evil can't (right away)). But once the good has grown into the high parts, the high parts' nurturing environment needs to be removed (by inc fragmenting) so the evil won't also infect the high parts.

Processing the good of our essentials that comes out of the red-cap-zone can be quite engaging with all the fragmentation actions. But let's not forget the much easier joining (by our high parts) of the 100% choosing to stay that also separates out of the red-cap-zone. It requires no re-fragmentation or the elaborate process we do for purifying our essentials. (We) our high parts don't control what comes out of the red-cap-zone. (The high parts don't enter the red-cap-zone, but wait for the good to grow/move out of the red-cap-zone. -Otherwise the high parts would bring this zone out of reduced capability). The high parts don't do the separation, (other than to bring to reduced capability via inc fragmentation; whereby the high part that did so would no longer be a high part, but would now be the red cap zone itself). Separation then is done solely by the reduced capability of the red-cap-zone. The high parts just join what has become separate.

Some things separate out of the red-cap-zone faster than others. Those things with more evil (such as essentials) take longer.

As 100%gogr; 100%choosing to stay; and our basic consciousness (that is, the Non essentials) soon separate from the red-cap-zone and are joined by our high parts, that leaves essentials left over. So after a time, the red-cap-zone becomes mostly essentials. Even with the constant introduction of fresh material, there is still a glut of essentials there.

As of now, we have a 3 tier system. We have godly parts; we have high earthly parts which we do at our maximum earthly growth; and we have the reduced capability fragmentation zone. We've come up with systems of: 1) exposing our high parts to small pieces of our essentials at a time; and 2) waiting till the forces separate in the red cap zone and contacting the good that separated, but then fragmenting that connection after a time: - in essence, exposing whole material (not pieces) to our high parts for a limited moment of time.

This next writing requires an adjustment in thought. Now, we're not considering a plan to cleans our essentials by doing small parts of them with our non-evil-group. Here we're considering Godly parts (and making sure young Godly parts remain safe in God).

Now, the previous plans/systems may be good to satisfy our earthly life, but may conflict with the creation of Godly parts. We need to create 'choosing to stay' in our earthly parts, so when destruction acts, 'choosing to stay' will be translated into our Godly parts. But when we choose-to-JOIN-with things that have obtained some separation from evil, with our high earthly parts: -when this gets translated into Godly parts (when we fragment the connection here): (Our joining action will be translated into the young Godly parts, causing them to join earthly parts). -We don't want our Godly parts joining to where there is even any connection to evil. And I don't see any way to really avoid it, and still hold this method.

A solution to the problem I do see, is to maintain an environment of reduced capability even though Godly parts are being brought down. (It helps that they are young Godly parts.) The idea is to get the Godly parts that come back to earth via the wrong programming, to be at reduced capability. Since the Godly parts when young, start out at the same capability as the earthly parts they came from; and since they choose right away to come out of their safety with God and into the evil of the earth: then they won't grow much. (Oops: But really, I'm fooling myself.)

Once 'rightly programmed' earthly parts have been fragmented and thereby removed, the remnant, mostly 'wrongly programmed' earthly parts, will be at reduced capability because they no longer have the 'rightly programmed' earthly parts to help them. Once enough 'rightly programmed' earthly parts have been fragmented, we'll want to stop this (fragmentation of 'rightly programmed' earthly parts) so we won't bring things to total desolation. So after a point, we then fragment the fragmentation action. -(That's the inc fragmentation). (At first we do only a fragmentation upon the most pure and evil-free earthly parts (the good die young), and then only later (once reduced capability has been reached), do we fragment this first fragmentation action; as well as the 'wrongly programmed' earthly parts, plus fragment the fragmentation of 'wrongly programmed' earthly parts.) Oops I'm still fooling myself.

One point I had failed to consider, was that the reduced capability Godly parts would not be able to move very far from God right away, and that because of their separation from evil, they would grow. So that by the time they made it back to join the things of this earth, they would be quite capable and of high capability. The solution to this, is the inc fragmentation (that comes from fragmenting the fragmentation action) (in the wrongly programmed Godly parts). With fragmentation action (because inc fragmentation fragments everything including itself) also translated into Godly parts, the fragmentation keeps the material which is traveling to earth, at reduced capability. And when that fragmentation sends material back to Godly parts; they too join new translated fragmentation. Since fragmenting sends things to be Godly parts; fragmenting the fragmentation action, sends fragmentation action itself as a Godly part. And this fragmentation present in the Godly parts, keeps these wrongly programmed Godly parts at reduced capability, in their journey back to earth. So all we need do, is to also make sure we fragment the fragmentation action (in parts that have a love for things on this earth).

Another related dilemma, is that posed by the separating of the forces themselves. The idea was that the good was able to grow out away from the evil (in this reduced capability environment, which tested the 'metal' of each force). But the act of good moving out away from evil, is an act of escape. It's not an action of confronting evil, but of getting away from it. This is what the separation action is. If this action of escape and 'getting away' is translated into Godly parts, it will cause them to move out and get away from their safety in God. What then shall we do; seeing that the separation action is fundamental to all we've been talking about? What we can do, is just let things run their course, in a wise decision.

Originally, when things start out and with nothing done to them, they are still and don't contain 'running away' action. Reduced capability then selects those parts of good best able to get away from the evil and in a good position to escape. With these, their original 'stay put' stance, is changed to 'getting away' action. But with the rest of good which doesn't have a favorable opportunity/capability to escape the evil, we let remain in 'stay put' stance.

When destruction destroys parts with the stay put stance, their corresponding Godly parts remain safe in God. It is these parts within the grasp of evil, that haven't a good opportunity to escape, that our heavenly treasure is built up with, as they pass through destruction and go to God.

When destruction tries to destroy parts-with-the-separation-action (that are trying to get away/separate from evil); since we've chosen parts with a good opportunity to escape, the destruction is often unable to destroy them, and these parts then do not pass through destruction and do not yet generate Godly parts. Now, sometimes, destruction IS able to destroy some of them; and this directive to get separate IS translated into Godly parts, which then act to get separate from their safety in God. But they don't come down to the evil of the earth either, since their action is to get separate. They thus remain alone, and grow only slowly due to their low starting capability (although eventually they would grow to very high capability due to their separation from evil). Since they start off with God as Godly parts, they are further away from evil than they started; and the short distance they are able to go away from God with their low capability, doesn't bring them that much closer to evil. As they grow in capability, and get closer to the evil of this earth, they then act to also avoid it too. So, this separation material is somewhere between heaven and hell, whether of not it passes through destruction. And even if evil captures and destroys some of this material that has already passed through destruction (which doesn't happen often -thus making it a poor food source for evil), the process just repeats itself and the material returns to this limbo between God and evil. So, all that desire separation will attain separation. (Only parts that love this world, will return to the evil of this world after that directive is translated into Godly parts.)

There are 3 possible situations: high capability, reduced capability, and desolation. What happens when an evil brings parts of us to desolation (to nothing)? We may want to be at reduced capability for separation of the forces, but not totally destroyed and brought to nothing. At reduced capability, some good is able to separate and get away from the evil; but at total desolation, it is totally destroyed; it is not able to get away, and is brought to nothing. Now, whatever is being totally destroyed is unable to do much of anything. When an evil is totally destroying a part of us, it's tempting for nearby reduced capability parts to try and help it out. But that's not good. The part under total destruction is incapable of anything and thus stays put, so the young Godly parts produced, also stay put safe in God. But if a reduced capability part tries to help out; it probably won't be able to free the part under total destruction (due to its reduced capability), but will just give it enough ability to make a feeble escape attempt. Now, even the reduced capability parts now no longer escape and separate from evil as they lose resources to helping the part under certain destruction. And the propped up part that was in certain destruction and is now almost in certain destruction, will have just enough to make a feeble escape attempt, which when translated to its Godly part (when the escape almost certainly fails and evil finally destroys it), will cause the young Godly part to escape from God, and doom it to the evil of this earth, or to lonely separation.

No, it's better if the surrounding reduced capability parts don't help the part under total destruction. Then, the red-cap-zone isn't drained to total destruction every one, but remains to continue separation of the forces, whereby some good escapes evil, and separation of the forces is achieved; and whereby the Godly parts generated from the part under total destruction, remain safe in God and store up our treasure in Heaven. Now, high capability parts may move in to rescue the good under total destruction, and then quickly move (fragment) away due to the presence of evil. But they will be successful at saving the good and SEPARATING the good due to their high capability.

Why cause those parts not suited to escape, to bear the burden of escape, when they can 'stay put' and be together with God in their Godly parts? Even with those parts suited to escape, we may want to instead stay put and be with God with them. But since separation of the forces is such a fundamental empowerment, that may undermine the power of God if we did this. But let us limit escape to those parts having a good opportunity to succeed in it.

Note that our act to 'not help', isn't a destructive act. No decrease (in capability) has been done by not helping (where we previously haven't helped). No increase has been done either, but that's no decrease. To 'not help' doesn't mean we've hurt. On the other hand, our act to inc fragment, invariable does some destruction, although we minimize that as much as possible.

We can employ the action of 'not helping' to take the place of fragmentation: -as a better way to enact reduced capability and quarantine the evil, since this action does no destruction (unlike fragmentation). Parts less well off, may be so, due to evil destroying in them. Thus if better off parts, do not help the lesser parts, then the evil won't be fed, and it will thus be unable to spread.

Unfortunately, the act of 'not helping' isn't enough but is only part of things; as we still need inc fragmentation in some areas. (Even in doing our essentials, where instead of 'not helping', we limit our creating (which is forced to contain 'helping') to only a small section at a time; we employ fragmentation). We do inc fragmentation in parts that have a love for things of this earth (that is, our essentials). Otherwise, we replace fragmentation with 'not helping'.

Our act to 'not help', however, can put us at reduced capability after a certain point. The act by better parts to 'not help', enhances/supports the separation that occurs at reduced capability. This allows the better parts to escape reduced capability and move to higher capability, thus leaving the evil alone to die. The 'not helping' and 'not sharing' has its function in reduced capability to support the separation of the forces that occurs there. But once parts are beyond this, and have achieved separation from evil, then the 'not sharing' and 'not helping' has outlived its usefulness and even becomes a hindrance to further advancement. If the higher parts there continue to compete among themselves and the better parts don't share (even after evil is gone), then this prevents growth from taking hold, and stagnates the group just above reduced capability. (-Which is the same result as the togetherness of good and evil it just escaped from.) Capability and life hopefully are more than a fixed step above the inanimate. Capability and life are the keys to crossing barriers. And 'helping' and 'sharing', are the actual crossing of barriers, and are part of growth and growth of life (what evil free life is). So instead of holding onto the reduced capability which would hold us back (needlessly since evil had already been escaped from), our evil free parts no longer do 'not helping' but now share all; with the higher parts helping the lesser parts. This is the way it should be.

Where shall we draw the line between helping vs not helping? Well Jesus indicates at the barrier between ourselves and others. The individual position is the reduced capability position compared to the group. It is here (in reduced capability) that separation of the forces occurs; and where we do 'not helping' to enhance that process of separation. -If we put ourselves in front of an evil so the evil will get us instead of others. All this does is exchange one part for another. The evil still needs to be dealt with and still wants to destroy someone -now us. But now we have a free hand to deal with it as we see fit. We then act differently within ourselves by 'not sharing' within ourselves, to deal with the evil. The parts of ourselves that evil is destroying, we deny help from coming from our other parts. This may be the self denial Christ wants us to do. The place to deal with evil, is within yourself, since that is the reduced capability position (where the environment is right to deal with evil).

The force of evil can't exist alone, and must bring along a force of good with it (whereas the force of good CAN exist alone). So if we find a way to separate the forces in an evil encounter then we can make it a profitable encounter by freeing the good that the evil brought along with it.

When destruction has destroyed our meager 'stay put' parts and they are safe in God; that then doesn't leave much in our earthly parts. We may wonder why we haven't accomplished much or made much of our life. And people may point out that we haven't. But before we become concerned about amounting to something and accomplishing something and growing; the force of destruction and coercion needs to be dealt with first, before we even think about bettering ourselves or generating just growth. Because even if we did bring our Godly parts down to earth to try and amount to something; the force of destruction and coercion would just feed on them and destroy what they produced so that we still wouldn't accomplish all that much anyway. If we brought down our Godly parts to make it above reduced capability, then the forces wouldn't separate. (The good-and-evil we're able to bring in at reduced capability is all we can process.) No, it's better to store up treasure in heaven where the force of destruction can't get it (where moth and rust doth not corrupt neither do thieves break through and steal).

