It has been pointed out by someone of brilliant mind, who
has unfortunately missed a key truth, that right now we
are in the same situation as the beginning of the Renaissance
and the Reformation. A new technology of information (in
those days the Gutenberg press, in our days the Internet)
is involved in the questioning and destabilization of an
entrenched elite. in those days it was the slightly heretical
and worldly fleshly solutions power oriented Roman
church, in our days the "banksters" or gangsters in banker
respectable format, though frankly I am not sure that the
parallel is exact. A kind of entrenched open and secret
power structure that is supranational and has its own kind
of dogma and purges does exist. A sort of challenge is
going out, though whether all such popular uprisings as
the Arab spring and the Occupy Everywhere crowd are
really comparable is another matter. Crazed fundamentalisms
willing to kill and die for their causes are hardly alien to
the Arab spring, and some others have shown up in the
OWS scene.
Supposedly according to this analysis, the closed system
anti hermetic ideas of physics are partly to blame for the
closed system monetized debt that chains all in more and
more debt and interest.
Ignored by this brilliant mind is that in the days of the
power of the medieval church, all degrees of interest were
illegal, and it was the Venetians to some extent, and Calvin's
arguments more so, that got usury changed from meaning
ANY degree of interest to meaning excessive interest.
The Reformation, Calvin's part of it, made the banksters
possible. Before, to gain on a loan, you had to have a
part ownership given you in whatever until the debt was
paid off, no interest. Or, you kept and used land or
equipment until the debt was paid off, no interest. The
same procedure is what the Arab lenders follow, because
of Islamic laws against all usury, which are still in force,
making their economic gains here and elsewhere, aside
from oil, easier.
Supposedly we now stand at a three pronged crossroads,
Reformation, Renaissance or Revolution. I am not sure
of this analysis, the whole uprising might fizzle or be
coopted, and there is strong evidence of bankster and
elite financing of not only the Tea Party but the OWS
as well. This might of course, in the latter case,
represent a bid for power by a segment of the elite that
looks to unseat its rival segments, by gaining the love
of the masses, or might even represent some actual
humanitarian concern regarding the masses. I don't
remember all that much about the Reformation or the
Renaissance politically, but I think some of this went
on then also.
The Renaissance may have brought hermeticism to the
fore, and these were indeed inspiration for some great
minds as he points out, hermeticism being a mixed
bag of tricks indeed, but it was also the height of
corruption and evil of every kind the in Roman church.
One of the drivers indeed towards the success of the
Reformation, was the horror of the average church
person, who found holy Rome to be a moral and often
spiritual sewer on visiting on pilgrimage.
Savonarola saw this too, and was doing good work
at reforming the unholy people with the church's
blessing, and would have been on the catalog of saints
with other moral reformers and religious revivers, like
St. Francis of Asissi and St. Catherine of Siena, and
many others later, but for one thing, he challenged
the papacy's immoral and corrupt ways. And that got
him shot down.
This brilliant man I am referring to, once wrote an
excellent analysis of the core of christological heresy
and the problem of the filioque. The former lies in
a confusion between person and nature, the latter
creates a general mess out of which Hegelian dialectic
came, partly inspired by Joachim of Fiore, (sp?) and
in turn gave rise to Marx and Hitler.
But another core problem, is the failure to see the love
of God in the atonement. Supposedly the whole sin
as debt and sacrifice as payoff system is the theological
side of banksterism and gives the underpinning idea
that validates debt slavery systems.
But what bankster ever paid off his debtors' debt to
himself, willingly discharged a debt and ate the loss?
The analogy fails.
Part of the problem is having too systematic a mind, you
build complex houses of cards depending on each other.
pull one out and the whole thing, or most of it, collapses.
the unexamined premise and the unrecognized nonsequitur.
Whether we are indeed at such a crossroads in history,
comparable to what happened in the 1500s is another
matter. There are parallels. And like the press, the Internet
can be and is monitored and used by the opposition to
reform or revolution or renaissance, whatever.
Hopefully the mess will sort out without bloodshed or
violent revolution and government overthrow and
assassinations. Such things aside from being illegal,
and bringing bad press on any movement or idea
associated with it and playing thereby into the hands
of its enemies, tend to produce new tyrannies anyway.
Another problem, with this great thinker, is that he
fails to consider that the Roman church was not
behaving consistently to the teaching or example of
Christ or the Fathers. To adopt hermeticism whole
hog heresies incl. is not a solution.
and "a man convinced against his will is of the
same opinion still." teaching and evangelism among
the heresy threatened population is far better than
crusade, because that way the wrong ideas and
practices are eradicated, instead of kept as an
underground stream of pollution. Exactly the
same problem is created when one's spiritual life
is trusted to parents and godparents and popular
art and public events in village church life and
elsewhere, instead of catechism being a requirement
from early days on, at the direction of priests, not
nuns who may be themselves in error
A good example of the latter is the problem, should
one wear a rosary as a necklace? the person researching
this recalled that the nuns who taught her said NO,
but the actual canon law only says that flippant and
secular use of holy things as jewelry is not allowed,
though no one says do not wear a cross openly around
your neck now do they? The attitude is what counts,
and it is pretty hard to treat crucifixes, crosses and
rosaries as mere jewelry to show off the gold or
silver content and not send a religious message as
well. (though some pretty nasty people do wear
crosses, gangsters and whores. probably think they
can do as they please, maybe get good luck from
them, and escape hell by playing a game on God.)
The early Fathers were not strangers to pagan
philosophy and knowledge, and probably knew
some of the material that became the hermetica.
But as I think it was St. Basil said, the Christian
should be like the bee, who goes from flower to
flower, taking what is useful and spurning the rest.
Precisely this approach is NOT what is done by
hermeticists in general or New Agers in particular.
Meanwhile, as Constance Cumbey's blog shows,
all sorts of people are putting all kinds of spin
on the Occupy Wall Street movement, welcoming
it as representing their varied and sometimes
conflicting goals coming to pass.
Saturday, October 29, 2011
Friday, October 28, 2011
Nibiru Orbit on a Swiss Bank Note
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=u-tmFtYnrLo#!
this Swiss Bank Note shows nibiru's orbit, though the interpretation from
it varies from this. I would suspect that the orbit shown on the note is
more accurate, and that nibiru is between the orbits of mercury and venus.
as per Marshall Masters' research, it broke the ecliptic at the less dangerous
to us position, but will exit the ecliptic at a more dangerous position if this
and my understanding of its indication of positions relative to earth's orbit,
and earth's positions on the jpl orbit diagrams per dates is correct. To find
earth's position, just cue in any orbiter and look for where earth is now,
and later. If nibiru is essentially behind the sun now, and takes 1 1/2 to
2 years to exit, things will get very bad indeed in 2013.
this Swiss Bank Note shows nibiru's orbit, though the interpretation from
it varies from this. I would suspect that the orbit shown on the note is
more accurate, and that nibiru is between the orbits of mercury and venus.
as per Marshall Masters' research, it broke the ecliptic at the less dangerous
to us position, but will exit the ecliptic at a more dangerous position if this
and my understanding of its indication of positions relative to earth's orbit,
and earth's positions on the jpl orbit diagrams per dates is correct. To find
earth's position, just cue in any orbiter and look for where earth is now,
and later. If nibiru is essentially behind the sun now, and takes 1 1/2 to
2 years to exit, things will get very bad indeed in 2013.
