Subject: I’z dun thunk it all out
5-30-08
But havins trouble communicatin’ it. First part is tuh gettin’ it red. So youza useza your wheel to a-scroller down, sted-uh hittun Duh-leet. Then hits Forward. Else, nobodiez else uh gonna have-a alla-duh thingz-a thunked.
Bumpkins!
I still don’t think you’re looking at things quite right:
Have Jesus become President:
If Jesus would have come as a politician instead of the Word of God, then He would have instead asked the people how they thought things should be – where he’d have heard a whole lot of one-sidedness and a tremendous amount of dumb suggestions. Then He would have had to make God agree with all the self-centered views and non realistic animalistic / emotional solutions, which would become the cause of so much unfairness that there would be constant wars and strife. (The only reason we have wars and strife today is because the church has too many cop-outs.) The only reason to have the public and the media decide things is because it lessens corruption – which can be a big and noticeable problem (unless it has to do with STDs). An honest person that knows what’s really going on (like me) wouldn’t last long in politics. So if it wasn’t for self-centered, face-saving corruption, real improvement could be made. In saving face, a leader doesn’t only do it while in office: even afterwards, if they could guide the future world with their recommended touch of experience, they’d continue their farce simple because their “need” to save face has fooled themselves into believing it as right, and becomes mandatory above all other things. I’m sure George W. Bush would tell us all on his death bed that our killing of many thousands of innocent Iraqis was very important in making those people like us better.
Nobody has yet enlightened me with the ethical difference between what Saddam Hussein did to his enemies and what we did to Hiroshima, the Amiriyah civilian shelter, etc. I wonder why. Fox News watcher Ted Nugent probably still thinks we never killed any innocent civilians during our invasion and presence there; but I tell you, even if that was the case, since our cause was unworthy, any and all Iraqi “military” that were just defending their country, were ALL innocent victims in the eyes of God! Let’s find an honest American politician that will admit to that (and still have a job)! So the real problem will never end.
Remember, when you hear the loud noise, then see the men dragging your mother away, you won’t understand why, but you will eventually realize there is a Devil.
What’s the deal with these gas prices?:
I’ve heard the overseas producers are just raising their prices. Is this their way in fulfilling a need to place sanctions against us, instead of us always placing sanctions against all of them? We need to threaten and bomb more Muslim countries… so they will all like us better. Right George? It’s probably all rooted because of the Israel issue. Whichever side decides to let the other side have that Holy Land (museum) will be the ones closest to God, not the other way around. Nobody believes me, but I’m telling you, religious cop-outs / anything to avoid having to do the all important God commanded Goldenrule will eventually destroy the world. Hopefully when I’m floating by you all through eternity in the Spirit World, I won’t lose my Spiritual vocal cords telling each one of you “I told you so.” – And/or “Your media refused to release it.”
“All You Zombies show your faces. All you people in the street. All you sittin’ in high places. It’s all gonna fall on you.” –The Hooters, 1985.
Divine Judgment:
George W. Bush judging Saddam Hussein to die for the Dujail killings, makes it easy for God to Judge George for his (same kind of) Iraq killings. George apparently doesn’t believe God judges with Fairness – well, George actually stated God to him was for his self-centered “comfort.” That’s all. So it’s easy to understand why gas prices are going up. Again, God can only implement punishment in the Afterlife. Believing otherwise will just make gas prices continue to go up. It’s probably just becoming more and more apparent that we’re still in Iraq just so we can eventually take over all that part of the world, and via our proven violence / threatening method. “Winning” (the game) is John McCain’s number one priority, for example. So if you’re a Muslim country that has any law that differs from U.S. laws, you can pretty well be assured that you will eventually be taken over, peacefully or violently; from a mindset that actually believes that the killing of your mothers and sisters is the best way to get liked.
No, the answers are not in there:
So try to think outside your… sack:
Possibly many of you fast learner types can’t think outside the box unless someone instructs you to. So, don’t listen to me, call up your old college professor and ask him if he thinks you should try to think outside the box. Maybe that will do it.
O’Reilly gets really frustrated over Memphis high school kids doing the dirty dancing:
The immigration “freedom” issue and sexual “freedom” really seem to get his goat the most. That’s cause the uncool are losing. Ha, ha, ha!
Flat out Bible corruption (Matt. 19:12):
Sorry, the words “let him” (NKJV) are not in the original Greek text. They have been added to “corrupt” Jesus’ true command. So “accept it!”
Like how a eunuch can still perform sexually but can’t reproduce, with today’s effective birth control ALL can now “accept it (not get married).” Of course, we still have the same major problem of how now can the church “save face”? Well, it’ll probably take longer for the church than it will for George W. Bush, because we replace Presidents more often than we replace Popes. (So someone in our past was smart limiting terms.) And the Presidents are voted in by the people / the media, but the Popes are voted in by the same old bigots, who think their low libidos are their tickets into Heaven. So, there’s going to be a lot of atheists by the time the Catholic Church decides to follow “Jesus.”