In the following writing, the 'not sharing mode' represents the red cap zone of previous writing, as 'not sharing' is one of the techniques used to produce reduced capability: so that if we later invalidate 'not sharing' as a method, the red cap zone is still valid.

Because it takes longer for our essentials to separate than for our Non-essentials; there remains a glut of the essentials in the red-cap-zone. If no new starting material came in (was created), the essentials would eventually separate out of the red-cap-zone, eliminating their glut there. But our high parts are alive. They bridge barriers as life does, and find/create more new material. So, to start out, the high parts are rich in Non-essentials as these separate first; (with the essentials remaining behind in the red-cap-zone to form a glut of those there). With a continuing addition of new material to the red-cap-zone, a glut of essentials remains in the red-cap-zone. But with the (delayed) increase of more evil-free-essentials joining the high parts, the Flow to the high pats soon contains the same proportion of Non-essentials to essentials as the original material. And eventually, the high parts become so structured. Only when the high parts run into a barrier and the generation of new material is slowed, do the proportions change.

To facilitate enjoyment of our purified essentials and preserve individuality, what I suggest, is to do the change to 'sharing' mode, and, the joining by high parts, in two separate steps.

I want to go over the doing of an essential. (An early attempt)

When an essential has been completed and joined by our high parts, it causes our high parts to create and do other things. The doing of essentials is not the only thing that our high parts do. This is a time for us to branch out into other things and do other things. Since our essentials are completed.

Getting back to our essentials: When our high parts are creating/doing a new thing, they do so in 'sharing' mode. -Even in an essential and if it means feeding an evil. -Because there is no other way to CREATE. But when the high parts continue on creating in this new thing and they create a basic consciousness within it: that basic consciousness acts to cause a 'not sharing' mode, and stops the high parts from sharing with this created thing. This spurs the high parts to create even more, but somewhere else. (But the high parts don't do this change to 'not sharing'. -(Because the high parts are in 'sharing' mode.))

And as the high parts create the same 'new' stage again, they do so in 'sharing' mode until our basic consciousness is again created as part of this new thing; and it then acts gain to stop the pleasure sharing.

Now, these things that have put themselves in 'not sharing', do not remain so, but eventually return to 'sharing' as they become evil-free. First, most of our consciousness and associated Non-essentials leave the created item and return to 'sharing', while the essentials remain behind in 'not sharing'. Eventually the essentials separate and after that, change themselves back to (unjoined) 'sharing' mode, -with the small amount of consciousness that has remained with them. (If they have no consciousness to change them to 'sharing' mode, they also have no consciousness to keep them still in 'not sharing' mode; and their growth from (becoming evil-free) will cause them to change on their own, to 'sharing' mode.) The thing is, that the high parts have no control over the essential's course through the red-cap-zone and finally to the 'sharing' mode.

When the consciousness appears, and changes a creating essential to 'not sharing' mode; the high parts have no choice but to start creating anew; and they create the same beginning stage of the essential until consciousness is also created here; whence this creation too goes to 'not sharing' mode. Then the high parts start fresh again and create anew the same beginning type fragment of the essential, again starting in 'sharing' mode. And this continues over and over until some of that beginning fragment of the essential in 'not sharing' mode finally goes (of itself) into 'sharing' mode as it becomes evil free. When this happens: then when the high parts create anew, they work with these free beginning 'fragments' of the essential (in 'sharing' mode) to WORK-with-them(not create them) to add/(create) further stages of the essential. Both the beginning and further stages are in 'sharing' mode at this time (and need to be so for the creating). Our high parts then go through the same repetitive creating until some of the further-stages change (themselves) to 'sharing' mode. The high parts then work with this to create the next stage of the essential. The complete essential in 'sharing' mode is thus obtained by these methods. The repetitive nature of our method is to accommodate the high part's ability and desire to create.

One may find that the high parts' sharing with the essential which contains evil, is bad. But the act of creating may require a 'sharing' mode. It may be possible to put something that already exists in a 'not sharing' mode: but the act of creating brings something into existence where there was nothing before: This represents growth and 'sharing'. So to create, might force it to be done in a 'sharing' mode. It is helpful to note that the created items have to pass through reduced capability before they can be at high capability, as in the going from nothing to something, reduced capability is passed through.

Note that in doing an essential; unlike an evil attack; we are unable to use 'not sharing' to deal with the evil in the essential when we are creating the essential. Only the inc fragmentation can transcend here and give additional assistance (to provide reduced capability).

In our suggested method here (of 'sharing' modes and 'not sharing' modes), we are doing the essential piecemeal, so that the evil is small and at reduced capability. Recall we previously proposed a method of doing an essential piecemeal to wash it clean of evil.

(With our piecemeal method, we could let a rich environment remain in contact with a whole essential for a short moment of time; or we could let the rich environment remain in contact with a piece or stage of the essential for a much longer time.) In our piecemeal method the essential needs to be in pieces, and that is accomplished by going to the 'not sharing' mode.

Concerning the trigger to 'not sharing' mode: if our high parts (although they created all things evenly (both essentials, and Non-essentials) like we want for even growth), didn't produce consciousness soon enough (because they were not yet capable enough), and thus the piece of essential created was too large (which allows the evil to infect the high parts)? Well, we just have to change the suggested method. When some of the consciousness-of-the-high-parts move close in with the piece of essential, if it needs to, it doesn't have to wait till the high parts create new consciousness, but can separate itself from the high parts and take the essential and itself into 'not sharing' mode. This consciousness soon separates out and returns to 'sharing' mode, and grows to rejoin the high parts again. (When the high parts are powerful enough to create consciousness soon enough, then this method is no longer done.

Concerning the trigger as to when we change to 'not sharing' mode: a better trigger, is if we grow into a new stage of the essential, we should continue for a short while, then trigger a change to 'not sharing'. The newness of the next stage of the essential should be our trigger.

Note that just because we change a piece of our essential to 'not sharing', doesn't mean it ceases to exist. -It still continues on (eventually to separate out); but it no longer experiences creation from the high parts.

Remember that all evil-free parts (of our essentials) quickly return to 'sharing'. This includes previous completed essentials (which are now evil free after passing through the long initial not sharing). The new insight is: the high parts now don't (usually) have to create new stages of the essential from scratch, but work with already existing, completed (evil-free) essential (the needed stage of), to just generate more of it -the newly generated material being the new stage, which must then go through a long initial 'not sharing'. The high parts can then move right on to the next stage by working with the cooresponding already-completed-(evil-free)-essential. Actually, note that this isn't my current mode of operation but is just a journal of what I've been through before, and is like one of the possibilities that an essential may be done by. Skip when boring or overcomplex.

Now our high parts don't create each stage so repetitively anymore. Earlier we did a stage repetitively, because we were waiting for some of that to return to 'sharing' (from the long initial 'not sharing'), so the high parts would have it to work with. But now, our high parts are able to move onto the next stage right away, by working with already existing previous-essential.

Note that when our high parts are working with a previous-complete-essential to produce a certain current stage, they may DEPEND on (existing interrelated evil free OTHER previous-complete-essential stages)-A*, but the high parts don't also create these other interrelated stages they're depending on here. (The high parts WORK-with(not create) that A* to then create the current stage.) The way to make sure the high parts aren't also creating other stages, is that they should exert no effort. Whatever comes to the high parts with no effort on the high part's part is OK.

The high parts create only one stage at a time and it is sent to its long initial 'not sharing' before they start to create the next stage. (This creating only one stage at a time, is to quarantine evil in accordance with our piecemeal method.)

›I am reminded of the Bible verse where comparison is made between patiently enduring punishment that you don't deserve, vs that you do deserve, in that it asks what reward could you expect (none), for patiently enduring punishment for wrongdoing on your part. So, when guilty of wrongdoing, don't patiently endure punishment (ie stay put stance), but instead try to escape and make a break for it, as unacceptable material, when killed, doesn't build up your heavenly treasure.›

But the most important addition is yet to come:

In an attack by evil, if a part is destroyed standing its ground; that will get translated in the Godly part, and that Godly part will remain safe in God.

But the worst situation occurs when a part of us is destroyed that is loving something connected to the evil of this earth. When that part is destroyed, its love for earthly items is also translated in the Godly part; and that Godly part thus leaves its safety in God and returns to the evil of this earth. The only trouble is that in its journey back; since it is separate from evil, it grows well and becomes quite rich. And when it finally joins to the earthly item (with the evil of this earth nearby); then the evil has a rich food to feed it, that is from heaven and God. This is why bullies go about and destroy a love you have of something on this earth, perhaps by taking or destroying one of your prized possessions -so as to provide a rich food to feed the evil within them. Because when the Godly part (generated by their destruction) returns to something on earth that they control, it becomes a rich food for their evil to feed on. The force of evil needs a rich environment and a rich food in order to get around, because it also destroys what can support it, help it, and get it around. The force of good on the other hand, doesn't need so rich an environment or food. So if we can somehow 'poison' the heavenly food that comes back down to earth, to be at mediocre capability (at reduced capability), then the earthly evil will be frozen in its tracks because the food won't be rich enough for it; but WILL be rich enough for whatever good is accompanying the earthly evil, to allow it to escape/separate, so that the evil now starves and dies, alone.

The way to cause the food to not be so rich (that returns to earth from heaven due to the love of an earthly thing being destroyed), is to fragment this love of an earthly thing and also simultaneously fragment this fragmentation action itself. You see, when the fragmentation action itself is fragmented, its function is destroyed: so it thus joins the Godly parts, that will return to earth. With fragmentation (action) now present in the Godly food returning to earth, that food is fragmented and brought to reduced capability; thus poisoning the food for the evil in the bully, so the evil in them will die and the bully become good. (This includes sexual 'bullying'. Including marginally that which occurs when one person is infatuated with another, but the other person destroys development of that infatuation (an earthly love) by not allowing a relationship to occur. Just inc fragment your infatuation here so the heartbreaker will be made good.)

So, the most important addition, is to add this inc fragmentation in our earthly loves (our essentials). Whether we are able to obtain our essentials, or some bully prevents us from obtaining our essentials" the response is the same: in both cases, we will need to deal with the evils present, by inc fragmenting these earthly loves. This is an additional thing we can do (in addition to our just described piecemeal method of dealing with our essentials). This is especially helpful since we can't do 'not sharing' when we create our essential (although 'not sharing' does make up a part of our piecemeal method, but not the direct part.) Inc fragmentation serves as a backup for what our piecemeal method misses (after the fact).

Let's put everything together, as to how we deal with evil both within our essentials, and external evils. As just mentioned, when dealing with evil within an earthly love of an essential, we use the piecemeal method, backed up by inc fragmentation. (Note that when we've done inc fragmentation on something once; we don't do it again and again, unless that something has passed through destruction again and is coming down as a rich Godly part again. In that case, we do do it again, once.)

And, every once in awhile, we may want to do an essential without the piecemeal method or any other method, and allow our high parts to grow/create a complete essential all at once; and then clean it up after the fact, with the backup inc fragmentation (method); -for any special qualities the essential would deliver only this way.

Note that if there was no God, there would be no rich Godly parts coming back from when destruction acted, and there thus would be no rich food for evil/destruction to feed on and maintain stagnation indefinitely. But since there is so much evil in our world; we can see that there exists this rich food from Godly-parts-returning-of-an-earthly-love; and that there thus exists God. Once we realize this and believe in God, we can poison the rich food through inc fragmentation of the Godly parts, of our earthly loves, to cast out evil and put an end to it which is currently in so much abundance due to the existence of a benevolent God. Oh I guess there are other explanations as to why there is so much evil and stagnation; but there is also this reason.

One may wonder how we will all be able to be together as one when we are all so different and all prefer different activities. Well, actually, it's not so difficult. Many things are compatible with each other and can coexist along side without one detracting from another. I've covered how to put things together in my discussion on balanced intermediate focus and the common mind. But there is one thing that is incompatible. The concept of good/growth is incompatible with that of destruction and evil. Here again we've already discussed this, in great depth.