Planet X / Nibiru 2012 Flyby Scenarios - February 2009 Report
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tf3jPtaq9Q4I don't recommend the rest of his stuff, but the Planet X research seems
pretty solid.
Usenet post by someone else, St. John Chrysostom and the Problem of Wealth!
St. John Chrysostom and the Problem of Wealth
by John D. Jones
Wealth … is like a snake; it will twist around the hand and bite
unless one knows how to use it properly.
- Clement of Alexandria, “The Instructor,” 3.6.34
In our social, political, and religious discourse, we tend to focus on
poverty as a problem to be solved, but for St. John Chrysostom,
poverty as such is not the problem, but rather how we acquire and use
wealth, the ideologies and practices that shape economic exchanges,
and the ways in which “the love of money” pervades and poisons human
personal and social relations and, most of all, our relation with God.
In one of his frequent appeals to the wealthy to give to Christ in the
person of the poor, Chrysostom remarks that he makes his exhortations,
not so much because of anxiety for the poor but because I care for
your souls. For they [the poor] will have some comfort, if not from
you, yet from some other quarter; or even if they be not comforted,
but perish by hunger, the harm to them will be no great matter. In
what way did poverty and wasting by hunger injure Lazarus? But none
can rescue you from hell, if you obtain not the help of the poor. 1
At first glance, it appears that Chrysostom is not really interested
in alleviating poverty, but rather in using the poor as a means to
secure the salvation of the wealthy. Indeed, the last sentence might
be taken to justify allowing the continued existence of extreme
poverty as a necessary means for the salvation of the wealthy.
Consider Chrysostom’s claim that Lazarus was not injured by his
poverty. This is an instance of his more general claim that no one is
injured in respect of virtue by suffering injustice or wrongdoing.
Given that our final end is to obtain “everlasting and pure blessings
in Christ Jesus our Lord,” our proper human virtue consists in
“carefulness in holding right doctrine and a righteous life” or “in
being vigilant and sober in the Lord.” In the ancient philosophical
tradition, the specific virtues or excellences (aretai) of something
are those characteristics that it requires in order to live or
function well. Drawing upon a variety of examples found in Holy
Scripture (e.g., Job or the three children thrown into the furnace),
Chrysostom argues that none of them was injured, in respect of virtue
and attaining their final end, by any of the things that they suffered
– indeed, the adverse things they suffered only strengthened their
virtue and deepened their bonds to God.
Although Chrysostom frequently praises poverty and criticizes wealth,
in his view neither is good nor evil in itself. In his Homilies on the
Statues, he praises Abraham for his proper use of wealth. Chrysostom,
moreover, does not view poverty as uniformly good since it can produce
despondency in the poor. Although he often portrays the poor in ways
that emphasize the dire conditions to which they were subjected, he
does not romanticize them. So in contrast to Lazarus, he writes that
the poor “generally speaking, are filled with envy and ill-will when
they see wealthy people even if they have adequate food and other
people are providing for them.” Nevertheless, Chrysostom has little
sympathy with those who wanted to lay the blame for poverty entirely
on the poor and, thus, excuse themselves from showing mercy, from
providing assistance to the poor, or from moderating their
acquisitiveness.
Chrysostom, however, wrote that many people, regardless of social and
economic status, engaged in exploiting others who are weaker than
they. That is, while Chrysostom’s remarks on covetousness or the love
of money most frequently targeted the wealthy, he believed that this
sort of love was rampant throughout society. So, in discussing the
vice of covetousness, he remarks:
Let us therefore, both poor and rich, cease from taking the property
of others. For my present discourse is not only to the rich, but to
the poor also. For they too rob those who are poorer than themselves.
And artisans who are better off, and more powerful, outsell the poorer
and more distressed, tradesmen outsell tradesmen, and so all who are
engaged in the market-place. So that I wish from every side to take
away injustice. 2
Chrysostom recognized that, insofar as people love money, “all things
become money,” “everything is reckoned in terms of it,” and economic
gain becomes the criterion for action. “Should it be military service,
should it be marriage, should it be a trade, should it be what you
will that any man takes in hand, [the lover of money] does not
undertake anything until he see these riches are coming in rapidly
upon him” (Homilies on Matthew, 90.3).
Put in more modern terms: the love of money leads to the
commodification of all goods, services, and people such that economic
gain drives all transactions and interactions with others.
Because the love of money poisons human relations and the ways in
which we acquire and use wealth, Chrysostom questioned the legitimacy
of acquiring wealth, whether for security, status, family, almsgiving,
etc. Moreover, he frequently raised questions as to the manner in
which wealth was acquired. He argued, for example, that inherited
wealth often rested on unjust acquisition or theft.
Indeed, despite his claim that wealth in itself is neither good nor
evil, at times he seems to view the notion of honest wealth as a
virtual oxymoron. More importantly, since all things belong primarily
to God, theft consists not simply in taking what belongs to the poor
but in failing to render assistance to them and depriving them of the
material goods that they need in order to live. He also took note of
how people pursued wealth to escape poverty while remaining
indifferent to the ways in such pursuit might drive others into
poverty.
And what is the specious plea of the many [for loving wealth]? I have
children, one says, and I am afraid lest I myself be reduced to the
extremity of hunger and want, lest I should stand in need of others. I
am ashamed to beg. For that reason therefore do you cause others to
beg? I cannot, you say, endure hunger. For that reason do you expose
others to hunger? Do you know what a dreadful thing it is to beg, how
dreadful to be perishing by hunger? Spare also your brethren! Are you
ashamed, tell me, to be hungry, and are you not ashamed to rob? Are
you afraid to perish by hunger, and not afraid to destroy others? And
yet to be hungry is neither a disgrace nor a crime; but to cast others
into such a state brings not only disgrace, but extreme punishment.3
Throughout his writings, in exhorting people patiently to care for the
poor, Chrysostom raised significant questions about the ways in which
people acquired wealth, the dubious ends for which wealth was used,
and the distribution of wealth and other economic means within his
society. He explicitly rejected the idea that we can give alms without
regard to how our wealth has been acquired. In his Homilies on John,
What profits it to strip one man and clothe another?” In other words,
we cannot seriously appropriate Chrysostom’s teachings about wealth
and poverty for ourselves without raising critical questions about how
we acquire and use wealth in the face of widespread poverty and
suffering.