Since Jesus commanded we not marry, then what “matches” is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_love, “Free love”:
The term free love has been used since at least the nineteenth century to describe a social movement that rejects marriage, which is seen as a form of social bondage, especially for women. Much of the free-love tradition has a civil libertarian philosophy that seeks freedom from State regulation and Church interference in personal relationships [and hopes to put a sock in O’Reilly’s mouth]. In addition, some free-love writing has argued that both men and women have the right to sexual pleasure. What’s sad is that no one knows that Jesus denounced marriage. They “just” trust religious authority. … In the twentieth century, some free-love proponents extended the critique of marriage to argue that marriage as a social institution encourages emotional possessiveness and psychological enslavement. … Access to birth control was considered a means to women's independence … Another member of the circle was pioneering English feminist Mary Wollstonecraft. Wollstonecraft felt that women should not give up freedom and control of their sexuality, and thus didn't marry her partner, Gilbert Imlay, despite the two having a child together. … Percy also wrote in defence of free love (and vegetarianism) in the prose notes of Queen Mab (1813), in his essay On Love (c1815) and in the poem Epipsychidion (1821): Well, it’d be nice to find someone just like me, but was he Christian? The correct answer is “no, he was an atheist,” of course. … Fourier, who coined the term feminism, argued that true freedom could only occur without masters, without the ethos of work, and without suppressing passions: the suppression of passions is not only destructive to the individual, but to society as a whole. (No problem having sex with a boss, especially if the boss makes less than you.) He argued that all sexual expressions should be enjoyed as long as people are not abused, and that "affirming one's difference" can actually enhance social integration. … Elements of the free-love movement also had links to abolitionist movements, drawing parallels between slavery and "sexual slavery" (marriage), and forming alliances with black activists. They also had many opponents, and Moses Harman spent two years in jail after a court determined that a journal he published was "obscene" under the notorious Comstock Law. I told you the O’Reilly and Hannity stereotypes would bring back slavery if they could.
…
Victorian feminist Victoria Woodhull (1838–1927), the first woman to run for presidency in the U.S. in 1872, was also called "the high priestess of free love". In 1871, Woodhall wrote:
"Yes, I am a Free Lover. I have an inalienable, constitutional and natural right to love whom I may, to love as long or as short a period as I can; to change that love every day if I please, and with that right neither you nor any law you can frame have any right to interfere. And I have the further right to demand a free and unrestricted exercise of that right, and it is your duty not only to accord it, but, as a community, to see that I am protected in it. I trust that I am fully understood, for I mean just that, and nothing less!" And the Truth Shall Make You Free (November 20, 1871)
Definitely sounds like an American (lover of Freedom) to me.
… freethinkers also supported free love. Yeah, well what about the billions more who “think” they’re freethinkers?
… Dorothy Day also wrote passionately in defence of free love, women's rights, and contraception—but later, after converting to Catholicism, she criticised the sexual revolution of the sixties. That’s because she “trusted” all the translation lies in the modern Bible.
… Clara Zetkin recorded that Lenin opposed free love as "completely un-Marxist, and moreover, anti-social". … Stalin's centrist faction had taken over the Communist Party and begun to implement socially conservative policies. Homosexuality was classified as a mental disorder, and free love was further demonized. Well, we have lots of idiots in control of America too.
…
Free love became a prominent phrase used by and about the new social movements and counterculture of the 1960s and 1970s, typified by the Summer of Love in 1967 and the slogan "make love not war". … In the 1980s, concerns over AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases tempered the promiscuity of the 1970s, but many of the sexual reforms advocated by earlier free-love movements had become mainstream: legalisation of adultery, birth control, and homosexuality; freedom in choosing love, sex, or both; and women's rights in general. Chastity, virginity, and subservience in marriage had much less power as social ideals for women. STDs/AIDs definitely slowed Freedom, but true: most secular legalizations against Sexual Freedom are gone. But, nothing is going to really improve until the Church tells the truth about what Jesus really said about marriage and sexual love. But, that can’t be announced by me, just those who believe their low libido is their ticket into Heaven.
…
Modern descendants of free love could be seen to include the polyamory and queer movements of the 1990s and contemporary sex radicals like Susie Bright, Patrick Califia, and Annie Sprinkle. Though they don't often identify as free lovers, modern movements around the world against arranged marriage and forced marriage in South Asia, the Middle East, Africa, and Eastern Europe share many of the same goals as the free-love movement.
“Polyamory”: “the desire, practice, or acceptance of having more than one loving, intimate relationship at a time with the full knowledge and consent of everyone involved.”