A correction: When Godly parts are created, God saves all the good while leaving all the evil/destruction behind. But God doesn't just leave the evil in an eternal sleep after it has self destructed when it becomes alone; but resurrects it to then live in Hell -as God doesn't pass judgment between good and evil, but lets these things judge themselves by what they themselves produce. So, the destructiveness of translated fragmentation as well as all other evils is not absorbed into God as a Godly part, but makes up the Hellbound parts. The translated fragmentation then acts to tone down the goodness that resurrects these parts so that they are at reduced capability and can continue to separate out, and not at high capability where the forces would remain together in torment.

A more in depth discussion:

The force of evil has its main strength in how it can control living things. (For example, put the force of evil with the rocks and the inanimate (which is the end result of evil's action), and not much is accomplished by the force of evil even in millions of years (whereas the force of good would make much with this or with what it produces): the rocks and the inanimate are not much affected or bothered by evil.) Thus if we can overcome evil's control on our mind, we have won most of the battle.

One would hope we'd all have the wisdom to reject destruction as our enemy, since destruction is anti life. Since we are alive and if we know how valuable and good life is, then we'll value life over the inanimate, and not be lured by individual short term gains from destruction; since that collectively results in everyone's loss of life-and-gains-made. But if a person's life is miserable anyway, they won't have much to loose. -Here is a reason against making the majority of a population live in poverty.

Our essentials contain both good and evil and we're unable to separate them. Because of this evil; our high parts act to prevent our essentials from being done as long as possible. But this prevents anything from being done, and prevents the good and evil of our essential from coming out so that the good and evil could separate. Now; the good-and-evil of our essential remains with the torment of the togetherness of these forces for as long as we act to keep our essential 'as is' within us. Yet, if we bring out our essential with lots of growth, then the evil in it will be well fed and won't die or separate, and our torment will continue and be magnified. So we want to bring out our essential, -(to change its original state of togetherness of the forces by allowing the forces to separate), but we want to do so in an environment of reduced capability and low growth so the forces will separate. Note: When your bodily doings are inside you, they are thus together with your high parts; and thus are not at reduced capability. When you bring them out, then they can be away from your high parts, and at reduced capability.

Recall when we covered not interfering with our body's doings: Then we were concerned about using every bit of high part's resources to do choosing to stay; leaving nothing to add nor detract from the body's doings.

Well, here we remove all action by the high parts, not to save resources for some purpose, but to: 1) remove all growth of the high parts, and 2) to allow the feeble bodily doings to come out (since they are no longer being blocked by the high parts) so that the forces will separate, at this low growth, reduced capability environment. So not only do the high parts not help any; the high parts also remove their blocking so they don't hinder any either.

This is yet another way we can cleanse our essentials. Lets call it the 'bodily doings' way.

Now, since the current piecemeal method depends on the high parts working with previously completed (evil free) essential; we can precede the piecemeal method with a bodily doings way to provide the original essential.

Then there is the after-the-fact backup method using inc fragmentation in the wrongly programmed Godly parts (or hellbound parts) that are returning to earth due to an earthly love. This method provides high growth in the production of essentials which may provide things the low growth methods don't provide. So we can intersperse this method between the low growth ones as needed. This method also allows for God, in its function.

When you feel all alone and that there is not God to love you; just preserver and allow that feeling to run its course. As you voluntarily exist in this bleak and reduced capability situation outside of God, the forces separate, the evil dies, and you can once again know and feel the presence of a loving God. It's not that there is no God when you feel this way: it's that evil is being dealt with and separated away from you. -And you need to be in a reduced capability situation (ie outside of God) for this to happen.

Isn't good food wonderful? But what if it spoils: what can you do? Of course, you can throw it away. But you also could try to save what good is left in it. But what if a person becomes 'spoiled' so to speak: what do you do with them? Well, you could throw them away; but you might alternatively try to save the good in them and separate the forces. At first, it may seem easier (and more cost effective) to just throw them away; but since nobody's perfect (all have sinned and come short of the glory of God); then are we to dispose of us all, because no one is perfect? At first it may look easy; but disposing of people isn't an option at all (because we'd have to dispose of us all) (and if we tried to dispose of us all, then we'd also dispose of this disposing, -in and inc-disposal bringing us all to reduced capability, which would separate the forces); so all we have, is to try and save what is good in people.

Now, should we do nothing until we're able to do it perfect? Should we stop ourselves from doing anything if we can't do it perfect? Or should we bring it out anyway and try to separate the forces? Any action that you can do has some good in it. This is because you are alive, and life is the product of goodness and growth. Just because an action isn't perfect doesn't mean it has nothing good in it. Because it was done by a living person, it thus contains some good. We can then separate the good from the evil in reduced capability.

Bodily doings method:

But instead of allowing an imperfect action to come out, lets be perfect and not do it at all? /But the less we are able to do (perfectly), the more reduced capability we find ourselves at: and this forces us even more to do many more things imperfectly, or, do nothing at all./ Well, our bodies have programmed into them, several drives/directives that are not form God, but are from many generations of death (and death isn't from God). What our body is, isn't our doing or under our control. But we do have our will, mindpower, and consciousness that IS under our control. With our mind and consciousness, we want to (get away)-and-be-separate-from those bodily doing programmed through many generations of death. This means not actively doing these drives; and it also means not interfering with them. You see, if you (your will) stop(s) your body from doing these drives; then your will has become involved and together with these bodily doings! The scribes and Pharisees of the Bible (and today) would have your will/consciousness STOP your body from expressing its bodily drives. But that requires your will/consciousness to be involved in and together with your bodily doings. (The scribe and pharisee is thus almost as much enslaved to the addiction as the addict is, and thus are also guilty of a quasi essential.) What Jesus wants instead, is total and absolute separation from bodily doings. This means your will/consciousness not becoming involved with bodily doings at all: not even to stop them. This is why Jesus says unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and pharisees, you shall in no wise enter heaven.

. . . With the newest bodily doings method then, half of us separates from the bodily doing, while the other half does not even try. So how does this bring about the absolute separation from the evil of bodily doings that Jesus seeks? Well, with the removal of half (or maybe more) of ourself; this leaves what stays behind at less capability, and relatively, at reduced capability. At reduced capability, the remaining material separates in its forces due to being at reduced capability, and complete, absolute separation is thus obtained. We can do this setup in both the bodily doings/pleasures of our essentials, and also concerning evil attacks from the outside, -not related to evils in essentials. (With the attack we can additionally do 'not sharing'.)

Note that for this method to work, we must be successful at removing at least part of our consciousness from the bodily doing. If we're unable to do that, then its time to try some of the other methods, or if already at reduced capability, to just let nature take its course and the forces separate on their own.

Now, with earthly parts that have already been split in half: the stayed behind half (that is with the evil and essential) does not keep halving over and over. -Only new earthly parts which have come back(which have not yet halved), split in half. So we always split something in half, but it will only be the new earthly parts that we do this with (that is, that have come back from God). Then these new earthly parts (of the stayed put half) can divide themselves between just being there vs doing necessary evils in the essential (which wrongly programs them).

›Note that 'not sharing'; inc fragmentation; and halving are all methods to create an environment of reduced capability. What is most important, is creating a reduced capability environment where evil is, not which method is used. Note that inc fragmentation can create this reduced capability even when there is a God, while the other methods don't.›

Let me go over my latest method, -putting everything together. First we initiate the doing of our essential. We do so by taking a new earthly part that is not guilty of doing essentials, and with most of it, we do the essential. But with a small part of it, we always leave out of doing the essential. Note that this new-earthly-part-material comes from the stay-behind and don't try to escape half of a previous cycle.

Now, the reason we always leave a small part out, uninvolved (and not doing any essential -any new essential anyway), is to eventually put an end to this earthly doing of essential. You see, when some part doing an essential is killed/destroyed (by evil in the essential/outside evil), then most of it is not accepted by God, and it returns as wrongly programmed 'Godly' parts (Hellbound parts); -to be processed by inc-fragmentation in it, followed by half choosing to escape vs half choosing to stay put. This would keep occurring over and over. But if we set a little bit aside each time, then that little bit that stayed put and also didn't participate in the new essential, WOULD be accepted by God when killed, and would become part of our heavenly treasure. This way, as the killed-unacceptable-material kept being recycled over and over, it would eventually all find its way to heaven and as heavenly treasure. We can spare a little bit to be set aside each time we do an essential. (›In a more recent method, we also set a litle aside (a 2nd set aside) to do inc-fragmentation in it even before it is killed.›) It's not going to make that much difference in our enjoyment or satisfaction of the essential to set a little aside. This may be the easy yolk that Jesus sets upon us. But even if we slip and don't set any aside, then all that material will have to be re-processed, and we can just catch it the next time around. The reason we set a little aside each time we do an essential, is so material that's unacceptable (due to it being involved in the essential) won't keep cycling eternally, but will eventually find its way to heaven. And an occasional slip-up won't ruin this; only a lifetime of consistently never setting a little aside will.

Where we do inc fragmentation: Now then, after we're doing the essential-(with a little set aside, -not doing essential): Sooner than you think, the evil in the essential or some other evil comes and kills some of this material. Now, in the material that was killed, that was acceptable to God (-since it stayed (-wasn't escaping), it has a chance at being acceptable), this material -accepted by God and rightly programmed and part of our heavenly treasure-; we do no inc fragmentation in, even though it has passed through destruction. And with parts-doing-the-essential that aren't yet killed, we continue to do the essential with them; with no inc-fragmentation (›except for a small second set-aside›). Only with the material wrongly programmed and (not accepted by God) that was killed, we then with it or near where it connects to our earthly us, we then fragment it and simultaneously fragment our fragmentation action (that is, we inc-fragment it). Soon thereafter we additionally choose with it, for half of it to try and escape all evil, especially the evil and bodily doings of this essential; while with the other half we choose with it, to stay and not try to escape. Now with this new stayed part, we see if we can go with it as uninvolved and not doing any essential. and if our essential is over, this marks the end of our doing the essential at this time. But if we're not finished, we then activate this new stayed put part to mostly be doing the essential, while setting a small part aside (more 1st set aside). The additional material doing essential, helps bring the essential closer to completion.

(Once the essential is done, we may still be processing some returning wrongly programmed Godly parts, but now, the stayed half does no new essential and doesn't (yet) split into a small set-aside part and a larger essential-doing part.) When we do the essential again, it is this as yet unsplit-stayed-half that initiates the next round of essential.

Now, in my ›most recent method›, I thought a small second set aside (of doing inc-fragmentationwiththeessential), might be wise, because after a wrongly programmed thing is killed or destroyed, it may not have the ability to change course and do this inc-fragmentation. But if we do it here on earth, and then it is destroyed, then this inc-fragmentation will also be translated as is. In any case, it provides a place in our earthly self where wrongly-programmed-Godly-parts with no inc-fragmentation can return to earth and be inc fragmented. They then can choose half to try escape and half to remain there. (all to maintain reduced capability.)

So, now we go about doing our essential unhindered except for two small set asides. The first set aside does no essential at all. The second set aside does the essential yes, but with inc-fragmentation of that essential.

The reason no inc-fragmentation is done in the escaping half, is: if it escapes all evil, it needs no reduced capability. And if it fails in its escape, it comes to the inc-fragmentation of the stayed-put-half of this earth, and uses that.

Also, no inc-fragmentation (from the second set aside) is done in the first set aside, since doing inc-fragmentation would make it unacceptable and it wouldn't become heavenly treasure when destroyed (which is the purpose of the first set aside).

When we do the second set aside (involves inc-fragmenting the essential), we have to be doing the essential. So, the first essential we do, we might inc-fragment it, so we'll have this set aside right away. But instead of doing this 2nd set aside first and then after it's done, then doing the larger unhindered essential; let's do both at the same time, in their respective proportions. This way we can get a feel for the whole picture and not get stuck on doing just a part. As we do this inc-fragmentation, realize that only a small part of this second set aside will be in active inc-fragmentation, while most of this second set aside will consist of reduced-capability-essential-remnant. More importantly, remember we limit the second set aside to be a small portion of the essential doings of the stayed put half.

When we choose half to escape, that escaping part looses its acceptability (although the stayed part retains it). Now when a part inc fragments, it too looses its acceptability and becomes a wrongly programmed part. Otherwise, we leave a high-capability-good-part at high capability (and don't try to bring it to red cap) when its not infected by evil.)