Yet, these sorts of questions and concerns may seem moot given
Chrysostom’s own view that voluntary poverty – poverty undertaken out
of love for Christ – is desirable and his constant admonition to the
poor patiently to bear their poverty. After all, if the poor are
patiently to bear their poverty and poverty itself is not to be feared
but even embraced, then why should we be concerned with the
alleviation of poverty even when it arises through injustice? Yet
consider this passage:
The multitude…imagine that there are many different things which ruin
our virtue: some say it is poverty, others bodily disease, others loss
of property… Some bewail and lament the inmates of the prison…others
those who have been deprived of their freedom, others those who have
been seized and made captives by enemies…but no one mourns those who
are living in wickedness: on the contrary, which is worse than all,
they often congratulate them, a practice which is the cause of all
manner of evils. 4
For Chrysostom, it is precisely those who “live in wickedness” that we
should mourn, since those who commit injustice are harmed by
themselves rather than those who are subjected to injustice and
suffering.
Hence, despite the fact that each of us should patiently endure the
unjust suffering to which we might be subjected, we cannot be
indifferent to acts of injustice. Indeed, with due regard for our own
sinfulness, we must seek to correct injustice and evil primarily for
the sake of those who inflict it since, in Chrysostom’s view, it is
the perpetrators rather than the victims who are harmed.
Thus, given Chrysostom’s views about the evils caused by love of
wealth and the apparently great difficulty of obtaining and using it
justly and virtuously, it is not surprising that, in continually
admonishing people to obtain and use wealth properly, he can say that
he is less concerned with the poor as such than the wealthy or, for
that matter, anyone who acquires and uses wealth improperly.
Note, however, that Chrysostom was not indifferent to the terrible
sufferings and humiliations that the poor endure. While he exhorted
people patiently to bear their own poverty and suffering, while he
commended the life of voluntary poverty, he also encouraged the
citizens in Antioch (as we see in his Homilies on Acts) to share their
belonging in order to eliminate poverty. Indeed, in his Homily on
Almsgiving, he tells his listeners to “correct poverty and do away
with hunger.”
But from the standpoint of our proper virtue – the one thing that
really matters – the love of money poses a far more serious problem to
humans than being subjected to poverty.
The following text illustrates the profound extent of this problem:
How long shall we love riches? For I shall not cease exclaiming
against them: for they are the cause of all evils. How long do we not
get our fill of this insatiable desire? What is the good of gold? I am
astonished at the thing! There is some enchantment in the business,
that gold and silver should be so highly valued among us. For our own
souls indeed we have no regard, but those lifeless images engross much
attention. Whence is it that this disease has invaded the world? Who
shall be able to effect its destruction? What reason can cut off this
evil beast, and destroy it with utter destruction? The desire is deep
sown in the minds of men, even of those who seem to be religious. 5
Chrysostom’s critique here is obviously not directed simply at those
who love gold and silver but to those for whom, in loving money,
“money becomes everything.” Suppose, however, we substitute
commodities for money. Given powerful messages in consumer societies
that happiness, security and self-worth lie in consumption; that we
should buy whatever we desire; and that, because our desire for things
is unlimited, we can in principle never attain “self-
sufficiency” (autarkeia), it is not hard to see how deep seated the
problem of the love of money is in our society.
We may disagree with the particular analyses and solutions that
Chrysostom offers, but as Fr. Georges Florovsky rightly observes:
[Chrysostom] had to face the life in great and overcrowded cites … He
simply could not evade social problems without detaching Christianity
from life … In his sermons we find, first of all, a penetrating
analysis of the social situation. He finds too much injustice,
coldness, indifference and suffering in the society of his day. And he
sees well to what extent it is connected with the acquisitive
character of [his society].
Even if we correctly grant, with Fr. Florovsky, that Chrysostom was
not primarily a social reformer, nevertheless, we cannot follow
Chrysostom’s teachings about wealth and poverty and remain unwilling
to critique and change the social relations, institutional structures,
and ideologies that undergird our acquisition and use of wealth; and
to challenge the widespread belief that people are poor simply because
of their alleged behaviors and attitudes.
For Chrysostom, our primary task is not simply to establish new modes
of economic exchange and social relations. Our primary task is neither
reducible to, nor understandable within, purely secularized approaches
to social reform. For this task is grounded in metanoia (repentance) –
“the complete change and renewal of heart and mind: from the heart and
mind of sin to ‘the mind of Christ’.” This requires a spiritual
transformation of our relationships with one another in an imitation
of Christ that is made possible by our cooperation with divine grace.
Chrysostom notes that “the rule of the most perfect Christian life is
seeking those things that are for the common advantage…. For nothing
can so make a man an imitator of Christ as caring for his neighbor.”
In particular, almsgiving is not simply a means by which wealthy
people give money to the poor. He exhorts everyone to give alms. No
one, he often says, is so poor that they cannot imitate the poor widow
who gave two mites. Even if they have not a single penny, they can
always provide a cup of water to a stranger, comfort others, or in
some way show mercy and kindness to others.
First in Antioch and then in Constantinople, Chrysostom sought to
establish a community in which people mutually cared for one another.
Such a community is grounded in a gift economy – that is, in
intentions and actions that have a fundamentally Eucharistic nature to
them. In giving alms to Christ in the person of the poor (more
broadly, in rendering assistance to all of those in need), we
effectively offer a sacrifice on the altar, the body of Christ, that
is the poor person.
Having said “The first and great commandment is ‘You shall love the
Lord your God,’” he added “and the second … is like it. ‘You shall
love your neighbor as yourself.’” And see how with nearly the same
excellence he also requires this. For as concerning God, he said “With
all your heart”: so concerning your neighbor, ‘as yourself’ is the
same as ‘with all your heart.” If this commandment were duly observed
there would be neither slave nor free, neither ruler nor ruled…. There
would be no poverty, no unbounded wealth if there were love, but only
the good parts that come from each. From the one we should reap its
abundance, and from the other its freedom from care and should neither
have to undergo the anxieties of riches nor the dread of poverty. 6
In this way, our actions are a way of giving thanks to Christ for the
love he showed to us in his passion and resurrection. In this self-
sacrificial love or, better, co-suffering love, we take up the Cross
and follow Christ. In so doing, we obtain Christ’s loving kindness
towards us. That is, through our actions we communicate to others the
loving kindness that Christ has shown to us. In this way, we imitate
Christ and become in some way like Christ.
For Chrysostom the real solution to the problems posed by wealth lies
precisely in this sort of love writ large in community. Noting that
for Christ “the sign of perfect love for him is the love of one’s
neighbors,” Chrysostom offers this remarkable observation:
Dr. John D. Jones is Professor of Philosophy at Marquette University.
One of his research areas is poverty and social marginalization. He is
currently working on a book on philosophical and theological issues
pertaining to poverty. He is a member of SS. Cyril and Methodius
Church in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. He is also participating in the local
Late Vocations Program of the Orthodox Church in America with the
intention of seeking ordination to the deaconate. The complete text of
this article, with notes and a reading list, will also appear in a
forthcoming issue of the Marquette journal, Philosophy and Theology.
1. “Homilies on John” 37.3; Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers [NPNF] XIV:
147
2. “Homilies on I Thess.” 10 (NPNF XIII:504).
3. “Homilies on 1 Thess.” 10 (NPNF XIII:502)
4. “No One Harms Himself” 2 (NPNF: IX:294)
5. “Homilies on 1 Thess.” 10 (NPNF XIII:502)
6. “Homilies on 1 Cor.” 32.11 (NPNF XII: 263)
by John D. Jones
Wealth … is like a snake; it will twist around the hand and bite
unless one knows how to use it properly.
