Subject: In other words:
You have to “believe” in the cop-outs or you’re going to Hell. That’s what Christianity has come down to: If you just believe in Jesus. Those who “trust” in this absurdity – are they more dumb or are they more evil? There can be no better definition of the Antichrist than today’s Protestant Church. They can talk against sin and for the Goldenrule all they want, but when they end with faith alone, or Jesus Paid the penalty, etc., that’s all the worst evil in this world needs to hear.
6-8-09
The worst evil in the world is like that Bernie Madoff (the fraudulent investor) guy: All the smiles, looks and character of an honest man: “White collar” crime / tricks / dishonesty. What you still don’t know is that can be your doctor, your politicians, your news station, the manufacturer of your products, your food, etc., and even / especially your pastor / pope, your trusted interface to God, which influences your future Afterlife, from then on, ever after, no second chance – sorry, that’s the way the Bible really tells it. Someone who’s not like Bernie might make you realize that al-Qaeda had justification for 9/11 (that would have caused you to fix the problem in another way), or that Israel could live the same in West Texas; thereby eliminating the need for your son to die in war. All an evil person has to know is that charm sells. Now you know it too. You just don’t think anyone’s currently doing it to you.
You’ll all want to start listening to me after al-Qaeda gets a hold of nuclear weapons. But, then it will probably be “too late.” Well, at least we’ll all have fond memories of all our intelligent sounding news people, and all the “important” issues like Clinton’s lying about an “allowed” affair, and Obama lying about bowing in “simple” respect to the Saudi leader, etc. We’ll just keep hid the Amiriyah shelter, slant drilling, that West Texas will keep the Jews safe from persecution, etc., so we can say “we won”… until we lose… again… so future people can better see that: Rome did it, the U.S. did it… let’s try another way of reporting the news. Well, you’re going to have to start by fixing the church cop-outs to begin with. Then hopefully the truth about what Jesus really said about marriage and the family will halt all the other things from just getting worse.
No one already knows this:
As long as we keep presenting countries like Iran and North Korea as our enemies, the better the chance they will give a nuke to people like al-Qaeda.
“There’s a man, says he can put an end to war.” –Neil Young, 1972.
Well, that would have to be someone in the media willing to tell the gripes of the other sides, and who finds a safe place for all those poor Jews who just want to avoid persecution (West Texas).
“I don't need your civil war. It feeds the rich while it buries the poor.” –Guns N’ Roses, 1991.
Yeah, but how else can we say we won?
On the commercial for http://www.responsibilityproject.com/, they assert:
“Deep down, I think most people just want to do the right thing. They just don’t always know what it is.”
Another supportive statement for the question: Is everyone “more dumb” or “more evil”? That’s what my stuff’s all about.
I say, those who make it, deserve “more”:
“Man, I’ve been workin’ too hard: Ten hour days and I’m tired. Damn this knuckle bustin’, back breakin’, no paying job.” –Randy Houser, 2008 (country song). Now, someone tell Aaron Tippin, where the stars and stripes and eagle fly.
Why would anyone work if the government paid everyone for their basic needs?:
Well, being in jail / prison is the government paying for basic needs, but people have a tendency to not want to take advantage of all the free food, shelter, laundry and medical. Sure, other basic-needs people who don’t work and are not in jail / prison can walk around freely, but would still be very freedom-limited if all their income was just basic needs. That desire for more freedom would make people want to work for it, especially when the attitude is that they don’t need to give any of the free stuff back. Historically and today, we think the best motivation is making as many people as possible work for basic needs.
The question should be: Why would anyone work a job for just basic needs, if the government paid everyone for basic needs? The answer is they wouldn’t: they’d work for “more,” like the middle class does. Macy’s and Dillard’s stock would go down a little, and Wal-Mart and Home Depot stock would go up a little: that’s all.
http://www.answers.com/topic/basic-needs-1, “basic needs”:
In Maslow's hierarchy of needs, the physiological need for essentials such as air, water, food, sleep, sex.
“Sex”? Well, I guess I’m wrong about prison taking care of all “basic needs.” (Some prisoners with tell me that they get sex too.)
What’s the difference between one and two?
Well, a one-step thinking process is required to realize that women who have an abortion because she’s not married and/or the father won’t marry her, is totally caused by the church’s lie about what Jesus said about sex and marriage. And, a two-step thinking process is required to understand that the church’s marriage standard causes secular expectations to conform welfare laws around fathers paying the bill. Therefore, when she has an abortion because of financial reasons (with or without a husband), which is usually the primary reason, then the church is also the real killer of those babies. The church had better hope God can’t think to two steps. Most people don’t even think to the one-step unless they’re taught it.