Now, with the halving action (ie half to escape/half to stay), separation is additionally supported, whereas we don't achieve separation with inc fragmentation alone. (you see, the inc fragmentation prepares conditions so separation is favored. The act of escape IS the actual separation of the forces. Note that the halving (which contains the act of escape) also prepares the conditions for separation (by also bringing to reduced capability).) So if we're going to loose acceptability either way, the best way in this case, is with escape-and-halving. And if that doesn't bring to reduced capability, (as it sometimes doesn't -due to returning wrongly programmed Godly parts bringing to high capability) then we can do inc fragmentation in the remaining part -›(less the first set aside)›.

One might say that allowing a high capability good part to be under destruction is OK in that it produces greater heavenly treasure due to the greater material being destroyed. But this allowing a high part to feed and sustain an evil in togetherness of the forces, goes against everything the fogoHC stands for. Separation of the forces is a basic truth and tenant of the fogoHC. Thus this isn't done, and the long lasting torment the high good part would have gone through here with this, isn't done. So, here, even though a high good part has not yet passed through destruction, it can halve (when evil infects it). We also halve unacceptable parts that infrequently achieve high capability before they pass through destruction.

When not choosing half to escape/half to stay, or preparing the set asides; the higher-ability unhindered essential often generates new activity/growth of its own. When it does, we allow that new growth to join all older parts of itself, (the unhindered essential), but not any of the old/new second-set-aside-essential. The problem is the unhindered essential tends to outgrow the inc-fragmented-second-set-aside-essential. After a time of growth in the unhindered essential; this new unhindered essential splits off some to be second set aside: which then joins with the other older second set aside parts. And finally, the small amount of new growth the lower-ability-second-set-aside generates, can just join its second set aside automatically without any processing.

The question comes: since the growth came from unhindered essential, does it maintain its connection to unhindered essential? Well, yes and no. It became second set aside through the process of incomplete fragmentation. The connections to unhindered essential that were fragmented, are gone for good. But the connections that were not fragmented in the incomplete fragmentation, remain.

Let me expand upon this in greater depth: The unhindered essential (since it wasn't inc fragmented), is of higher ability compared to the second set aside and has a greater potential for growth. Now then. -So that the unhindered essential doesn't greatly overgrow the second set aside (in the period between destructions, and choosing half to escape, and generating the set asides), we have the above described method of sharing growth with the second set aside, plus a second new method I will now describe: When the unhindered essential grows, it gets into new areas. When it first gets into a NEW area/stage, let those first fruits be the second set aside, by doing inc fragmentation in them. Thus a second set aside for the new action is soon established. At this point, the unhindered essential (no longer puts more into this second set aside, but) reverts back to unhindered essential and does this new item now as unhindered essential. (This is the second way to do the second set aside.) In doing things this way, we avoid failing to live up to growth requirements being generated in unhindered essential, because we have nothing of the new action as unhindered essential at first. (When we break growth requirements in the second set aside, that doesn't matter due to all the fragmentation going on there anyway.)

When we first switch to unhindered essential (from second set aside): since that itself is a new act, do we then do it first in second set aside? Well, No. That's only one of two methods. In order to switch to unhindered essential with the new item, we must break with this method here, and do the first method. Thus we cannot share completely from the unhindered essential to the second set aside; but we can share enough so the second set aside isn't left far behind.

Note that what differentiates between second set aside vs unhindered essential; is to either do inc fragmentation with the essential, vs, do the essential without inc fragmentation. A correction: Because of this, it is no longer needed to do a separate action to establish the second set aside (like we do to mark out the first set aside).

Note that we do inc fragmentation repetitively to generate this second set aside. -I say repetitively because inc fragmentation quickly brings itself to an end; and to maintain a decent supply to be translated with this essential, we must keep re-initiating it, until we are done creating this second set aside (when finished with the essential).

›(This all comes after we've established the first set aside, via 'dividing'.)›

Note that once our essential is satisfied, we then act to stop doing more unhindered essential. This needs to be done to minimize evil. And although it's easy, it represents an additional step.

When destruction destroys part of us: (if short on energy) all we need do, is HALVE (Half to escape and half to stay), if it's an unacceptable part. The activities of set-asides, inc fragmentation, and further essential doing; are for our comfort and benefit. We do them as we need, but they aren't necessary.

When doing a round of essential;: since the inc fragmentation is semi destructive, -also automatically brings itself to a stop; material needing to be halved (plus set asides plus inc fragmented), is thus generated. This continues as long as we do essentials. When we're done and wish to stop essentials, we then just halve without set asides (including no inc fragmentation), and finally stop the actual essential and halve the return from that. (This includes from both the stopped essential, and shortly after, the stopped stopping).

(It could be this complex, but actually things work out to be much simpler as we'll see later.)

Let me review the sequence of doing an essential. We've already halved: and with the stayed half, this is then divided into a small first set aside, vs the majority of the material (via 'dividing'). This majority of material is then used for essential doings (with inc fragmentation in a small part (the second set aside)); and the rest for (unhindered essential). Note this dividing is UNlike halving in that both parts stay put.

Note that when we're done with our essential, and are halving without doing set asides: in both the escaped half and stayed half, we go to oneness with God and abandon individual existence, in the final result. My point is; after a time, the escaped half escapes and moves some distance away from evil: -as the escape action automatically comes to an end and Godly parts are generated from that; we don't halve these but allow them to bring to high capability here. Since all evil is escaped from, the high capability brought by the Godly parts isn't out of place. They then rejoin God.

(Also, when doing essential, don't forget to do a small first set aside in the stayed put parts of all halvings (whether or not they've passed through destruction). ›(Remember, the small first set aside doesn't participate in its creation: -that is in the dividing into this small first set aside vs the rest of the stayed put part.)›

Recently, I've discovered a problem with 'dividing' to create the 1st set aside. Recall that we take a stayed half, and divide into:

1.) a 1st set aside vs 2.) the major part. The small 1st set aside is to be free of all present or new essential doing. But the act of dividing, itself, is an essential. How do we only utilize the major part to do this essential, dividing, if the major part hasn't been created yet? (It is created by the act of dividing.) Well, we could depend on previous material for this, but how did the original come about? And if the original is flawed, then wouldn't this maintain error? What we can do is: with a fresh stayed half, to do 1. the act of dividing plus 2. a single episode (not repetitive) of incomplete fragmentation upon the whole act of dividing. -leaves no unhindered part. We do a special act of dividing that separates all parts containing itself (includes the incomplete fragmentation), from all parts not containing itself, of the stayed half. The one time inc fragmentation of this act of dividing, leaves some of this dividing intact, but most importantly, generates an area, a 1st set aside, (in this stayed half), where there is no act of dividing, -where the dividing has been fragmented. (In comparison, in our major parts, we do do repetitive inc fragmentation in the 2nd set aside.) But in this structuring of a fresh stayed half, we needn't do inc fragmentation again here. In fact, the act of inc fragmentation is also an essential, and with too much of it we might not have any essential-free 1st set aside left of the stayed half. The purpose of repetitive inc fragmentation, was to allow enough to be translated with destroyed unacceptable parts to be useful in their afterlife. So we give up our destroyed part's comfort in their afterlife, to be able to accomplish the essential of dividing, in the present. A solution, is to catch the wrongly programmed parts the second time around. Once we've accomplished dividing, and thus have a major part to do essentials with, we can then with it, do repetitive inc fragmentation in an all inclusive gesture upon these returning higher capability (and thus tormented) -although they have had one episode of inc fragmentation, unacceptable parts (that is, returning, higher capability, unacceptable parts). Once repetitive inc fragmentation is done in them all, they're no longer good food for evil. Once at reduced capability, the parts can separate in their forces and the good parts escape, ie halve. Usually, we do halving first, but in this case we do repetitive inc fragmentation first.

Now with a major part (and the ramifications of creating this major part dealt with), we can then go ahead and do our essential with our major part as described previously.

The method of halving alone may work for awhile, but due to the fogoHC's bringing so much returning unacceptable parts to high capablity, this method may be overwhelmed. When this happens, I fall back to the inc fragmentation method.

After we've halved once, as a matter of our method, do we then halve again and again with the remaining stayed part? Well an area is only halved once; when it's a new action. Old actions aren't halved by us again, but we do allow good to escape old material as the forces separate. This is a type of (natural) halving. It emanates from the material itself and doesn't need our effort. When we do a new stage of essential, "we", reach in and halve only the new stage but not the other previous stages, as a matter of our method.

I've had to come to terms with the error(s) of my ways. I've discovered that some of this writing is based on sloppy thinking -specifically the idea of a 1st set aside, and also some of halving. (Inc fragmentation remains strong.)

In reduced capability, the forces separate as the good grows away and escapes the evil. This occurs on its own and doesn't need our effort, nor an overseer to initiate it. This separating of the forces (at reduced capability), is a force of nature and exists even in the low levels where no 3rd party exists to oversee it (due to good and evil being different). My proposed halving action requires us to take unstructured material and halve it into an escaped half and a stayed half. But actually, the action of separation does this for us without needing us to do it. The good grows and escapes the non good, and is the escaped 'half'. What remains is the stayed 'half'. Forces of good from the most feeble to the most powerful (including living forces of good (perhaps) such as us), act naturally to grow and escape material containing evil: and in this case, we ARE (part of) the escaped half and we act to escape; but we're not needed to choose what will escape and what will stay, as the material involved does that on its own: -the reduced capability environment, and the 'metal' of what good is, that enables it to escape because of what's in it; not what we decide will escape. Separation of the forces, and the true halving action occurs on its own and naturally: of itself. It is not something we DO. (Although as a living force of good, we do act to escape the force of evil, in accordance with separation of the forces: ie, this self doing halving action.)

›Hold on a minute. Later, I will come to the conclusion that reduced capability is a trap, and that only infrequently do forces of good escape evil. Thus separation of the forces in reduced capability cannot be that much of a powerful force of nature right? When life is growing together in between atomizations, there's an element of randomness in the size/power of the groups that form. Even if the forces of good and evil were equal in value; this randomness would provide infrequent high power groups for any and all forces (in competition). The fact that the force of good is superior to the force of evil (in that it builds up what can help it and bridge barriers and make it grow), greatly enhances this randomness, so that more higher power forces of good are formed. And if those forces of good actively use their higher power to escape and separate from forces of destruction; this results in even greater high power forces of good: and also increased production of separation of the forces. Of the separation-of-the-forces produced; all occurs in reduced capability and not in high capability neither in near-desolation.

Up to this point, reduced capability is still a trap, and the total escape by a force of good from all evil is still an infrequent occurrence. But this doesn't mean the separation of forces - escape by forces of good that occurs in reduced capability (especially in the low levels; by itself; without our doing it); isn't still quite a force of nature. In the larger more inclusive overall tasks which require the highest powered groups (ie escape from all evil); this is still an infrequent occurrence. But in the smaller component tasks, is where the separation of the forces due to randomness and the superior metal of the force of good really shows itself to be a force of nature. In a complete essential task, our force of good may not yet have achieved complete freedom from evil (that's why it's called an essential). But in the individual component parts of that overall essential task, the superiority of the force of good more easily and frequently shows itself and causes much more separation of the forces in these smaller areas on a smaller scale. For example, consider the motion of gas molecules -they are moving rapidly. With slightly larger particles, they vibrate in brownian motion as they are buffeted by the smaller gas molecules crashing into them (with the crashes mostly averaging out to the vibration). But with even larger groups of particles, there is no apparent motion at all./ The escape by forces of good, is like this example in that it is much more active in the smaller component parts of tasks. (It is at the smaller, component part level where separation of the forces in reduced capability is more of a force of nature and is more active.) And there are times concerning medium sized tasks when a force of good will temporarily escape an evil in reduced capability but due to the trap of reduced capability, will fall back into that evil at a later date. And if this is repeated often enough, occasionally the force of good will escape the evil for good.

In the case of essentials, we often need to delay the escape of forces of good in these smaller component areas for the benefit of the larger overall task. -This is the evil part that we unavoidably do in satisfying our essential, and is why we call it an essential. When we don't need to delay separation of the forces (with repetitive inc fragmentation), we refrain from that.

Up to now, the separation of the forces at the overall (larger) task level, is infrequent. But what if God intervened in the medium sized areas where forces of good often temporarily escape evil -mostly to fall prey to it again (in all probability), if God didn't intervene. But what if God did intervene where good escaped evil for a moment, to rescue that good? Well, separation of the forces would in this case greatly increase in the overall area and reduced capability would no longer be so much of a trap, but instead an environment of purification. And separation of the forces in reduced capability becomes even more of a force of nature, because of God's help.