- Clement of Alexandria, “The Instructor,” 3.6.34
In our social, political, and religious discourse, we tend to focus on
poverty as a problem to be solved, but for St. John Chrysostom,
poverty as such is not the problem, but rather how we acquire and use
wealth, the ideologies and practices that shape economic exchanges,
and the ways in which “the love of money” pervades and poisons human
personal and social relations and, most of all, our relation with God.
In one of his frequent appeals to the wealthy to give to Christ in the
person of the poor, Chrysostom remarks that he makes his exhortations,
not so much because of anxiety for the poor but because I care for
your souls. For they [the poor] will have some comfort, if not from
you, yet from some other quarter; or even if they be not comforted,
but perish by hunger, the harm to them will be no great matter. In
what way did poverty and wasting by hunger injure Lazarus? But none
can rescue you from hell, if you obtain not the help of the poor. 1
At first glance, it appears that Chrysostom is not really interested
in alleviating poverty, but rather in using the poor as a means to
secure the salvation of the wealthy. Indeed, the last sentence might
be taken to justify allowing the continued existence of extreme
poverty as a necessary means for the salvation of the wealthy.
Consider Chrysostom’s claim that Lazarus was not injured by his
poverty. This is an instance of his more general claim that no one is
injured in respect of virtue by suffering injustice or wrongdoing.
Given that our final end is to obtain “everlasting and pure blessings
in Christ Jesus our Lord,” our proper human virtue consists in
“carefulness in holding right doctrine and a righteous life” or “in
being vigilant and sober in the Lord.” In the ancient philosophical
tradition, the specific virtues or excellences (aretai) of something
are those characteristics that it requires in order to live or
function well. Drawing upon a variety of examples found in Holy
Scripture (e.g., Job or the three children thrown into the furnace),
Chrysostom argues that none of them was injured, in respect of virtue
and attaining their final end, by any of the things that they suffered
– indeed, the adverse things they suffered only strengthened their
virtue and deepened their bonds to God.
Although Chrysostom frequently praises poverty and criticizes wealth,
in his view neither is good nor evil in itself. In his Homilies on the
Statues, he praises Abraham for his proper use of wealth. Chrysostom,
moreover, does not view poverty as uniformly good since it can produce
despondency in the poor. Although he often portrays the poor in ways
that emphasize the dire conditions to which they were subjected, he
does not romanticize them. So in contrast to Lazarus, he writes that
the poor “generally speaking, are filled with envy and ill-will when
they see wealthy people even if they have adequate food and other
people are providing for them.” Nevertheless, Chrysostom has little
sympathy with those who wanted to lay the blame for poverty entirely
on the poor and, thus, excuse themselves from showing mercy, from
providing assistance to the poor, or from moderating their
acquisitiveness.
Chrysostom, however, wrote that many people, regardless of social and
economic status, engaged in exploiting others who are weaker than
they. That is, while Chrysostom’s remarks on covetousness or the love
of money most frequently targeted the wealthy, he believed that this
sort of love was rampant throughout society. So, in discussing the
vice of covetousness, he remarks:
Let us therefore, both poor and rich, cease from taking the property
of others. For my present discourse is not only to the rich, but to
the poor also. For they too rob those who are poorer than themselves.
And artisans who are better off, and more powerful, outsell the poorer
and more distressed, tradesmen outsell tradesmen, and so all who are
engaged in the market-place. So that I wish from every side to take
away injustice. 2
Chrysostom recognized that, insofar as people love money, “all things
become money,” “everything is reckoned in terms of it,” and economic
gain becomes the criterion for action. “Should it be military service,
should it be marriage, should it be a trade, should it be what you
will that any man takes in hand, [the lover of money] does not
undertake anything until he see these riches are coming in rapidly
upon him” (Homilies on Matthew, 90.3).
Put in more modern terms: the love of money leads to the
commodification of all goods, services, and people such that economic
gain drives all transactions and interactions with others.
Because the love of money poisons human relations and the ways in
which we acquire and use wealth, Chrysostom questioned the legitimacy
of acquiring wealth, whether for security, status, family, almsgiving,
etc. Moreover, he frequently raised questions as to the manner in
which wealth was acquired. He argued, for example, that inherited
wealth often rested on unjust acquisition or theft.
Indeed, despite his claim that wealth in itself is neither good nor
evil, at times he seems to view the notion of honest wealth as a
virtual oxymoron. More importantly, since all things belong primarily
to God, theft consists not simply in taking what belongs to the poor
but in failing to render assistance to them and depriving them of the
material goods that they need in order to live. He also took note of
how people pursued wealth to escape poverty while remaining
indifferent to the ways in such pursuit might drive others into
poverty.
And what is the specious plea of the many [for loving wealth]? I have
children, one says, and I am afraid lest I myself be reduced to the
extremity of hunger and want, lest I should stand in need of others. I
am ashamed to beg. For that reason therefore do you cause others to
beg? I cannot, you say, endure hunger. For that reason do you expose
others to hunger? Do you know what a dreadful thing it is to beg, how
dreadful to be perishing by hunger? Spare also your brethren! Are you
ashamed, tell me, to be hungry, and are you not ashamed to rob? Are
you afraid to perish by hunger, and not afraid to destroy others? And
yet to be hungry is neither a disgrace nor a crime; but to cast others
into such a state brings not only disgrace, but extreme punishment.3
Throughout his writings, in exhorting people patiently to care for the
poor, Chrysostom raised significant questions about the ways in which
people acquired wealth, the dubious ends for which wealth was used,
and the distribution of wealth and other economic means within his
society. He explicitly rejected the idea that we can give alms without
regard to how our wealth has been acquired. In his Homilies on John,
he writes: “By almsgiving, I do not include what is maintained by
injustice, for this is not almsgiving, but savageness and inhumanity.What profits it to strip one man and clothe another?” In other words,
we cannot seriously appropriate Chrysostom’s teachings about wealth
and poverty for ourselves without raising critical questions about how
we acquire and use wealth in the face of widespread poverty and
suffering.
Yet, these sorts of questions and concerns may seem moot given
Chrysostom’s own view that voluntary poverty – poverty undertaken out
of love for Christ – is desirable and his constant admonition to the
poor patiently to bear their poverty. After all, if the poor are
patiently to bear their poverty and poverty itself is not to be feared
but even embraced, then why should we be concerned with the
alleviation of poverty even when it arises through injustice? Yet
consider this passage:
The multitude…imagine that there are many different things which ruin
our virtue: some say it is poverty, others bodily disease, others loss
of property… Some bewail and lament the inmates of the prison…others
those who have been deprived of their freedom, others those who have
been seized and made captives by enemies…but no one mourns those who
are living in wickedness: on the contrary, which is worse than all,
they often congratulate them, a practice which is the cause of all
manner of evils. 4
For Chrysostom, it is precisely those who “live in wickedness” that we
should mourn, since those who commit injustice are harmed by
themselves rather than those who are subjected to injustice and
suffering.