How’s that compare with John 13:34:
“A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another; as I have loved you, that you also love one another.”
See, the Church could justify free sex with just that. But, since they don’t, YOU DO “just” believe them. “Dumb”: there has to be smarter animals out there, who would quickly pass us all up, if they only had the same “communication” skills.
(Jesus’ Greek word for “love” above, is the same Greek word for love used in the Old Testament’s Song of Solomon’s sexual love. That doesn’t only “justify” it, that makes it “conclusive” that Jesus’ word for “love” also included sexual love, not the further lies that are preached today. What makes me want to puke the most is not because of the lies, but because everyone “just” believes the lies.)
Apparently great thoughts bounce back and forth until they set in:
“What the hell’s wrong with Freedom, man? That’s what
it’s all about.” Hippies of the 70s abruptly lost their Freedom when Disco
took over: “If you're thinkin’ you’re too cool to boogie, boy oh boy have I
got news for you: Everybody here tonight must boogie. Let me tell ya’ you are
no exception to the rule. Get on up on the floor, cuz we’re gonna Boogie Oogie Oogie
till you just can’t boogie no more.” –A Taste Of Honey, 1978.
At least you’re still makin’ the scene, where you’re experiencing the happening. Where you can now “demonstrate” your “movement.”
Bill O’Reilly:
http://wild-bohemian.com/hipterms.htm, The Language of the Hip:
Yuppies: (not to be confused with yippies above [see website]) Young upwardly mobile professional. These were the sellouts, the ones who got tired of being starving artists. Most of them, however were never bohemians in the first place. They were what the Beats and Hippies were reacting against.
How dumb really is the American public?:
Why was Judas so upset after he turned in Jesus? Wouldn’t Judas be happy knowing he caused the saving of our souls, by causing Jesus to pay for our penalties (past, present and future) on the cross? How come everyone calls me stupid? Please, please, somebody smart enlighten me soon, before I hurt myself!
Kanine Killer Kat kan’t take this stuff any longer:
Upside-down, and everyone “just” believes it:
A Republican or conservative wants politicians to give more to those who already have enough, instead of giving to those who don’t have enough. Most mainstream “Christians” are Republicans or conservatives. But Jesus in the Bible says those are the best examples of those going to Hell. I think lying to one’s self has a great deal to do with it too. But I don’t see a clause in the Bible saying that those who lie to themselves are an exception. Well, they’re not going to listen to me either, so I guess they’re all going to Hell. I definitely don’t give a hoot: I’m just saying it as God wants it said: I just work for One.
Someone:
Please say something that impresses me enough to make me quit doing all this writing!
Texas sentiment changed concerning mothers with their children:
From what I’ve seen, most court people only know what they’ve been taught, but think they’ve heard it all and know it all, therefore know nothing about ethics, and therefore look at everything as a game of corrupt favoritism (of kicking the little man while he’s down). So I don’t know what to think about this Texas Appeals Court. Something definitely unusual is going on. Could it be that some“one” (couldn’t be two) realized that adolescent sex is not really that big of an evil?
Oh… I see I’m really getting through to you:
What’s “Support our troops” mean?:
If it means “To support their personal well being,” then I support the troops. If it means they can kill innocent people, then no, I don’t support our troops.
Anyone who would carry out an order to kill innocent people in a restaurant just to get Saddam Hussein is worse than dirt. Now, if I was running for public office I wouldn’t be able to say that. So, I don’t see any real problems getting solved in the near future.
Maybe I am getting somewhere:
Watch as Earth’s deadliest killer leans vegetarian:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6HvIvcdj1E
The New Testament: Contemporary English Version: Roman Catholic Edition, Published by Thomas Nelson, 1991, “Word List” p. 757, “paradise”:
You see, it’s a place that everyone will want to go after they die. Even willing to pass through Purgatory (Fair Afterlife Suffering) to get there. I mean you can sit around for a couple of thousand years seeing it but not being there, if you’ve hurt a lot of innocent people during your life, until you decide that’s it is well worth the pain to get the everlasting gain. It’s like how most people will crawl another excruciating mile to get to that oasis in the desert. But, again, God can’t let us see paradise conclusively because we are all way to greedy to continue to live in this ups and downs world. Why would anyone want to put up with all the downs while nothing but ups is just a suicide away? Especially if you’ve never hurt an innocent person?
By the way, just because you “don’t believe” in “Purgatory” (for lack of a better word) doesn’t mean you’re not going to have to “understand” how and why being good to all others is what you will have to true believe down deep, before you can be able to go to Eternal Paradise. You see, Eternal Paradise is like everything else in this universe: it is “fallible” and therefore can be corrupted by evil souls who would just cause problems for others, thereby not making It a “paradise” any longer, for anyone. So it is essential that you feel / learn / understand the suffering of those you have, and will again, hurt innocently / unfairly, so you will clearly see the dirty, pathetic wrong that you now think you’re justified in doing as it helps or entertains you.