What happens when destruction destroys material? Material in the stayed half has only the force of evil, or temporarily, good in the process of separating (escaping) away. If destruction destroys material that is non good or is evil; that is inevitable as that material stays and does not escape. But what if destruction destroys material trying to escape? Not all the good is able to escape destruction, and some is killed trying to escape: what about that material? Well that material is in the hands of God, either to resurrect it at the end, or to save it up into His Spirit before destruction can complete its directive. To destruction, it makes no difference whether God saves the goodness, or it is destroyed (perhaps to be resurrected later); as, in either case, it is gone from destruction's sight. (This may be why we can't hear from the dead: in order to fool destruction into thinking it has completed its directive.)

The idea of returning Godly parts depends on the existence of God (which is highly probable). But I must return to how God deals with evil/destruction's effects. God could shine His nurture when destruction acted so all the good in a part under destruction would be saved into His Spirit. All the good would be saved -the stronger good and even the most feeble good.

Another possibility is that God could allow destruction to act and actually destroy; but then resurrect everything at the end after sorting all the good from the destructive (in their remains). The Bible seems to support this alternative.) In any case, all good would be saved and separated from destruction, but would loose a lot of time and growth if it had to wait till it was resurrected at the end. In any case, good that escaped into God, would not return to the evil of the earth. The action to return to the evil of the earth, is a destructive action, and would NOT escape into God, but would be left behind.

Getting back to what happens to material destroyed by destruction. Material in the stayed half contains little good (as good would have acted to escape). Since it is destroyed, it is in the hands of God. God is good. Thus God is interested in joining with other good (because it is part of Him) and He is NOT interested in joining with material that is not good. So destroyed material that is not good, is not joined by God. Destroyed material that is good, then, IS joined by God: either by God saving it or by God resurrecting it and then joining it.

The idea of a 1st set aside in the stayed half, is silly because the stayed half is mostly non good. The only good in it is trapped good (good that is forced to be done with evil as part of the same action). If we do a 1st set aside in this material to make it acceptable to God, then we have made it good. Good naturally escapes (in reduced capability) and becomes part of the escaped half. Plus, if we were able to make the material good in the first place, we would have done so already and would have made all the material good. The amount of essential we need, is that amount, and it is forced to contain both good and evil. The good that separates out of the stayed half and out of the essentials, IS the 1st set aside, and is not done by us, but by the good itself. (If we were to do it for it, then that wouldn't be a reduced capability environment separating the forces.) It is this good that is trapped in an essential and it is this good that escapes as the forces separate -of itself. (If we as a force of good were able to separate the good out of an essential, we would separate all the good and not just a small 1st set aside.) So we do not do halving and we do not do 1st set asides. We do do inc fragmentation.

Note that the action by good to escape is not destructive. Thus why do I say that that makes material unacceptable to God? (Well, once material has escaped evil, it no longer continues escape action and escape action comes to a stop so the good is again acceptable.) But one of the reasons is that an escape action, if it acts to escape safety in God, then this is why it is unacceptable/destructive. But God is able to sort out good from evil, and not join evil. If God never joined with an escape action, then it could not disrupt any togetherness with God, as there had been no togetherness to disrupt. So that in this case, the act of escape would do no destruction. And once escape had accomplished its directive of escape, its action would end and it would cease to exist. or be a problem.

But also, Jesus in the Bible commands to turn the other cheek and go the extra mile (if evil catches you). This allows for escape action before evil is able to catch you, but not after evil has caught you (and in an essential, the good is caught with evil.) At the level of the cheek and considering each cheek as an entity in and of itself (to receive Jesus' commands), however, the cheek that has not been smitten, is not under command to deliver itself to the smiter; and may act to escape: although the entity of ourself (who has been smitten on one cheek), IS under command to turn that unsmitten cheek over to the smiter. Thus the smaller component forces of good of an essential; grow to escape the evil that had them in its grasp, as they do naturally (even without us doing it); and without breaking Jesus' command.

What Jesus was intending by his statements to turn the other cheek, and go the extra mile, was quite benevolent and good advice to us, the meek and downtrodden. Actually it is intended to we who at one time or another, are losers in the many contests of life. If a man compels you to do something, or is able to smite you, then there has been a contest between the two of you, and you've come out a loser of that contest (in God's eyes and standard of you being super victorious here). The action of separation -of escape by forces of good from the destructions in this earth, (and to join God (who is also good) ie good -that is, God, getting together with itself/Himself), is a Force of nature and is the power of God. You aren't going to stop that even if you try. Jesus is saying for the losers of these contests to take a break and rest on God's shoulder -to rest on God's power: while this power of God shows these compellers and smiters that even if their victim doesn't put up a fight and even helps them out, that they still will be overcome and God will still extract every bit of good from their grasp separating it from them to be with Him. The power of God and the separation of the forces is not weak but is strong very strong. You. -If caught in the battle, do not need to extract your last gasp to the point of discomfort, neither enact a revenge which involves you doing prolonged destruction upon them to stop their evil. As the power of God and separation of the forces, will overcome them; and your revenge. (Let the power of God fill you with life and beauty instead (by allying yourself with it) (it is a good, growing, and non destructive thing -although, feel free to scratch any itches).)

So, now I see that the action-of-escape by forces of good, does not thereby make them unacceptable to God (and even if it did temporarily; once it had accomplished escaping, it would be finished escaping; and no longer doing it, it would then be acceptable). With escaping-good being acceptable; when destruction destroyed it, it would be good heavenly treasure; thus further eliminating the need of a 1st set aside.

This idea of Godly material being pulled by interrelated needs into taboo areas, is just incorrect. A thing that has truly escaped the trap of evil of reduced capability, is able to do a zero baseline without it hurting them: thus allowing them to grow into areas at their leisure (as they are able) and evil free. Godly parts would be able to do the good of taboo areas as evil free. The test would be that the absence of new taboo good would not be irritating or compelling, or lethal.

Concerning the idea of Godly parts: if God saves all the good into His spirit as destruction acts, then there is no return of wrongly programmed parts. All that is non good is just left behind (not saved into God), and destruction just destroys it. However, if resurrection of both wrongly and rightly programmed parts is God's way; then my ideas on Godly parts will (may -depending on how God reacts) have application at resurrection time.

If God waits till all is finished to then resurrect: He'd certainly sort the remains of what was good, in a separate place from the remains of what wasn't good: so that any action to return to the evil of this earth (an evil action); wouldn't be present with anything good (with any good part).

The same would be true if God's way was to save all good up into His Spirit the moment destruction acted. He wouldn't save into His Spirit, any action of returning to the evils of this earth (which is a destructive action). So that there would be no such thing as returning Godly parts. So that there would be no rich food from God, needing to be poisoned. Or so we might think. Up to now, we've been concentrating on what happens to the good when destruction destroys. But what happens to the unacceptable parts? What does God do with them? Well, if God just rescued the good, and left the non good behind, then the unacceptable parts would be lost (and it would appear that God was showing favoritism). But if God resurrected the unacceptable parts as well as the good parts, then that resurrection would cause these parts to be in torment of the forces of good and evil together. And in this case my method of inc fragmentation would come in handy here. But I'm trying to second guess what God would do with these unacceptable parts. They'd be no use to Him, as He would have no plans to join with them. He could wait and resurrect these parts at the end. But my guess is that He would resurrect them and send them back to us (whom they are from) in our time frame so that we would have an opportunity to do something about them and with them (as they would be no use to anybody else). If this is how God is doing it, then in this case, there would be returning rich heavenly food that needs to be poisoned or inc fragmented, so it won't feed evil. So my discussion and ideas on Godly parts (using inc fragmentation) may be of some use after all. In this case, the people who are rich in this earth, may be so due to their material being unacceptable to God, and God returning it to them (much better off than He received it) so they could work on it further. Note, that since God does have interest in joining acceptable resurrected good; that good would remain in Him.

Now, for those of you who believe in the word for word literal absolute truth interpretation of the Bible, I leave you with this:

The Bible says that you need to be a friend to Jesus if you are to be saved; and that to be Jesus' friend, you must do everything He says. And one of the things Jesus said in the Bible, was: And whosoever shall compel the to go a mile; go with him twain. Now, if someone compels you to do something other than walk a mile, does this command by Jesus still apply? Well, whatever Jesus says, goes. And he might apply this to some things but not others. You know. Whatever He says. But until he does so, all we have is the Bible of the past. Now, if we do extrapolate this command beyond just walking a mile; consider this: But our essentials are very compelling. They compel us to eat, breath, reproduce, etc. But you say; no man has compelled us to do our essentials, -they themselves compel us. Lets take the case of our reproductive drive. It is the result of many generations (of people) living with death, so that sexual desire was selected for. In a sense, all these generations before us have contributed to the sexual desire which compels us now. If a group of people compels you to do something (as opposed to just one), (even if those people are now dead, as are the past generations of man)); does this put it outside the command? I've heard "nobody put a gun to your head to make you wed and bed this woman". But actually, our essentials do put a compelling force to our head, and in the case of the female ferret: lethal force -('essentially' a gun to the head). But lets get back to the Bible: In Genesis, the fall of man is not laid on all the past generation, but on one man: Adam. And in Genesis, the fall of man that Adam did, caused him and all other men to be aware/ashamed of their nakedness. Recall the Biblical account of how Adam and Eve put on animal skins after their fall. So if Adam, by what he did in the garden of Eden, compelled me to be aware of my nakedness, then I should be aware of my nakedness times 2. And if I am sexually attracted to pretty women and then take one to be my wife because Adam compelled me to be so by what he did in the garden; then by the command to go the extra mile, I am instructed to take 2 women as my wife; and if I'm still compelled, then 4 women, etc: so that in the end we men and women all end up married to each other in one big sexual family orgy. Hey, I'm just going the extra mile. But watch out for these women's boyfriends and try not to let them smite you, because if they do, not only will your other cheek be smitten, but every other inch of your body also. Oh well. Such is life.

So then if a terrorist coerced Patti Hearst to rob a bank, should she then go and rob a 2nd bank? Well there is nothing inherently evil/destructive in walking a mile, so that we needn't extend walking the extra mile to things that are evil/destructive. But the Bible claims the estate of marriage to be an holy estate, sanctioned by God (and therefore not evil) and therefore in line with an extra mile.

We've seen that we fear not man's destruction of our self (as that which is destroyed and is accepted by God, becomes our heavenly treasure); but that we fear for and must prepare for: that which is destroyed and is also not accepted by God. All the hatings and destructions and meanness and also much of our satisfying our essential urges, are not accepted by God. So we must deal with this material and reprocess these parts of ourself until eventually, after much recycling and separation of the forces, they are accepted. (If a whole human can go to heaven when they die, then it follows that good parts of a person can go to heaven when they are killed: and it follows that bad parts of a person can go to hell when they die. This method is just a way to deal with that: -to instead send those hellbound parts back to earth.)

Note that this method depends on the existence of God at this time. What if God doesn't exist at this time? Well, if God doesn't exist, then what you do, doesn't matter much anyway. And this method is as good as any in such a bleak situation. It allows you to try and escape the evil. And it allows you to stay and fight (in the unhindered essential part); -all of which are unacceptable to God. It just asks you to set a little aside for the possibility that maybe there is a God. Are you so sure there isn't a God? And that little bit of set aside isn't going to much worsen your already really crumby chances in the bleak situation of there existing no benevolent God. (This all seems like a reasonable argument, but we've already shown the invalidity of a 1st set aside.) And when the position of God has been filled at a later date, He will be interested in getting together with those who have been interested in getting together with Him.

Perhaps God exists, but does not (always) resurrect a part of us as soon as it is killed, but waits till all is finished. This would eliminate all this Godly part stuff. Yet, the unacceptable parts of us would be resurrected at some time, and they would then need the translated inc fragmentation at that time; so my methods are still valid. If there is no return of Godly parts after destruction, then we aren't at high capability. Remember, if we're already at reduced capability, we need do nothing, even though it's an essential (which contains evil).

You see, if our unacceptable parts are left dead, they won't be alive to feel any torment. Only when resurrected would they feel the torment of Hell; whence the translated inc fragmentation would come in play to prevent eternal torment and continue separation of the forces.