Hence, despite the fact that each of us should patiently endure the
unjust suffering to which we might be subjected, we cannot be
indifferent to acts of injustice. Indeed, with due regard for our own
sinfulness, we must seek to correct injustice and evil primarily for
the sake of those who inflict it since, in Chrysostom’s view, it is
the perpetrators rather than the victims who are harmed.
Thus, given Chrysostom’s views about the evils caused by love of
wealth and the apparently great difficulty of obtaining and using it
justly and virtuously, it is not surprising that, in continually
admonishing people to obtain and use wealth properly, he can say that
he is less concerned with the poor as such than the wealthy or, for
that matter, anyone who acquires and uses wealth improperly.
Note, however, that Chrysostom was not indifferent to the terrible
sufferings and humiliations that the poor endure. While he exhorted
people patiently to bear their own poverty and suffering, while he
commended the life of voluntary poverty, he also encouraged the
citizens in Antioch (as we see in his Homilies on Acts) to share their
belonging in order to eliminate poverty. Indeed, in his Homily on
Almsgiving, he tells his listeners to “correct poverty and do away
with hunger.”
But from the standpoint of our proper virtue – the one thing that
really matters – the love of money poses a far more serious problem to
humans than being subjected to poverty.
The following text illustrates the profound extent of this problem:
How long shall we love riches? For I shall not cease exclaiming
against them: for they are the cause of all evils. How long do we not
get our fill of this insatiable desire? What is the good of gold? I am
astonished at the thing! There is some enchantment in the business,
that gold and silver should be so highly valued among us. For our own
souls indeed we have no regard, but those lifeless images engross much
attention. Whence is it that this disease has invaded the world? Who
shall be able to effect its destruction? What reason can cut off this
evil beast, and destroy it with utter destruction? The desire is deep
sown in the minds of men, even of those who seem to be religious. 5
Chrysostom’s critique here is obviously not directed simply at those
who love gold and silver but to those for whom, in loving money,
“money becomes everything.” Suppose, however, we substitute
commodities for money. Given powerful messages in consumer societies
that happiness, security and self-worth lie in consumption; that we
should buy whatever we desire; and that, because our desire for things
is unlimited, we can in principle never attain “self-
sufficiency” (autarkeia), it is not hard to see how deep seated the
problem of the love of money is in our society.
We may disagree with the particular analyses and solutions that
Chrysostom offers, but as Fr. Georges Florovsky rightly observes:
[Chrysostom] had to face the life in great and overcrowded cites … He
simply could not evade social problems without detaching Christianity
from life … In his sermons we find, first of all, a penetrating
analysis of the social situation. He finds too much injustice,
coldness, indifference and suffering in the society of his day. And he
sees well to what extent it is connected with the acquisitive
character of [his society].
Even if we correctly grant, with Fr. Florovsky, that Chrysostom was
not primarily a social reformer, nevertheless, we cannot follow
Chrysostom’s teachings about wealth and poverty and remain unwilling
to critique and change the social relations, institutional structures,
and ideologies that undergird our acquisition and use of wealth; and
to challenge the widespread belief that people are poor simply because
of their alleged behaviors and attitudes.
For Chrysostom, our primary task is not simply to establish new modes
of economic exchange and social relations. Our primary task is neither
reducible to, nor understandable within, purely secularized approaches
to social reform. For this task is grounded in metanoia (repentance) –
“the complete change and renewal of heart and mind: from the heart and
mind of sin to ‘the mind of Christ’.” This requires a spiritual
transformation of our relationships with one another in an imitation
of Christ that is made possible by our cooperation with divine grace.
Chrysostom notes that “the rule of the most perfect Christian life is
seeking those things that are for the common advantage…. For nothing
can so make a man an imitator of Christ as caring for his neighbor.”
In particular, almsgiving is not simply a means by which wealthy
people give money to the poor. He exhorts everyone to give alms. No
one, he often says, is so poor that they cannot imitate the poor widow
who gave two mites. Even if they have not a single penny, they can
always provide a cup of water to a stranger, comfort others, or in
some way show mercy and kindness to others.
First in Antioch and then in Constantinople, Chrysostom sought to
establish a community in which people mutually cared for one another.
Such a community is grounded in a gift economy – that is, in
intentions and actions that have a fundamentally Eucharistic nature to
them. In giving alms to Christ in the person of the poor (more
broadly, in rendering assistance to all of those in need), we
effectively offer a sacrifice on the altar, the body of Christ, that
is the poor person.
Having said “The first and great commandment is ‘You shall love the
Lord your God,’” he added “and the second … is like it. ‘You shall
love your neighbor as yourself.’” And see how with nearly the same
excellence he also requires this. For as concerning God, he said “With
all your heart”: so concerning your neighbor, ‘as yourself’ is the
same as ‘with all your heart.” If this commandment were duly observed
there would be neither slave nor free, neither ruler nor ruled…. There
would be no poverty, no unbounded wealth if there were love, but only
the good parts that come from each. From the one we should reap its
abundance, and from the other its freedom from care and should neither
have to undergo the anxieties of riches nor the dread of poverty. 6
In this way, our actions are a way of giving thanks to Christ for the
love he showed to us in his passion and resurrection. In this self-
sacrificial love or, better, co-suffering love, we take up the Cross
and follow Christ. In so doing, we obtain Christ’s loving kindness
towards us. That is, through our actions we communicate to others the
loving kindness that Christ has shown to us. In this way, we imitate
Christ and become in some way like Christ.
For Chrysostom the real solution to the problems posed by wealth lies
precisely in this sort of love writ large in community. Noting that
for Christ “the sign of perfect love for him is the love of one’s
neighbors,” Chrysostom offers this remarkable observation:
Dr. John D. Jones is Professor of Philosophy at Marquette University.
One of his research areas is poverty and social marginalization. He is
currently working on a book on philosophical and theological issues
pertaining to poverty. He is a member of SS. Cyril and Methodius
Church in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. He is also participating in the local
Late Vocations Program of the Orthodox Church in America with the
intention of seeking ordination to the deaconate. The complete text of
this article, with notes and a reading list, will also appear in a
forthcoming issue of the Marquette journal, Philosophy and Theology.
1. “Homilies on John” 37.3; Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers [NPNF] XIV:
147
2. “Homilies on I Thess.” 10 (NPNF XIII:504).
3. “Homilies on 1 Thess.” 10 (NPNF XIII:502)
4. “No One Harms Himself” 2 (NPNF: IX:294)
5. “Homilies on 1 Thess.” 10 (NPNF XIII:502)
6. “Homilies on 1 Cor.” 32.11 (NPNF XII: 263)
Thursday, October 27, 2011
Wednesday, October 26, 2011
Wednesday, October 19, 2011
Koch Brothers Flout Law Getting Richer With Sales To Iran
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-10-02/koch-brothers-flout-law-getting-richer-with-secret-iran-sales.html
this is what less government more "individual" freedom and responsibility means in practice. rampant corruption and carelessness of safety and interests of the employees - meaning
the ragbag hoipolloi who actually do the hard work and take the physical risks - and of the public at large, and as they get more and more powerful, no effective recourse because it costs money to get
justice in civil court, if there is no criminal proceeding
or regulatory committees to fall back on. Ah, yes, the
revolving door, all those people who get on regulatory
committees and have assured futures in or past
with the industries they are regulating.