Natural selection: just because many species became extinct, doesn’t mean squat:
Evolutionists say that natural selection and accidents made things better. But even if every species “survived,” there still has to be some kind of underlying intelligence causing each of today’s extant species to become superior.
But, contrary to what the church wants to teach you, to get your money, “life” has many problems and flaws:
You’ve got to realize we’re all trying to make the best of it.
Cavuto interviews Pat Robertson:
Tell Pat that Jesus didn’t say a “greedy” rich man in Matt. 19:21-24 & Luke 18:22-25, He just said “a rich man,” as He expressed his definite bias against the rich. “Greedy” is just what each rich man is if he doesn’t give lots to the poor. A rich man who is a “conservative” votes against the poor, which is even worse.
North Korea launches more missile tests:
Hannity says: “What’s wrong with everybody? We HAVE TO begin air strikes immediately against any and all possible North Korean nuclear facilities, missile sites, airports, power plants, etc.: any and all infrastructure; otherwise, if we let them build a stable threatening arsenal, we… we… we… will have to suck in our pride and start treating them like human beings!”
Teleprompter problems:
So Obama can become discombobulated with his confabulations, ya’ think?
Most liars think they’re smarter than those who aren’t:
I used to have a boss who actually bragged about his high fake charm and BS talent. But, every infant eventually learns that others don’t know what they are thinking. First it’s a terrible period of screaming and crying that gets most things, but still those provider dummies don’t always know what the infant wants. Like if the older brother accidentally runs his toy fire truck into his leg. “No, stupid mommy: I don’t want your nipple right now! Just stop the pain in my leg!” After the infant learns that others don’t automatically know what they are thinking, they automatically become aware that a simple lie can sometimes get them more things, and can even get them out of trouble / punishment. So, if you’re past the age of 2 or 3, and you practice becoming a good liar, then I’d say you’re really not any “smarter” than anyone else: you’re just more “evil.”
Notice how I don’t have that great high charm and BS talent. That’s why my old boss could make lots more money than me, and had lots more friends then me.
Quick – someone send O’Reilly a box of Kleenex:
Someone shoots Tiller the baby killer at church. The question is: Why was he in a church? Oh yeah, he loved hearing about that “faith alone.” But, apparently someone proved that “faith alone” doesn’t always work.
To Barack Obama, to consider concerning HEALTH CARE REFORM:
I have a female friend that experiences discomfort from water behind her eardrum. She said she used to use a medication that was inexpensive that stopped the irritation, but it got taken off the market. She tried another inexpensive one, but it didn’t work. She found that another very expensive one works, but can’t afford to keep using it, thereby having to deal with the continual problem. I understand that this is typical practice of pharmaceutical companies to make more money; totally justifying the government taking control of the whole situation.
To optimize the medical world:
(1) You have to make it so everyone can get the treatment they need, in fairness (not giving priority to the rich), and in a timely manner (no long lines).
(2) You have to make sure there’s a good financial incentive for further medical / pharmaceutical research.
(3) You have to make sure the doctors, pharmaceutical companies, etc. get a “deserved” salary, without the incentive for corruption (dishonesty to patients: not telling the best solution, unnecessary surgeries, etc.) and excessive charges.
I think something like that Michael Moore movie’s Socialized Medicine would be the best, with guaranteed incentive rewards for technological advancements, especially breakthroughs. I don’t understand why there are such long lines in those pertinent countries, but I’m sure there’s a reason. Maybe in addition to the government paying for and regulating it, there should be a nominal charge for certain things (like clinics do today), with priorities dependent on how serious the ailment and/or how crucial the time factor (like many places do today). Maybe that would lessen the long lines. Just tweak it by undercharging first, and then raise prices until the lines are gone. If lines are just complaints of the rich who have to wait in equal fairness, then lines really aren’t a problem.
I think if we only give more money to people to use for their health care, then the doctors and pharmaceutical companies will take all that, then still raise everything to squeeze for even more.
A belief in Fair Afterlife Judgment would curb this corruption / greed problem, but that’s not going to happen with the money running our churches. I strongly recommend disseminating my website as much as you can; or, have someone else do it so you’re not directly saying you support everything in it.