Perhaps God will fail to resurrect the inc fragmentation or will put it in a separate place (thus thwarting my methods). But if so, why wouldn't He then just save us from our evils? Perhaps He just wants to torment us for being bad. In this case though, the torment would not be of our doing or as a result of our acts, but His. And a God who likes to torment people for sport, is not a loving God nor a God I want to be with. In the action of separation, I propose that God separates the destructive from the good remains after death. Inc fragmentation contains destruction; and so does the evil/essential that is inc fragmented: thus they should both be on the same side of the separation; as they are the same kind of action.

It may be pleasant or uncomfortable for you at the time, but it doesn't much matter if you live your life in the lap of luxury as a rich person, or suffer as a poor person or POW. -What difference does it make in the big picture? Of all the generations of man or our ape-like ancestors, spanning perhaps a million years: what is left? -Just us, the present generation. We do live better than our caveman ancestors, and our accumulated technology and machines have allowed us to support more people than in the past. There has been some progress. But just think: it took all the generations before us to get us where we are now. There isn't much left of all those people. And in a few decades, we'll join them. There is progress, but it sure is slow. Until we are removed from destruction and death, stagnation will be the rule. Until we're removed from destruction and death, we will be inadequate. Don't think you are free. When your four score or so years are over, there will be very little left of you that we can see. So until you overcome death, you will be in need of someone who can. I want us to recognize that because of death, you and I are not rich, but are very needy, no matter how much we make or what our position in today's world. I would suggest that we need to recognize our state, (that we're caught in a stagnation of life and death; good and evil together) by calling out for help. We need to call for help and keep our eye on getting help from someone powerful enough to help us out of our predicament, on their terms (this originates from our valuing life (life outside the stagnation) over the inanimate). The only terms a benevolent God would require (a benevolent God being the only one who could help out), would be our valuing life (free from stagnation/destruction) over the inanimate. If we value death/destruction as a needed commodity in our life, we'll be out of line with a benevolent God, and would expect no help from Him in this. If we are so needy because of death, then why aren't we trying to overcome it? How much research do we devote to overcoming the aging process? Well, some, but it isn't a top priority.

Unlike the dinosaurs, we know about asteroids, and have a space capability. If an asteroid were on a collision course and we only had a few months, I don't think our governments would be able to stop it. Perhaps we think that if it's God's will we die, so be it. But I think a benevolent God would want us to grow/advance and escape the stagnation if we could and to value life over the inanimate; and therefore wouldn't mind us trying to overcome these things. It's just that today, we can't hope to depend on what WE can do against death. If we're able to be free of hate and destructiveness, then I think we should do it. I guess we must first learn to love each other and overcome hate before we overcome the physical death of our bodies, otherwise we'd preserve a hell on earth. We must make life worth living (free of the stagnation) for all, so we'll all value life over the inanimate; so we'll value overcoming death.

We live in a world where oftentime the strong overpower/prey upon the weak as a way of life. But strength that hasn't learned to uplift the lower life, is strength unworthy of its strength. It is a stagnant mini-system that will be escaped from and overcome. -It is stagnant and not growing, exactly because it does not uplift the lower life around it.

Life has much randomness to it. Most actions you do have both some good and some harm in them. If you flip a coin, half the time it's heads, and half the time it's tails, on average. Lets say that heads is good, and tails is evil. Go ahead and start flipping coin. With all your power, try and prevent a tail from coming up. -You're the one flipping the coin. If you're lucky, you can flip a streak of heads. But unless you're really powerful, sooner or later you'll flip a tail. What I'm trying to say, is that unless you're really powerful, you can't depend on your ability to prevent evil from coming out. So don't spend all your energy on trying to prevent evil from occurring, but spend energy also on dealing with/processing evil (and God's rejection of it) after the fact -when it does come out of you. This is what many of my methods are about.

Recall the parable of the unjust steward. He was declared unacceptable by his master, but he prepared for that unacceptability.

When free from evil, we, as life, grow, create, increase. When there is a void of life; then high powered life acts to create and grow life where there was none before. That created life may notice voids and deficiencies in itself. This created life isn't yet powerful enough to create well in and of itself. For this life to respond to its deficiencies by including harm in its ways to try to fill and create; is a destructive act. You see, this created life that is not very powerful, is not ready to fill its deficiencies on its own. If it tries, it will include harm in its ways, and so stagnate with the togetherness of good and evil. What it can do instead, is just be itself. It can do what it's capable of without destruction and not try further to fill its perceived deficiencies.

Note that the idea to not-do ways containing harm until we can do them harm free; does not apply to our essentials. because with them, whether we do them, or not; harm still occurs (in different areas), and we find ourselves in reduced capability the trap/stagnation of good and evil, either way. Only when abstaining from a way does less harm than doing the way, ie, helps eliminate togetherness of the forces (and its corresponding torment), do we then abstain from that way. Otherwise it doesn't matter.///

Recently I've heard how generations of welfare have caused generation after generation to be dependent and loose their ability to be self sufficient. (But welfare didn't play much of a role before 1960.) They seem to say welfare has done a harm to these people. I ask you: I tell you: nobody does it on their own. Everyone belongs to a group that helps them survive. These people with good jobs who complain about the welfare, belong to a group, their company, which pays them for their work. The people on welfare do not belong to a company group, otherwise they would have no need for welfare. So, why would someone who has a company-group to support them (who has a good job): why would they want to prevent people outside their company group, who in fact have no company group, from joining the welfare group for support? What business does a company group have over people who are outside their group, as these welfare people are? Forcing someone to be alone and part of no group, is a semi destructive act. If we must take what we dish out, then shouldn't these people with good jobs be forced to go it alone also? These people of welfare haven't forced others to go it alone, why should they be forced? (Is this some kind of casting-out-evil - purification ritual -guaranteed to build character- practiced by republicans?) -Well, do not put in reduced capability where there is no evil. Unfortunately there is evil in our essentials; and we're all dependent on our essentials. But I prefer my methods for dealing with the evil in our essentials.

People who are kicked out of company groups; who are not brought into company groups; who are kept out of company groups; are kept out for a reason: because the rulers of the company don't like them. They're being punished for not kissing up enough. (If people are given welfare, then they aren't being punished enough.) And within the company group, there'd be less fear of not kissing up enough, because there's always welfare, and the uplift on the economy providing ease in job changes that accompanies welfare. Now, I think the attack on welfare is an internal problem within the company. I think it is a problem of cooperation. The rulers of the company have been used to being the master and dictator and telling people what to do. With welfare, in order to prevent people from being lost-resources to companies, companies must change from being the dictator to being the servant. This is hard for them. And they won't accept it. So we've gotten rid of welfare. But don't come to me and tell me welfare has harmed generation after generation. If you want people to come to you and do your jobs, try being nice and reaching out to them. Starving people out / into submission is not my idea of a good way to do things. We need to learn cooperation better than this. This is a slavery no better than the dependency created by welfare. This mean spiritedness has got to go.

We humans are a sorry lot. We have these dependencies on food clothing and shelter. I thought everyone understood that. Welfare doesn't change this. Neither does having a job. (And the stagnation of the job system must be escaped from if advancement in our lot is to be made.) These dependencies were not caused or created by welfare. We brought them to the table from our very beginning. This is the human condition. What foolishness is it that allows us to think welfare caused the dependencies of the human condition? We've had these dependencies from the very beginning and yet somehow we think we're a free country. No we are yet slaves. We all have these dependencies. No one escapes them. These dependencies have evil in them. Thus we all need to be cleansed. The purification ritual of being thrown out and alone is one way. I prefer my methods of dealing with essentials which I've already discussed in great depth. Unfortunately for those who choose the 'thrown out and alone' way, they have destroyed welfare. You see, welfare is the reduced capability living which purifies. The total desolation of no support whatsoever does not purify these individuals. Instead, it totally destroys them. They will be lost, but they will pass on this total destruction as they go out , to the rest of us. In diluted form this will bring the rest of us to reduced capability, and purify us. But if things go too far, we too will be totally destroyed. It all looks pretty unstable to me. Better stick with my methods and quit picking on people. Thanx.

Since we're now forced to work; work is an essential, which thus contains evil/destruction (due to our being forced to it). Treat it like the other essentials/quasi essentials. Unlike most essentials (which you are able to bring to completeness and then stop for awhile this 'work' essential is slow to come to completeness, and oftentimes just keeps going on and on.

Consider that work is a sin much of the time. (Anything done outside of God is sin according to the Bible. -Anything outside of God is at reduced capability and in the trap of evil.)

It is conceivable that a rich person might become self sufficient. Because the rich are more powerful than others: its often a loosing proposition to force the rich to do anything. It's not unreasonable to suppose that the rich and powerful might get their way some of the time. And shouldn't we all be allowed to express ourselves -express who we are. If the rich are allowed to express themselves then what they do, is totally from them and hasn't been coerced: it is an extension of themselves and who they are. But after the rich have expressed themselves: if they don't help the poor and the lower members of society, then I become alarmed because this is thus a stagnant system. And I am thus spurred to work on an escape plan that escapes that system and to join a system where people help each other not because the are required to but because they want to from inside themselves in their heart. That's my thoughts on welfare.

When the fogoHC offers himself for you to join with and be one with Him; go ahead and join Him. Because in Him you are part of a greater life that can better deal with the evils of this world, because He-you are at high capability and out of reduced capability / out of the trap of evil: whereas, in your own strength, you're at reduced capability and in the trap of evil. In such oneness with the fogoHC, the above described methods (for doing essentials) aren't the same. For all practical purposes, you no longer do these methods (you no longer exist as an individual but only as oneness with the fogoHC), and it's as if these methods were gone away and you instead depend on the oneness with the fogoHC. Do not deny yourself this oneness with the fogoHC. Shed my prescribed methods (for doing essentials) and all the troubles of the world, and be one with the fogoHC. This is how we were meant to be. But there's a problem with the large and powerful group. If any evil is introduced into the group through you, the group won't be able to stop becoming infected with evil, without casting you out of the group and into the individual position. You see, this is the purpose of the individual position -to be at reduced capability to deal with the evil so the forces will separate and you become purified. Here in the individual position, while you are being purified, is where you can make use of / take advantage of the purifying power of my prescribed methods. But you can't spend all your time in this individual position. Sooner than you think, the forces will separate, you'll become purified, and you (your good) can then once again escape your individual existence to become one with the fogoHC. If evil crops up again, as it may, since we were born imperfectly then we may in time, return to the individual position for removal of evil, but it won't be forever. We need the rejuvenation from oneness with the fogoHC. The total desolation from staying too long in an individual position, is not the purpose of the reduced capability of the individual position whereby the forces soon separate and the good escapes into God.

Don't look to your activity in your essentials to satisfy your deep needs, as that would overburden them (and hinder their escape from reduced capability). Instead, look to and depend on oneness with the fogoHC to put you at high capability out of the trap of evil and to satisfy your deep needs. The activity in your essentials is unstable and may not always be able to provide. If it fails, don't overburden your essentials with further essential action, but instead depend on togetherness with the powerful fogoHC instead, to satisfy your needs. When activity in your essentials does succeed, then actual success is the good and well being from that essential, escaping into God. But realize that whenever/wherever there is essential doings, there is no oneness with the fogoHC (due to the evil in essentials). When you do essentials, you are in the individual position, and on our own, having left togetherness with the fogoHC; (you lack togetherness with the fogoHC until the good of the essential escapes the evil of the essential into God -hopefully with God's help). The individual position while doing essentials is so your essential doings won't infect the fogoHC or lead your other parts into reduced capability/the trap of evil, like they are in, and are in the process of escaping.

It is Jesus Christ / God the father who are powerful enough / alive enough to make our life worthwhile by joining with them. Yes it's true that we were born imperfectly; and because of this we'll spend some time away from God, doing essentials. But don't let this cause us to never come together with God. That's too much to miss out on. God is the big power/life source, not your essential doings. Once done with essentials, you are no longer doing them, and in this time, you can come back together with God and be so much more alive and in love, until the next time you do essentials (until the time we're perfected and no longer need to do essentials). Oops But the fallacy of this thinking, is that it denies the separation of the forces. The good of essentials can't help but escape its reduced capability environment and join God.