And don't forget about arming people who want us
dead, because business is business.
maximize the role of the private economy and maximize personal freedoms,” David Koch told the National Journal in May 1992.
That's right. all their misbehavior, their lack of morals, commonsense and self restraint, is because they
"kept thinking and acting as if we lived in a pure market economy.”
NOW do you see what a "pure market economy" would
be in practice? Because this is what you get from people
who forget they are not in one, and act as if they were.
Justina
this is what less government more "individual" freedom and responsibility means in practice. rampant corruption and carelessness of safety and interests of the employees - meaning
the ragbag hoipolloi who actually do the hard work and take the physical risks - and of the public at large, and as they get more and more powerful, no effective recourse because it costs money to get
justice in civil court, if there is no criminal proceeding
or regulatory committees to fall back on. Ah, yes, the
revolving door, all those people who get on regulatory
committees and have assured futures in or past
with the industries they are regulating.
And don't forget about arming people who want us
dead, because business is business.
maximize the role of the private economy and maximize personal freedoms,” David Koch told the National Journal in May 1992.
“My overall concept is to minimize the role of government and to
In his 2007 book, Charles Koch says his company had difficulty keeping up with changing government regulations and that it did eventually build an effective compliance program for 20 areas ranging from environmental to antitrust to safety regulations.
“We were caught unprepared by the rapid increase in regulation,” he wrote. “While business was becoming increasingly regulated, we kept thinking and acting as if we lived in a pure market economy.”
That's right. all their misbehavior, their lack of morals, commonsense and self restraint, is because they
"kept thinking and acting as if we lived in a pure market economy.”
NOW do you see what a "pure market economy" would
be in practice? Because this is what you get from people
who forget they are not in one, and act as if they were.
Justina
Thursday, October 13, 2011
Nibiru's Orbit is 738 1/2 years and it nothing to do with The Exodus
Planet X aka Nibiru is usually referred to when, when its orbital length
is referred to at all, as having a 3600 year orbit. This is suspect for
two reasons.
first, it is agenda driven, and assumption driven.
second, the start date is widely disputed.
The agenda is disprove supernatural incidents in The Bible as
being supernatural, the assumption, when no anti supernaturalism
missionarizing is being attempted, just the idea taken for granted,
is that there are no supernatural incidents in The Bible, they are
made up, or hysterical misinterpretations of natural phenomena.
So Nibiru (and before that Velikovsky and his catastrophism
ideas) is timed to the Exodus to explain what happened then.
Trouble is, first they assume, then they calculate from the
assumption to the nearest assumed due back date, then
argue back from that. This is circular reasoning.
The date for the Exodus, based on varying interpretations of
The Bible, like what is being in or out of Egypt does that
incl. locations it had control over at times, or only Egypt homeland,
and what does "oppressed" mean and was this to be only in Egypt
or also before in Canaan since it was not yet the Jewish land, etc.,
ranges by officials and Bible date counters, from 1234 BC or
something like that to 1557 BC or something like that.
So you can't make a very good estimate based on some 300
years variation of start date, and the thing not being undeniably
present yet, though most likely it is getting closer.
But thanks to some helpful people online, and a little more
searching on my own, I found out that there is a string of meteor
craters across northern Europe that all hit c. 200 BC. Procopius
in AD 536 describes a nasty situation with the sun darkened by
intense dust or ash and famine for at least a year maybe 2, in
most places reported it was 2 in some places 3 years.
Historians figure supervolcanos going off, and/or an asteroid
strike, would account for this. Both would be consistent with
a nibiru flyby.
Since there is no year zero, AD 1 is preceded by 1 BC, and
never mind that Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ may have been
born a few years earlier than that due to a counting error on
someone's part, that leaves a cycle of 735 years.
Now if you assume (but now we are working with a couple of
real dates, one precise and one approximate - for a global
catastrophe) that nibiru is due back in late 2012 or in 2013,
and its effect is dependent on its position vis a vis us and the
sun when it breaks the ecliptic, which it does twice, coming in
and going out, being on an obliquely tilted as well as eliptical
long orbit, some flybys, perhaps most, would be uneventful
or minimally eventful.
Others would be near extinction level events.
There is enough disturbance going on to assume the 2012 2013
ETA is correct, or close enough. subtract 536, a precise date
from that and divide the result by half, you get 738.5. Plug this
in and remember the AD 536 date is precise, while the 200 BC
date is not, and you get AD 1274 as a mostly uneventful flyby,
some odd weather incl. the "divine wind" storm that drove the
invading Mongol fleet back from Japan, AD 536 as disastrous,
200 BC as disastrous (and that 200 BC date is approximate).
Keep on plugging it in, and you get various dates.
940 BC
1678 BC
2417 BC the disputable 2300 BC date of end of the Egyptian
6th Dynasty saw some disaster that wiped out
civilization there and elsewhere for a few years.
3165 BC
3904 BC
4642 BC
5381 BC
6119 BC
6858 BC
7596 BC
9073 BC
9812 BC
10,550 BC
11,289 BC
Now, if you tweak the begats and assume some generation's names
were left out and so forth, you can push Creation back about 12,000
years or maybe another double millennia. This squares with some
geological information, like the amount of salt dissolved in the sea.
The date for The Flood is similarly open to some question. There is
no way even a worst case scenario fly by is going to make a world
flood, but the tsunami action increased by it could have played a role.
At one point, God said that the pre flood mankind had 120 years.
This is usually interpreted to mean the lifespan of everyone, but it
could have been the time left before God brought The Flood,
having decided to coincide it with nibiru's upcoming next visit, to
maximize the effects. If people had repented, it would have been
a normal worst case (or even miraculously restrained effects?)
flyby, not a global flood, which was caused by unleashing water
from below ground, from the sky and maybe snagging some
from Mars, plus nibiru adding to the trouble.
One of those dates BC may be the date of The Flood. But if
that was strictly nibiru normal worst case scenario effects, we
would have had several global floods by now, and we haven't.
Justina
is referred to at all, as having a 3600 year orbit. This is suspect for
two reasons.
first, it is agenda driven, and assumption driven.
second, the start date is widely disputed.
The agenda is disprove supernatural incidents in The Bible as
being supernatural, the assumption, when no anti supernaturalism
missionarizing is being attempted, just the idea taken for granted,
is that there are no supernatural incidents in The Bible, they are
made up, or hysterical misinterpretations of natural phenomena.
So Nibiru (and before that Velikovsky and his catastrophism
ideas) is timed to the Exodus to explain what happened then.
Trouble is, first they assume, then they calculate from the
assumption to the nearest assumed due back date, then
argue back from that. This is circular reasoning.