The incentive for doctors to be honest:
Set it up like how court judges are always trying to discourage lawsuits, etc. A Judge gets the same salary no matter how many cases he hears that day, right? So, have doctors get a set salary from 8-5 or 12-12 regardless if he sees 5 or 25 patients that day. He will be doing everything he can to cure people so they won’t be coming back in the next week, right? That’s the kind of doctor I’d like to see: someone who also benefits by curing me and giving me the best advice, instead of how the opposite incentive works today. Then we just have to worry about doctors who will murder a patient. So, a staff can be established to investigate procedures and check suspicious activity. Again, I think the slightest idea of Fair Afterlife Punishment (without any cop-outs) is the best way to curb it. Otherwise, the above mentioned controlled limitations and medical police is the only way to improvise.
http://www.focusonthefamily.com/socialissues/abstinence/abstinence_before_marriage/talking_points.aspx (Focus on the Family), Talking Points (Abstinence):
Sexual activity outside of marriage causes physical, mental and emotional consequences including out-of-wedlock childbearing, teen pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, guilt, fear, depression, lowered self-respect and increased risk of suicide.
There’s effective birth control today for the green, and STDs are a problem; but, all the stuff in yellow are CAUSED by organizations like Focus on the Family.
What is all boils down to:
The root ethical cause justifying Bible sexual word corruptions, as religious leaders will argue, is the financial support point for mothers and their babies. (“Financial” showing that marriage is just a form of prostitution [the real condemned thing].) --As less fathers are going to pay child support in an open sex environment. That’s why I did a lot of research on the vast free food that was available on uncivilized lands (see my Lewis and Clark pages), to justify the ethical side of welfare; and why I’m recommending Obama to consider a nationally paid basic needs allowance to all Americans (see my 11-11-08 page). Or, just a nationally paid child support program. The whole Bible corruption problem has to do with theories intended to help the rich get richer, to motivate more poor people to labor for the rich, by still just making basic needs. And, the rich are even in error. It’s even a whole lot worse in other countries. The fact that all these sexual corruptions exist in the Bible, indicates that God wants it my way. I think the whole thing boils down to the government admitting / realizing that it doesn’t need to tax and pay back the national debt. But, then there would have to be someone of very high intellect to know exactly how to tweak unrestricted government spending to make it work. That’s the catch-22. People might think that politicians would be pressured to “just” give their constituents more in threat of not voting for them again; however, the standard would be set that the only way for individuals to get more is for the overall basic needs allotment to rise, and the only way for that to happen is when Wal-Mart has too much to put on their shelves. So, I don’t see where the politicians would lose by my plan. Economically, my plan would be best for the rich, as it ends all taxes. So, “dumb,” as usual, explains a lot of things. It’s an ability to think outside the box problem. – Everyone prides themselves that they can do it, but few really can to any extent.
http://www.answers.com/topic/basic-needs, “basic needs” (another definition):
The basic needs approach is one of the major approaches to the measurement of absolute poverty. It attempts to define the absolute minimum resources necessary for long-term physical well-being, usually in terms of consumption goods. The poverty line is then defined as the amount of income required to satisfy those needs.
It was enough to make the Shawnee Black Bob tribe want to stay with it, with a lot of “loafing” to boot.
A traditional list of immediate "basic needs" is food (including water), shelter, and clothing.[1] Many modern lists emphasize the minimum level of consumption of 'basic needs' of not just food, water, and shelter, but also sanitation, education, and healthcare. Different agencies use different lists.
Well, I’m sure the Black Bob tribe just washed and defecated down stream; and they knew how to talk (education). So that just leaves Obama’s Healthcare Reform to come to the rescue. Of course, back in the olden days, water and vegetarian food was much healthier. It’s probably their eating of meat that was their main cause for sickness.
The real direction:
Even the vote doesn’t reflect this, but the country is always more liberal than it appears, because the money still has the biggest voice, even with what O’Reilly calls the left media. I don’t think the people are quite to my level (of liberal / progressive), but they will be someday. “Conservatives” just want to always keep things the way they are, simply because political “progress” usually means more for the poor, the real victims, etc. The rich really don’t ever suffer (overall) because of this kind of progress, but they think they do (because it takes more that one-step thinking to realize).
Boy, there’s still a lot of suicide bombing going on in Iraq:
All I can say is that the people of Iraq were much better off prior to our invasion. And, think how much better they’d have had it if we would have lifted the economic sanctions as I strongly recommended in February of 1998, which was my first direct instruction to President Clinton. I can really gloat about this one. I’m figuring God probably wants me to.
Girls beat up other girls, then put video on Internet:
Fox News is seeking to solve the root of the problem. Fox News and the money will have to allow churches to end all the cop-outs, where Fair Afterlife Punishment in Matt. 5:22-26 will be the support. I don’t think you can ever find success overcoming cruelty any other way.