 

 

 

 

 

 

A BIBLICAL EXAMINATION:

You may ask; what about "you cannot serve both God and mammon"? Well, when you're doing essentials, that part of you is serving only mammon. When that part is done with essentials and repents of them and rejoins God, then that part is only serving God. /Remember, we can repent and be forgiven not just 7 times, but 70 times 7, (and probably more)./ But what about the Bible verses condemning those who accepted Christ but who later rejected Him? Well, we never reject Christ, we just act additionally to satisfy essentials. It is Christ who then acts to prevent the serving of both God and mammon, by severing our fellowship with God until we repent of our essentials. You see, Christ is our mediator with God. God cannot handle our evil, and so must be separate from it, and us. But the act of severing fellowship is also a destructive act. Remember, Christ was counted as sin for our sakes. So, when we are bad, Christ acts to sever fellowship with God, and He also goes with us (in separation from God). Remember "Father, why hast thou forsaken me?". But after the forces separate out, Christ returned to God, and so do we, after we repent. Because of Christ, we can have fellowship with God when we're good; as opposed to never being allowed to know God because there was some bad in us and we weren't perfect. (Well, this is a fine idea. But the separation of the forces in reduced capability is a central idea that we shouldn't loose sight of.)

Hebrews 12; 6,8,11: For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth.

But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons.

Now no chastening for the present seemeth to be joyous but grievous: nevertheless, afterward it yieldeth the peaceable fruit of righteousness unto them which are exercised thereby.

///›This analysis segment deals with a verse that follows (Hebrews 10;26): Note that the conditions for not being forgiven, are very specific. That is, we must 'sin willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth.' If we do this; and only if we do this, then are we not forgiven. Note that 'sin willfully' is the present tense. We have to be sinning willfully at present, otherwise the conditions are not met. Paul could have made the condition 'if we have, or have ever sinned willfully' (after receiving the knowledge of the truth), which would be past tense. But he only indicated the present. Thus, if we're sinning at present, then we aren't forgiven. But if we stop, then we're no longer sinning in the present, and the conditions are not met, and then this verse doesn't apply. This fits in well with my method. In the consequences (-for filling the condition of 'sinning willfully (after knowing the truth)'), Paul doesn't say our future is doomed, but only our direction towards the future -that is our pondering in the present about our future (a certain fearful looking for of -present tense). (*Note 1: This part DOES refer to past action as a condition. But the condition is for 'being worthy of punishment'. We know that if we HAVE sinned, we're worthy of punishment. But we also know that God forgives us even though we are worthy of punishment. Of course, this verse says we're not forgiven. But that denial of forgiveness is only for present sin. After we repent and aren't doing present sin, then this denial of forgiveness no longer applies. Worthiness of punishment still applies, but we can still be forgiven.) Now the verse:›

But what about Hebrews 10; 26-29,38-39: For if we sin willfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.

He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses: (But given our reduced capability situation, I'm not sure it is even the right thing to do to try to obey these commandments. The right thing to do might be to just let our essentials come out and separate in their forces at reduced capability.)

Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath* (See Note 1) trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace:///

Now the just shall live by faith: but if any man draw back, my soul(the apostle Paul) shall have no pleasure in him.

But we are not of them who draw back unto perdition, but of them that believe to the saving of the soul.?

(I do not draw back from my faith in Christ, but continue with it, even when I'm away from God/Christ doing essentials.)

This kind of speaks against what I've been saying. But interpretation is in pretty fine detail here. (Actually, what I think Paul is speaking against here is that we can't just go ahead and sin because we know we'll be forgiven, because of Christ's offer of forgiveness; and not against what I propose. My proposal recognizes that we're not forgiven and are cut off from God while we sin ie satisfy essentials/quasi essentials.) The ways I've spoken of are what I see for myself and have received as the knowledge of the truth. I've not received the knowledge of the truth that allows me to be free of my essentials yet. I have believed in Christ, but it has not YET allowed me to be free of my hungers and essentials. If I were already perfect and free of essentials, then I wouldn't need to be saved. I admit I'm not perfect. -And because of that, that I do imperfect things. Now if you want to call that sin, or, drawing back to perdition -vs- something that requires chastisement, well, that's up to interpretation of a fine detail. But no, I do not count the blood of the covenant wherewith I was sanctified, as an unholy thing. Holy means separate. Separate from what ? Separate from evil. Unholy thus means togetherness with evil. -Togetherness of good and evil. -A serving of both God and mammon. I have no desire to infect God with the evil of my essentials! I cooperate fully with Christ when He severs my fellowship with God when I have evil of my essentials. I don't seek to have fellowship with God, and the evil of my essentials both, together (which is a serving of both God and mammon). And when we 'sin', how else do we do it, but willfully. I was under the understanding that while we willfully sin we are not forgiven. But when we willfully repent, we are. Whether that be 7 times, or 70 times 7. I do not seek to have sin, and forgiveness, together at the same time (which would infect the Spirit of grace, and God with the evil of my essential). To back these things up, I go to 1 John 1; 8-10: 2; 1,3,4: If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:

And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.

So, when I'm not keeping his commandments, I'm not together with God and am not knowing Him. But when I repent, and am keeping His commandments, then I have no evil within me to infect Him, and I can and do know Him and be together with Him. In any case, it certainly won't be me that prevents me from getting together with God after I repent and am not doing essentials. I'll be actively pursuing togetherness with God here. And if I'm denied it because of what I did previously concerning my mind and my essentials (even though I now repent), then I really can't say I've been loved, or been given a special opportunity. But I believe Paul was speaking against thinking you could go ahead and sin without worry because it would be forgiven you; and not against my method.

However; later on in 1 John, we have 1 john 3; 9: 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. So now after God gets ahold of us, we're supposed to be perfected and be perfect. Being born of God, according to the verse, is supposed to make me sin free and perfect. Well, I find myself still subject to essentials, so I guess I'm not yet born of God. (But instead, perhaps the entity known a 'I', is scourged to remove the evils.) I'm reminded of Christ's words that we must be born again; and his words to the Pharisees that their father was not Abraham, but the devil.

///›This next analysis segment deals with a verse that follows (1 John 3;6): The verse relies on wisdom about 'the past' in that like it or not, we live in the present and only the present. The past exists only in its effects and what it has caused to be or not to be, in the present.

What this verse says to me: Even if someone were to become powerful enough and become God, if they then sinned, the destructiveness in the sin would infect them and bring them down to stagnation and mediocrity. And God/Christ (who are sin free), would grow much above and beyond them. Thus even God cannot sin and get away with it. According to the verse, nothing you do in the past can get you Christ/God (if you sin at present). -Even if you had become God. Christ may have come into you and supped with you, but the moment you sin, Christ abandons whatever is left of that in the present. The material and the life still remain, but it is no longer part of Christ. So Christ did not break any promises, but he did break off himself from what he had with 'you'. This breaking off, is a destructive act, and may be why Christ is counted as sin for our sakes. But it must be done to protect God from the evil of our sin. This allows God to be together with us when we're good, but or Christ to break it off (so God isn't infected) when we're bad. Note that this verse also hinges on the condition of present sin; so that when one is no longer committing present sin, this verse no longer applies. Now the verse:›

And then there's 1 John 3; 6: Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sineth hath not seen him, neither known him.///

But this verse does not consider the situation where a person abides in him for awhile but then sins. A later verse, however, does: 2 John 1; 9: Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth(note present tense) in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.

Now, this verse, is right in line with my method. But the previous verse gives my method difficulty if we try to apply it.

Like, when I repent and keep his commandments, then I 'know him', according to 1 John 2; 3. But when my essentials pop up, and I sin, then the 'abideth' phrase comes into play (as at this point I have left him), and then somehow my previous knowing of Jesus is somehow erased so that I 'hath not seen him, neither known him'. The slate is wiped clean. But when I repent again and stop doing my essentials, then I am keeping his commandments, and once again I know him and am together with God. As long as I still abide in him (which I do because I've not yet started my next round of essential: -you see, my previous periods of keeping his commandments are nullified because I did not abide; but this present period, I AM abiding (so far)), then I still know Jesus and am together with God the father. All according to 1 John. Oh well. Clearly, my method finds difficulty here. But then I'll take what I can get, because I've no other choice. I'd be in limbo between heaven and hell. But then, that's how I started out -as a life here on earth. However, I think the idea of 1 John, is that when you receive Christ and become born of God; that then gives you the power to remain sin free. (1John 5;3-4: For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous. For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith.)

But my observation is, that although we might wish for God to give us this power(to be free from sin/evil); that there is a possibility that this is just plain incorrect. -That we don't get any extra help from God to accomplish this task of purifying ourselves and being sin free. In other parts of the Bible, there is the idea that:

Essentially, you've got to do this part yourself: 1 John 3; 3: And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure.

Hebrews 12; 1-2,4: Wherefore, seeing we also are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us,

Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.

Ye have not yet resisted unto blood, striving against sing.

(I don't think it would do any good to complain that it's a hard job.) Come one come all. Step right up. There is a hard grueling job that needs doing. How may I convince you to take on this burden?

It make a difference how much help we receive in being able to live sin free. If we receive no help, then we'll still be trapped in our essentials, and will be forced to 'sin', and that will screw up the logic of this verse. But of course, the author of 1 John believes nothing but that being born of God always delivers the sin free life. He denies any existence of the situation of being born of God, but still being imperfect and sinning. Thus if we sin, it is because we are previous to God getting a hold on us and bearing us. This is how I see it; but you may disagree. Doing so causes logical problems, however. I mean, if you first obey Christ's commandments, then the verses say you know God and are together with God. But if you then slip up and sin, then this one verse says that the previous knowing of God never happened. What did it do, get up and erase itself? And there are the promises of Christ: Behold I stand at the door and knock, and if any man open, I will come into him and sup with him. If the person then falters and sins later, does this mean that it never happened? -that Christ never came into him and never supped with him? Well if so, then this would mean that Christ had broken his promise, because the man had still opened the door, but because of this verse, Christ never came in to him.

And if the person is considered not to be born of God, and at the end becomes damned because he did not ever achieve being born of God; then the instruction by Christ to Peter (a human) to forgive 70 time 7 after repentance, would be disregarded by Christ himself (also a human). So, you can see, this doesn't work out.

However, perhaps one might wish to be insistent and say that this interpretation of that one verse is valid. -That God promises us nice things, but in the fine print, or even with no fine print, He just reneges on those promises as a trick to get us to carry heavy burdens that we otherwise wouldn't carry. (Even so, my method is still functional; it just erases my previous meeting with Christ, and strips me of born-of-God status half the time.) The promises of eternal life, and a utopian world where everyone loves each other is the bait. Then the hook is set, as we become involved, and are reeled in. And you too can become fishers of men. A world where everyone loves each other is something we most all want. But considering our position, -that of being trapped at reduced capability in the trap of evil, and in bondage to our essentials; we're incapable of being destruction free (sin free); unless we bear a heavy burden; and even then its not quite up to perfection. For the sake of argument, lets say God is a trickster/deceiver (the devil being the number 2 deceiver, an even worse deceiver). Another attribute of God, is that He is all powerful. Why would an all powerful, underhanded God bother with trying to butter us up before putting us to work? Why would He even want our work? Why would such a God wait for thousands of years, leaving us alone? Wouldn't such a God just come in and take what He wanted, and oppress us right away? I think so. But if the being behind this was not so powerful; and say had only the power of an ordinary human being with a printing press; then such a tactic might be profitable in this situation. So, no. God is not underhanded like this, otherwise we would have seen evidence of it, much more than a bunch of writing in a book, before now. Men, however, are underhanded.

Now what would happen if we did start to see evidence of Godly power, and thought He might be underhanded? Well, the thing about underhandedness, meanness, and cruelty, is that it can't build up power and life very well, compared to a good God. (Remember the analysis of the forces at the beginning of this book.) (Thus we have a good God, not an underhanded one.)

You know, God isn't obligated to make promises or help us in any way. And the amount, degree and type of help if He does give it, are up to him. If the name of Christ doesn't have quite as much power over these many generations; I'm not going to complain. But this idea challenges the power released by being born of God and inviting Christ in. I invite Christ in. And any shortfall in power to overcome my sinful nature, I will use my method to make up. I could have taken on a heavy burden to do the same but instead, I do my method. When I don't overburden myself, this allows me to escape stagnation and reduced capability that otherwise I would have been totally desolated (or overburdened) and thus trapped in. And I leave it to God to determine whether I'm born of God or not. I invite Christ in. I admit/recognize I'm a sinner and that there's evil in me/my essentials. But I don't take on a heavy burden to stop this evil in my essentials: not when I understand a method that will deal with the evil just as well. I am at reduced capability. At reduced capability, the forces separate on their own anyway. I shall not overburden (unto desolation) my parts that are doing a bit better than the rest, that have a good chance at escaping the evils of essentials (which is the actual forces separating in reduced capability), otherwise if I did, I'd ruin their chances to escape, and I'd have prevented the forces from separating (as the forces don't separate in desolation like they do in reduced capability).