John Lennon, 1971:
Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace
There will never be “peace” if there’s no fear of God: Fair Afterlife Punishment (religion).
Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world
God also wants it better, but revealing Himself is just going to cause a lot less people “sharing all the world” as “all ups” is knowingly much, much, much better than “ups and downs” (the current world we live). And there is simply nothing new, no progress, no new diversity, no worldly gain, when no one is willing to take all the “downs.” Plus, you have to first live and suffer here on Earth before you can perpetually appreciate and understand the Paradise waiting for you in your Afterlife. So the more you’ve suffered, or the more you’ve been a victim of evil and unfairness, the more you will love paradise. So I suggest doing some heavy and serious suffering by accomplishing that Goldenrule as much as you possibly can, instead of the strong self-centeredness you now know only by default; which you cannot “know” to change until you have suffered equally. Yes, I’m fully aware that you “thing” you already know everything about God, and therefore don’t need to fully practice the Goldenrule. But, then you would never hurt an innocent person if you did “already know.”
So who’s better: a person who seeks their own self-centered desires all day, or a guy who spends all his time writing solely to make life better for all?
It’s the first time something like this has happened:
A while back, during one of the e-mailings of these documents, I received a major failure message stating it was caused by the email that belonged to Hillary Clinton, which prevented all of the other recipients from the list to be delivered. I tried it another time with the same result. When I removed Hillary’s email from the list, everything else finally went through as normal. I can’t figure out why Hillary Clinton would mess with my actual system just to have her removed from my mailing list. Her or anyone at any time can request to be removed, and I’ll gladly (or sadly) do it. My guess is that she knows I’ll talk about it if she requests removal. (I’m sure the government monitors my system anyway, so she can easily attain most of my ideas before they’re even released.) But then there’s the Delete button and filters; so, my guess is that she’s had enough people ask her what she thinks about some of my stuff, because they know she was on my list of recipients. So she probably wants to eliminate that she’s even aware of my kind of knowledge. It’s hard to be an American with people like that around (either way). Well, Americans have died in the battlefield to allow “me” the uninterrupted Freedom and Protection to do what I am doing here. Or have they?
I think Barack Obama should worry a tad about Hillary Clinton. If that Clinton Chronicles video is any way true, and she’s implying that she would have a lot to gain if someone assassinated Barack Obama, then possibly the only thing that stands in the way is hiring the right hit man where attribution can no way be reversed. It would have to work as well as the John Kennedy assassination did. I think also that an Obama-Clinton ticket would make a Democratic White House a much better possibility, but, again, Barack would have to constantly know that the only probably way a Clinton can get back to the top is with his untimely death. Be careful what you drink and eat, Barack. Nostradamus said the Pope was murdered by his Cardinals in 1978.
My single’s ad:
Single White Male: straight shootin’, highfalutin, corn fed, free speakin’ rebel rouser from eastern Kansas seeks Single White Female who only complains when I’m wrong, that’s smart enough to know to compliment my lawn, where I’ll prove I’m a big spender by affording gas to get to your house.
The evil of Sodom:
With Lot’s wife being turned into a pillar of salt for looking back at Sodom (Gen. 19:26), sounds to me like an allegory relating to the mythological rape of Medusa. Medusa, a beautiful young woman whose crowning glory was her beautiful hair, was raped by Poseidon in Athena’s temple. Strangely, Athena, outraged, takes it out on Medusa by turning her beautiful hair into snakes, and into a face so frightening that anyone who looked directly at her turned to stone (salt is a mineral). The allegory would match as Lot’s wife looks at the result of the metamorphous of a town where everyone had been raped. Plus, rape fits more with sexual evil, as it is a forceful violation of the wishes of the non-consenting partner producing a “victim,” as Lot’s guests were apparently non-consenting. Possibly Athena was just displaying what a victim of rape feels like: ugly and scared. God has many times used allegoric / symbolic meaning to circumvent Bible corrupters to today’s age of ethical achievement. God could / should have inspired Pagan writers as well, so some future genius has the means to put it all together. You see, the Bible would have never gotten to us if it wasn’t ambiguous needing further interpretation. Allowing evil to build more on their cop-outs against homosexuals provides me today more to prevail over.
That was simple.
Riddle:
What creature walks on four legs in the morning, two legs at noon, and three legs at evening?
The Three-in-One Bible Reference Companion, 1982, p. 39, “APOCALYPSE”:
Sounds like something you all don’t already know.
Mr. Critical – Leading the powers of Light against the forces of Darkness.
TO SEE PRIOR TIMELESS WRITINGS (and more):
http://www.the-Goldenrule.name/