Also, let’s solve the root of “favoritism”:
It starts with ending all taxes (1). Then we can start a basic needs allowance for each individual (2), that would also solve all child support problems. Then with STD cures (3), and the church being honest about what Christ really said about sex and marriage (4), we can begin to realize an open sex society in the next generation driven by a fad for a sexual desire for diversity in looks (5). I don’t think you can ever find success overcoming bias any other way.
The vast majority of mammals do well without a father:
(This is duplicated in response to someone’s question about the roll of fathers in an open sex / non-martial world.) Fathers can certainly still hang with their kids; including fathers who now avoid them because they also avoid the child support: if the government paid everyone for basic needs. However, the vast majority of mammals do well without a father. Humans are in this category. That’s probably one of the reasons marriage doesn’t work very well. Today, it’s easy to keep a record of who’s the father. Again, Jesus strongly stated that we not associate with blood relatives (Luke 14-25-26); but, I personally don’t see how it would hurt much as long as it’s an open sex world.
I don’t know exactly how often fathers will be with their kids in a perfect utopia. I know today social services statistics tell that fathers who visit their kids more often tend to pay the child support more often; therefore, there’s a large pressure for divorced father’s to visit their kids more often, branding that children “need” their fathers. But, this is stressed by our government just to save some welfare dollars (as welfare many times has to pay when deadbeat fathers don’t). They don’t realize that when you tell a child that he “needs” his father, and for whatever reason he can’t be with him, then the child will think he’s been wronged or victimized, which can lead him into drugs, crime and/or suicide. Therefore, in a superior thinking future society, there will be no stresses, conditions or expectations of fathers. Fathers will see their kids as often as they wish, probably more dependent on location, work load, etc. In a free society, I suspect fathers will want to hang with their own children more than not. But, if some don’t, no harm will come to the child. Even in today’s world, there’s enough time spent in school, watching TV, etc. where every child knows what a man is; so, boys don’t need to know their fathers just to know how to be a man. Any child can be raised correctly whether he lives with both his mom and dad, or in an orphanage. Traditionally, emotionally, it’s just that the real mother and/or the real father care more for the child to give it a better upbringing / advice than say foster parents. But, in a less stressed perfect utopia, just about everyone will care more for everyone; therefore more care would be given in a foster home than is had today. The foster home, orphanage, etc. today brings added scorn just because of the same victimizing reasons stated above, which is caused by today’s traditional church stress for the family standard. Attestant to this is the fact that no animal gets stressed-out when they don’t have their father around. Human communication skills are superior to animals, but, as a result, can definitely be very harmful when instilling the wrong message in the pursuit of greed (saving taxes). The fact that a future superior world will know the more correct advice to give to children, over the dumbness of today’s average real mother and father, without the negative stigma caused by today’s church, a child raised in an orphanage can come out much better and wiser than one raised by his real parents. The emotional / non-teaching “love” that parents give their child(ren) that you’ve heard is so important, is more an evil bias that favors their child(ren) over other children, right or wrong. If there wasn’t a person who people will call narcissistic, then none of these superior facts could ever be known.
In utopia, some mothers and fathers would want to live together, and would certainly have the right. And, some in monogamy. I’d be okay as God likes diversity. I’m just trying to break today’s major church sex lie, so what God really wants can happen (since the word corruptions exists, that just tells me God really wants in my way), based on what the people will really end up doing (mainly open sex) once freedom is realized, with an added vital sexual desire for diversity in looks, which will actually optimize the spice.
Why I’m doing all this:
I used to be able to figure things that no one else seemed to be able to figure, concerning lot of various issues. After my wife died of cancer in 1989, I got pretty religious, but I couldn’t understand why sex between singles was a sin. When I found that fornication just meant prostitution back around 1993, it made me realize we’ve been lied to. I thought that before I die I should share my superior reckonings and the fornication finding (since I was forced into the single’s world, then victimized). After a series of bad luck in the mid-nineties, I assumed God wanted me to do it sooner than later, so I started (Oct. 1996) writing it all down until I published the 01-27-98 paper; discovering in early May of 1997 that about 80% of the mysterious Book of Revelation supported most of my major points. All existing book commentaries on the allegoric Book of Revelation didn’t fit near as well as mine, and none really explained any kinds of messages; which told me I might be more than just another thinker. Pressured to write in perfection over self benefits, I’m trying to impress God by helping the world as much as possible; now politically as much as religiously.