The date for the Exodus, based on varying interpretations of
The Bible, like what is being in or out of Egypt does that
incl. locations it had control over at times, or only Egypt homeland,
and what does "oppressed" mean and was this to be only in Egypt
or also before in Canaan since it was not yet the Jewish land, etc.,
ranges by officials and Bible date counters, from 1234 BC or
something like that to 1557 BC or something like that.
So you can't make a very good estimate based on some 300
years variation of start date, and the thing not being undeniably
present yet, though most likely it is getting closer.
But thanks to some helpful people online, and a little more
searching on my own, I found out that there is a string of meteor
craters across northern Europe that all hit c. 200 BC. Procopius
in AD 536 describes a nasty situation with the sun darkened by
intense dust or ash and famine for at least a year maybe 2, in
most places reported it was 2 in some places 3 years.
Historians figure supervolcanos going off, and/or an asteroid
strike, would account for this. Both would be consistent with
a nibiru flyby.
Since there is no year zero, AD 1 is preceded by 1 BC, and
never mind that Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ may have been
born a few years earlier than that due to a counting error on
someone's part, that leaves a cycle of 735 years.
Now if you assume (but now we are working with a couple of
real dates, one precise and one approximate - for a global
catastrophe) that nibiru is due back in late 2012 or in 2013,
and its effect is dependent on its position vis a vis us and the
sun when it breaks the ecliptic, which it does twice, coming in
and going out, being on an obliquely tilted as well as eliptical
long orbit, some flybys, perhaps most, would be uneventful
or minimally eventful.
Others would be near extinction level events.
There is enough disturbance going on to assume the 2012 2013
ETA is correct, or close enough. subtract 536, a precise date
from that and divide the result by half, you get 738.5. Plug this
in and remember the AD 536 date is precise, while the 200 BC
date is not, and you get AD 1274 as a mostly uneventful flyby,
some odd weather incl. the "divine wind" storm that drove the
invading Mongol fleet back from Japan, AD 536 as disastrous,
200 BC as disastrous (and that 200 BC date is approximate).
Keep on plugging it in, and you get various dates.
940 BC
1678 BC
2417 BC the disputable 2300 BC date of end of the Egyptian
6th Dynasty saw some disaster that wiped out
civilization there and elsewhere for a few years.
3165 BC
3904 BC
4642 BC
5381 BC
6119 BC
6858 BC
7596 BC
9073 BC
9812 BC
10,550 BC
11,289 BC
Now, if you tweak the begats and assume some generation's names
were left out and so forth, you can push Creation back about 12,000
years or maybe another double millennia. This squares with some
geological information, like the amount of salt dissolved in the sea.
The date for The Flood is similarly open to some question. There is
no way even a worst case scenario fly by is going to make a world
flood, but the tsunami action increased by it could have played a role.
At one point, God said that the pre flood mankind had 120 years.
This is usually interpreted to mean the lifespan of everyone, but it
could have been the time left before God brought The Flood,
having decided to coincide it with nibiru's upcoming next visit, to
maximize the effects. If people had repented, it would have been
a normal worst case (or even miraculously restrained effects?)
flyby, not a global flood, which was caused by unleashing water
from below ground, from the sky and maybe snagging some
from Mars, plus nibiru adding to the trouble.
One of those dates BC may be the date of The Flood. But if
that was strictly nibiru normal worst case scenario effects, we
would have had several global floods by now, and we haven't.
Justina
Irrigation channels on Mars?
http://members.beforeitsnews.com/story/1223/653/NL/New_Mystery_On_Mars_Forgotten_Plains.html
scroll down to the crosshatching picture. On second thought, here it is.
scroll down to the crosshatching picture. On second thought, here it is.
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
Friday, October 7, 2011
Ed Dames on Art Bell at Coast to Coast
UPDATE NOTE, June 18 AD 2016 obviously AD 2013 has come
and gone and nothing outrageous.
but in general, I think remote viewing should be ignored and avoided
because there is some demonic connection in the acquisition and/or
practice of the ability
http://fightthenewage.blogspot.com/2016/05/remote-viewing-reconsidered-not-good.html
I was listening to a youtube copy of this program. Several things are
interesting, but first, I think Dames is probably onto something most
of the time, except when it can be prevented so it of course doesn't
happen.
The reason why, is that he claims to keep objective, no opening up
or surrender just observe, and seems to have the kind of self
control to do so, and here is what he had to say about reincarnation.
It doesn't exist.
This, unlike other psychics, hypnotic regression slop job results,
New Age, etc., is in line with the teachings of The Bible and the
early Church to now.
What he says happens, is not unlike something I figured might
happen to explain the experiences some have had. That instead
of having memories of a past life, you have downloaded someone
else's memories.
Dames had remote viewed himself in terms of past lives, and
maybe others I forget if he said this or not, but the result was, that
there are people in the past who have your personality, are in
every way identical, their radio broadcast so to speak is the same
as yours, so you can receive it like two different radio programs
coming through on the same station.
BUT THE SOULS ARE NOT THE SAME.
We only go around once, folks.
Now as to Nibiru, he hasn't remote viewed that. But some time
ago, he stated that remote viewing of the future (which I would
think would be like accessing and compiling gigabytes of data
incl. stuff you might not even pick up on and then drawing
conclusions, but missing some of the contributing factors, since
remote viewing is very focussed on target), over and over these
big companies who employed his civilian agency, were coming
up with some kind of major problem c. 2013. In fact, the USA
in general has some major non operational condition about
that time, then recovers sort of.
The Kill Shot as he calls an incredible coronal mass ejection
(aka CME) from the sun fries everything, when he couldn't
see, but it would happen soon after a Shuttle flight has to be
cut short because of meteorites pelting it.
The Shuttle program is down as per USA, but Russia and
maybe others have taken it up, all he saw was a Shuttle
type craft, back in the days when we were the only ones
who had this.
Now, nibiru doesn't play in the pictures he gets, because
it wasn't looked for.
What DOES play, is the sort of stuff it can cause.
Now, Dames says that RV is passive as compared to
the other team he implied exists, telekenesis and stuff
like that.
But it is only passive in the sense that it acquires information
withoiut intervening in any way. In fact it is quite active.
There is no passive receptive state involved.
Dowsing, which he gets into in his training courses
described online, is another matter. Dowsing uses the
human as an antenna and requires a degree of letting
something else operate through your fingers. This may
be nothing but your own mind reaching out and feeding
back information. this is the usual interpretation. But the
fact that any degree of passivity, of some segment of
your body doing some action other than directed that
is normally only done by conscious direction, is not cool.
This opens the door to spirit directed automatonism
like Ouija boards, where control is much more surrendered.
Sometimes, things like dowsing rods and planchettes
have been observed to move on their own, with far
greater strength than the light touching fingers could do,
which is another bad sign.
you don't want anything messing around in your body,
or your mind, but your own self. And though possession
may never occur, a presence, a spirit, a liar, a djinn can
get some foothold however temporary. And such contacts
once made may be hard to get rid of.
Immanuel Swedenborg once observed that all spirits would
lie if they had the opportunity. That in itself tells you that
what he thought were angels and spirits were demons.