Every good thing is interconnected. We feel this. We know this instinctively. Just because we cannot obtain the good of our essentials without also including destruction (in order to even live without being intensely irritated), doesn't stop us; we go ahead and have them WITH the destruction (sin). This interrelatedness is the drive that pulls us into sin. And when we can bring out and purify these essentials at our reduced capability, we do so. We are at reduced capability. This forces us to include 'sin' in our doings and are thus imperfect and in need of salvation. But at reduced capability, the forces separate on their own anyway. So we can bring these things out and purify them at our reduced capability as much as we can do without bringing above reduced capability: and the good part, can escape (its essential; other people's individual identity; and our individual identity) to join God. So you see, we can work with God. We can bring our own production in (as long as we stay in reduced capability), and also work with God.

I think you can see we've really opened things up. No longer do we need to walk the perfection tight rope; constantly fearing a slip-up will cause us to be fritter fried in hell. Now, we can instead, be more relaxed and more loving and considerate to each other. Please; let us now love.

It is your 'in God' life that is best able to utilize the parts of your essential that have separated in reduced capability and been purified to be evil free. A purified essential isn't very big or impressive. But to our 'in God' life, it has great value and interrelates for great production and growth. So, don't miss out on growth of 'in God' life if you already have some purified essential.

If we don't join with God and experience His abundant life, then we will be less alive. Essentials that we would do, have little value or meaning to us because we ourselves have little life to value or enjoy it. Its like dressing up a pet rock and treating it to the finest accommodations. The rock draws no enjoyment from this because it is not alive. Realize that your doing of essentials isn't the last word: but that above this, is your doings where you're in oneness with God; and that that is the last word, and where your heart is.

As we live our imperfect life at reduced capability; the forces separate, and the good parts become pure for a moment. It is here where a High-Capability-being can bring these parts up to high capability, without being infected by the evil of this area. Here, is where help from the fogoHC is expedient, and needed. Because if a fogoHC doesn't help here, then the probability is that these pure good parts will become reinfected with the evil of their reduced capability life as they continue on living their life, which is made difficult by the reduced capability they are at. So why would an all powerful God blame us for our lack of production of perfect life, when He could just help here (at this timely junction) and greatly increase the production of perfect life at no risk to Himself? However, if there was not yet an all powerful God, but only religious tricksters; all they would have is the pulpit to blame and shame us, without the power to do anything about the bad situation.

The path to creating a fogoHC when there is no fogoHC, is long and hard and slow; and very few make it. But once a fogoHC is created, they can help when evil has been separated away, and greatly increase the life that escapes the trap of evil. But if there exists a fogoHC who does not help the good parts, that for a moment, have become pure in reduced capability, then it is the same as if there existed no fogoHC at all. If no help is given by a fogoHC at this point where help is needed (and is also safe for the fogoHC); and these people in reduced capability are expected to escape the trap of evil of their own reduced capability life; then this fogoHC will have made no difference here, where they could have safely made a lot of difference. To blame and hold accountable we-at-reduced-capability for this kind of a fogoHC's inaction, is just more of the same reduced-capability bullshit that we as reduced capability life will still be seeking to slowly, hardly, and longly, escape from as if there were no fogoHC at all: free from such a fogoHC's presumed commands. (Those commands, much of which we seek to be able to do, as they represent a life free from destruction; but that we're unable to do-and-also maintain our reduced capability life, due to our being in reduced capability and the trap of evil.)

Perhaps the reduced capability life we live, is just God's way to deal with the evil. The forces separate in reduced capability and the good escapes the evil. Things are going according to plan. But if the fogoHC stepped in with His power here; this would no longer be a reduced capability environment. So maybe it is good that the fogoHC doesn't interfere. But the commandments given by God, are interference. To the extent they make us aware/notify us of the problem at hand (and don't bring above reduced capability), they have served their purpose. But to expect that they will be obeyed in our reduced capability situation, is unrealistic, and a heavy burden. Even so. Even though not obeyed; the forces will separate and our good will be purified. So let's try to be as good as we are able, and escape with that good.

You see, there is the motivation (because our own life values this) of trying-to-free-ourselves-from-evil; vs, the motivation to do so to get on the good side of a strong and powerful perhaps vengeful God. I as a reduced capability life with my own motivation to try and get free from evil; do see the advantage in joining with a powerful loving fogoHC and giving up my individual reduced capability existence, to accomplish this escape from the trap of evil. But if that doesn't work out (due to my failing to obey commands in my reduced capability situation); then I will still have my own personal motivation apart from any pleasing-somebody-else motivation; and will continue on with it in the slow hard way (without God's help/ as if there were no God) (the only way I would have). What other choice have I got in such a situation? And you can't blame me for trying to link up with a loving God. I would still be trying.

And if I do happen to be the lucky one to create a loving fogoHC out of the hard long slow road; I certainly won't continue this long hard slow road, but will as a fogoHC, act to make a difference when it is no danger to me.

I was just thinking: if the major purpose of Christ was to allow us to be together with God when we're good while only severing fellowship when we're bad, then that right there is the help we've been looking for. That right there is the help that comes down and rescues our good that has become separate from evil out of reduced capability for a moment. So God through Christ, is already helping.

Separation of the forces is the basic tenant here. There is an area that must be at reduced capability, and not at high capability, so good can escape and separate from evil. This means the fogoHC cannot be here as they would bring to high capability. But the fogoHC can stand outside this area and enhance the separation that occurs, by joining with what becomes free for a moment; as opposed to letting it reenter reduced capability and the trap of evil. And I hope in Jesus to do this.

Yet, since we are still trapped of our essentials and quasi-essentials, means that we are still in need of help getting out of them -even if that help be just allowing us to work them out in a reduced capability environment so that the good escapes and separates from evil and into God. And if we are totally destroyed as punishment for breaking commandments, then that is NOT the reduced capability environment we need, but is an environment of total desolation, where the forces also do not separate and where we cannot become purified. Anyone who causes this, is against the separation of the forces, and is for keeping the forces of good and evil together. (This is the society of 'haves' and many 'have-nots'; and not a society of all middle class.)

Note that an environment of desolation (ie a very low capability environment); although it does stop the forces from separating; it doesn't prevent the formation of a fogoHC in the slow hard road where only a few make it. Parts with both the force of good and evil together, remain so in this torment and are unable to change or free themselves, for the most part. It is the parts not beset with evil so much that are able to grow together, with eventually some of them escaping this trap of evil to form the fogoHC. This fogoHC can then act to free the rest of us who are trapped (by helping, and changing the environment from that of desolation to that of reduced capability.) This environment of desolation, where one's force of good is unable to escape one's force of evil; is a trap of evil. Here, we need outside help, in the form of giving capability, to help us out of this trap of evil if more than a few are to escape in a reasonable timetable ie in our lifetime. This is where the fogoHC can come in and help us. The desolating of us for breaking commands (in reduced capability) IS this kind of trap of evil; and is not salvation to those it is applied to. In reduced capability, trying to obey these commands is a heavy burden that places us in desolation. And punishment from God for breaking these commands is also desolation. If this is salvation then we will need to be saved from salvation. (A hellhole by any other name, would still smell as stinky.) If we are found damned and are desolated for breaking commands: we would still be trapped in a desolation trap of evil and we would still be looking for a savior to save us from that desolation trap of evil as well as trying our feeble and remote chances of being an escapee. I hope Jesus can be that savior. But if he can't for me, then I would still be in need of a savior, and I would still be hoping. If there is any good trapped in desolation traps of evil, that good would still be hoping and need saving.

A thought about eternal life: to resurrect or recreate a person: if all the possible combinations or possible ways that a person can be created and live their life, were expressed, then each one of us would find ourselves in there somewhere. So that as a fogoHC makes things more and more capable and puts more and more life into all areas; this is what's going to happen. Note that we are used to reduced capability life in stagnation where there is much of the inanimate where life should be. At high capability, the place would be packed full of life, instead. And when packed full of life, all the possible ways that life could be, would be expressed.

A thought I had, was about the idea of turning the other cheek and resisting not evil. Well, if you decide to obey that command then you take that in as part of yourself. And as the evil (in what it is, that is destructive), it will destroy you down to reduced capability. But the destruction eventually will also destroy (the part of) your (life that causes) obedience to resisting not evil and turning the other cheek. So when that's gone -because evil destroyed it -because you resisted not evil -because you stuck around and had the other cheek smashed: then it no longer exists (with you), so we do according to whatever we do at reduced capability without that command. And that would be for the good to escape the evil thus achieving separation of the forces. Another idea that fits in here is if your boss tells you to do something, or has you do work that is destructive to you (either by making you work too fast or it is dangerous work or whatever): You see, the reason you obey your boss: Lets say you obey your boss and do what you're told. To be able to do that, you have to take in and make a part of yourself this action to do what you're told and obey your boss. But as that work destroys on you it eventually gets to destroying this part of you within you whereby you do what you're told. And when that's partially destroyed, its at reduced capability and the forces can then separate. And when that is completely destroyed, it is gone. You don't any longer always do what you're told. Thus you have escaped your boss. And are on your way to escaping the stagnant system.

I've convinced myself that life is what's important. And something I can't argue against is the force of growth is just the way to go (that is, vs the force of destruction). And so if you bring out the idea of the existence of a benevolent God or a benevolent son of God: there's so much life there; that I'm going to respond favorably towards that. In the actual living of my life however, I find myself unable to be totally good. And that where the rubber meets the road I'm going to do things that may contain some destruction no matter how much I logically am against that. Like in my essentials of eating, or whatever, animals have to die and stuff. But what I don't like is the use of religion to shame and blame people because of that. I realize there is a problem with essentials and things like that, but that's not a solution. So we have to work on the solution. And if religion isn't going to help to be part of the solution then I don't have time for it. What I don't have time for in religion is the use of religion to condemn and knock people down so as to stun them and take away their life, emotional force, or money.

Some might say that religion is supposed to stun people and knock them down to be at reduced capability for separation of the forces -so as to remove evil from them. This may be all well and good, but the person who does the stunning must be stunned just as much themselves. -Because parts that do stunning, connect themselves to evil through this. Thus they must be stunned equally to also remove the evil from them. High capability evil free parts do not do stunning to parts needing to be brought to reduced capability because they contain evil, since that very action would bring evil into them and spoil their evil free status. No, it is only parts that realize that they need to be stunned that must do the stunning to themselves if religion is to be used as a stun at all.

I want to revisit some thoughts on eating. Eating seems to be destructive to either the animals or plants that are destroyed by it. And the Bible says eventually we'll no longer have a belly, and therefore won't have to depend on eating. But at this point there doesn't seem to be much condemnation against the act of eating; although fasting is revered in the Bible. In human sexuality, religion does put more of a clampdown because its not such an essential. In the Bible, Jesus assures us that we have these needs and that God will supply them and that we shouldn't worry about them.

But we have Mark 16; 15: And he (Jesus) said unto them: go ye into all the world and preach the Gospel to every creature.

Well, a creature is inclusive of animals and perhaps even plants. And since they don't talk verbally with us, we must show them with our actions. And if we eat the creature, that's not a very good way to preach the gospel to them. In fact, that's not preaching the gospel to them. I mean, if putting something to death is preaching the gospel, then if we just kill everybody then that's preaching the gospel. And I guess you do go to God after you die. But it just doesn't fit in with the loving ways of what the gospel is. So if we don't preach the gospel to the creatures we eat, because we ate them, then we haven't done what Jesus said; and we're supposed to do everything that Jesus says. You see, its this thing with essentials that gets us. I suppose you could preach the gospel to them and then kill them.

In the Bible is the 10 commandments. One of those is thou shalt not kill. The Bible does not specify thou shalt not kill another human. It just says thou shalt not kill. If you have eaten animals or plants, you have had life killed. Killing is destructive, and there is good reason for us to be against things that are destructive. But we cannot help but kill when we eat; when we are forced to eat to live. So if you've killed animals or plants to be able to eat, then it can be said that you have broken the commandment: thou shalt not kill. And so I don't think we can say we are yet born of God if we're always breaking the first of the 10 commandments.

---

Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Auctions - Buy the things you want at great prices.