Letter to Obama (after viewing Obama’s speech in Egypt 6-4-09):
Sounds great. Great first step. In pursuing a peaceful solution, treating Muslims fair is the key. That includes lifting any economic sanctions, and getting some added good trade going with our enemies, as ideal. Keep telling them about your Muslim background. Having a part Muslim as President is probably the best thing for overall peace in this time. I know the dumbest of Americans won’t understand it. Keep telling how the Goldenrule is part of each religion. Realize, like you said, it isn’t going to fix everything overnight, as many Americans can only know bias hate. You see, Americans can only think for whatever’s good, or looks good, for America, right or wrong. But we’re going to start getting along with our enemies when we start to consider outside the box. Same with the violent Muslims. Usually nothing will stop revengeful animosities, unless those direct victims are compensated. Realize that the more innocent people we hurt trying to fight violent Muslims, the longer justified revengeful animosities will exist.
I question if a Palestinian state is going to work. I think it’s worth a try, over offering the Israelis to move to West Texas (which might be the only total solution). I’m not an expert on the Israeli / Palestinian conflict, but I’ve heard that Israel isn’t going to be satisfied until they control the entire area; and as long as Israel holds Palestinian territory especially the city of Jerusalem, then the Palestinians are going to have a gripe. I’d inform via the media how both are fighting over a museum, and that controlling a museum doesn’t make either side “closer” to God, as such (that very strong belief) is just another artificial salvation cop-out; where the Goldenrule is the main instruction; and moreover, that fighting over a museum is actually breaking the main instruction. I think the Palestinians are going to take whatever you give them, but until the recently (1948, 1967, etc.) aggressive Jews are gone, there won’t be peace. A Palestinian state might work if we can get some good trade going between Israel and the Palestinians; and again, with the priority of a Goldenrule understanding.
My barber says (and I’m sure many Americans agree) we’re going to have to eventually genocide the Muslims. And he gave me some Old Testament reasoning for it. But that realistically wouldn’t work, as we’d never get them all, it’d fuel strong resentment with many others in the world, all that would cause more terrorist attacks against us, and eventually our total demise. So, my way is the only way.
Iran & North Korea:
We’re never going have a fair argument saying they don’t have the right to have nuclear weapons, while we do. And, it’s not advisable to get rid of ours. (1) The technology is here, (2) it’s been an excellent major war deterrent, so (3) we’re going to have to learn to deal with the continuation of other countries developing excellent major war deterrents. And, since lots of people everywhere are willing to die for fairness, the time is right for fair logic over normal bias emotions. Same solution as the above: treat them fair, and get some good trade going. Open sex would eliminate prejudices between countries better than anything else, but now’s not the right time to implement that kind of plan while there are still STDs, especially in the Muslim countries. It is the right time to begin speaking about the pertinent Bible corruption sexual words (see my website). Nuclear weapons aren’t going to be eliminated in all countries until aggression is a thing of the past; and, that’s not going to happen until the world sexually desires diversity in looks.
I don’t know what North Korea’s gripe is, but Iran is simply justifiably angry at Israel, as Israel is the latest violent take-over intruders into Arab lands.
We are “the bad guys” in Iraq; therefore, we have no right to defend ourselves from Iraqis trying to kill us over there. Therefore, at this point, should we stay or should be go? Restitution would be well in order there also. Of course, if you agree with thinking that far out of the box, Americans aren’t going to be able to understand it, so just realize perfection. This is assuming you’re unable to choose the lives of millions of Iraqis over your one career. If I said it any other way, it wouldn’t be as correct, accurate and perfect in the eyes of an unbiased God.
Read my older Mr. Critical emails which talk a lot about this kind of stuff at www.the-goldenrule.name. Just search for words like “Iran,” etc. if you don’t have time to read it all.
P.S. I just heard a Fox News commentator telling that the Palestinians don’t want a Palestinian state because it would recognize Israel and affirm Israel’s control of Jerusalem. Makes sense. If I don’t get the correct facts I’m not going to write the correct commentary. Sounds like the only thing that should be presented for fairness to Palestinians is to get them to recognize Israel’s “right to exist” in… West Texas. I’m sure they’d agree to that. And, I’d even better protect the Jews from the holocaust. At least offer it, then the Jews will reject it, then the bull about them having to live in the Holy Land because of the holocaust can end. Plus, it seems to be the only way to stop WWIII, as everyone seems to be picking sides on the issue. But, I’m sure I’ll be telling you “I told you so” when the West Texas offer doesn’t get presented, or the museum cop-out fact doesn’t get presented, and the problems continue / escalate.
The vegetarian issue is so easy to argue:
In the way humans don’t want to see other humans die or in pain and suffering, we really feel the same for animals. There will eventually be a vegetarian law.
Mr. Critical – Anonymous and not seeking money: I’m just a voice crying in the wilderness.
TO SEE PRIOR SUPERIOR WRITINGS (and more):
http://www.the-Goldenrule.name/