There is an interesting bit of info I picked up online, someone
had apparently "worked with YHWH" I guess approached
Him like one would try to conjure up a spirit, or perhaps only
His angels. (and the story could have been a lie, or it could
have been clever demons mimicking what might be expected
of such contact, read on, or it could have been the operator's
own mind ditto.)
This person said he didn't like it, and was frustrated, because
when he had some angel on the line, so to speak, and he
asked it something, it would always have to check with
someone, presumably YHWH to get permission to answer.
And often the answer was that he was not allowed to tell
the information, or the operator wasn't supposed to get
that knowledge, or something like that. This honest
withholding of information instead of making stuff up and
coddling the ego and curiosity of the operator, makes me
suspect this may have been a real angelic contact. Demon
contacts (incl. those that are a case of "satan transforming
himself into an angel of light," which is 99.99% of New Age
angel and spirit guide stuff), always enhance the sense of
being special, having a glorious purpose, ruling over all,
evolving, ascending, elitism of one sort or another. By
contrast, the prophets of YHWH in the OT were not
happy about their job, and did not exalt themselves but
exalted YHWH. Neither did they exalt mankind as some
kind of god, the very core of The Fall, the original sin.
they did not tickle the ears of their hearers, and I think
it was Jeremiah whom God told to tell people about the
false prophets and false prophetesses of the pagan
and syncretistic cults among the Israelites, that they
prophesied out of their own hearts, and did not speak
the words of YHWH.
Isn't this prophesying out of one's heart what the New
Age advocates? beware. In Deuteronomy and elsewhere
we are warned not to "watlk in the imagination of your
hearts." The heart was the location of the mind, in popular
thought, feelings were located more in the liver and guts.
Justina
and gone and nothing outrageous.
but in general, I think remote viewing should be ignored and avoided
because there is some demonic connection in the acquisition and/or
practice of the ability
http://fightthenewage.blogspot.com/2016/05/remote-viewing-reconsidered-not-good.html
I was listening to a youtube copy of this program. Several things are
interesting, but first, I think Dames is probably onto something most
of the time, except when it can be prevented so it of course doesn't
happen.
The reason why, is that he claims to keep objective, no opening up
or surrender just observe, and seems to have the kind of self
control to do so, and here is what he had to say about reincarnation.
It doesn't exist.
This, unlike other psychics, hypnotic regression slop job results,
New Age, etc., is in line with the teachings of The Bible and the
early Church to now.
What he says happens, is not unlike something I figured might
happen to explain the experiences some have had. That instead
of having memories of a past life, you have downloaded someone
else's memories.
Dames had remote viewed himself in terms of past lives, and
maybe others I forget if he said this or not, but the result was, that
there are people in the past who have your personality, are in
every way identical, their radio broadcast so to speak is the same
as yours, so you can receive it like two different radio programs
coming through on the same station.
BUT THE SOULS ARE NOT THE SAME.
We only go around once, folks.
Now as to Nibiru, he hasn't remote viewed that. But some time
ago, he stated that remote viewing of the future (which I would
think would be like accessing and compiling gigabytes of data
incl. stuff you might not even pick up on and then drawing
conclusions, but missing some of the contributing factors, since
remote viewing is very focussed on target), over and over these
big companies who employed his civilian agency, were coming
up with some kind of major problem c. 2013. In fact, the USA
in general has some major non operational condition about
that time, then recovers sort of.
The Kill Shot as he calls an incredible coronal mass ejection
(aka CME) from the sun fries everything, when he couldn't
see, but it would happen soon after a Shuttle flight has to be
cut short because of meteorites pelting it.
The Shuttle program is down as per USA, but Russia and
maybe others have taken it up, all he saw was a Shuttle
type craft, back in the days when we were the only ones
who had this.
Now, nibiru doesn't play in the pictures he gets, because
it wasn't looked for.
What DOES play, is the sort of stuff it can cause.
Now, Dames says that RV is passive as compared to
the other team he implied exists, telekenesis and stuff
like that.
But it is only passive in the sense that it acquires information
withoiut intervening in any way. In fact it is quite active.
There is no passive receptive state involved.
Dowsing, which he gets into in his training courses
described online, is another matter. Dowsing uses the
human as an antenna and requires a degree of letting
something else operate through your fingers. This may
be nothing but your own mind reaching out and feeding
back information. this is the usual interpretation. But the
fact that any degree of passivity, of some segment of
your body doing some action other than directed that
is normally only done by conscious direction, is not cool.
This opens the door to spirit directed automatonism
like Ouija boards, where control is much more surrendered.
Sometimes, things like dowsing rods and planchettes
have been observed to move on their own, with far
greater strength than the light touching fingers could do,
which is another bad sign.
you don't want anything messing around in your body,
or your mind, but your own self. And though possession
may never occur, a presence, a spirit, a liar, a djinn can
get some foothold however temporary. And such contacts
once made may be hard to get rid of.
Immanuel Swedenborg once observed that all spirits would
lie if they had the opportunity. That in itself tells you that
what he thought were angels and spirits were demons.
There is an interesting bit of info I picked up online, someone
had apparently "worked with YHWH" I guess approached
Him like one would try to conjure up a spirit, or perhaps only
His angels. (and the story could have been a lie, or it could
have been clever demons mimicking what might be expected
of such contact, read on, or it could have been the operator's
own mind ditto.)
This person said he didn't like it, and was frustrated, because
when he had some angel on the line, so to speak, and he
asked it something, it would always have to check with
someone, presumably YHWH to get permission to answer.
And often the answer was that he was not allowed to tell
the information, or the operator wasn't supposed to get
that knowledge, or something like that. This honest
withholding of information instead of making stuff up and
coddling the ego and curiosity of the operator, makes me
suspect this may have been a real angelic contact. Demon
contacts (incl. those that are a case of "satan transforming
himself into an angel of light," which is 99.99% of New Age
angel and spirit guide stuff), always enhance the sense of
being special, having a glorious purpose, ruling over all,
evolving, ascending, elitism of one sort or another. By
contrast, the prophets of YHWH in the OT were not
happy about their job, and did not exalt themselves but
exalted YHWH. Neither did they exalt mankind as some
kind of god, the very core of The Fall, the original sin.
they did not tickle the ears of their hearers, and I think
it was Jeremiah whom God told to tell people about the
false prophets and false prophetesses of the pagan
and syncretistic cults among the Israelites, that they
prophesied out of their own hearts, and did not speak
the words of YHWH.
Isn't this prophesying out of one's heart what the New
Age advocates? beware. In Deuteronomy and elsewhere
we are warned not to "watlk in the imagination of your
hearts." The heart was the location of the mind, in popular
thought, feelings were located more in the liver and guts.
Justina
Monday, October 3, 2011
When This Started I Thought It Was Nothing Much
http://globalrumblings.blogspot.com/2011/09/nobody-can-predict-moment-of-revolution.html
This has been going on for a while now, maybe something good will come of it,
it is certainly going to spur individuals ignorant of everything to look closer,
when they see this in the news to some extent.
This has been going on for a while now, maybe something good will come of it,
it is certainly going to spur individuals ignorant of everything to look closer,
when they see this in the news to some extent.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)