I got a strange sort of amusement this past week as I read several different and independent online articles about employment. These were mostly lists and rankings, with short captions, detailing job prospects for the immediate future. Some of them talked about which fields are doing lots of hiring and which are not, others were more concerned with the college majors to take or avoid given the current job market outlook. Notably all of these articles included the “liberal arts” and especially philosophy, at the top of their “don’t waste your time” lists.
As a philosopher, or lover of wisdom, by birth and by training, I’m sure you can understand the paradoxical nature of my emotions at the time. On the one hand, this is what every philosopher would expect such a list to say, as a Truth-seeker of any merit learns early on not to rely on a weekly paycheck to survive. In a practical world, and on a ship where everybody is expected to just shut up and row, nobody – especially the Captains and owners of those ships – wants to hear arguments about the best way to row, or whether or not people should bother rowing at all. Indeed, on this giant ship of fools, comprised largely of herd animals predictable and easily startled, such a questioner and thinker can even be seen as dangerous.
These job outlook articles thereby amused me in that their conclusions were exactly what I would expect, especially given the state of my current society. I chuckle to myself even thinking about it again now, if in a slightly malicious, black comedy, or “see what you get!” sort of way. Nothing has so ruined the world as its decision-makers failing to heed the advice of reason. Constant warring is proof of continued not only bad but murderous and irresponsible decisions, spats among the too rich and too powerful fought by the too poor and the too young. It is precisely the lack of practical philosophy, or philosophy applied to life, that is the primary reason for our sorry state, and realizing this I am sorry but I can’t but help to laugh. You get what you pay for, as the story goes, or as Richard Pryor once said as the Chinese waiter “You order shit, you eat shit!”
When specialists are rewarded for in-depth knowledge of one single thing and one single area of expertise – outside of which many become useless and lost invalids – the value of those whose goal it is to learn and master at least a little about as much as possible, to be a jack-of-all-theoretical-trades so to speak, is considered negligible. “Free thought” itself has been, and remains, often seen as threatening to the existing order of things, and when how to think and what to think is for the most part controlled by the media and the public “education”, as is the case today, philosopher-types – these free thinkers – become looked at as useless, or worse, as usurpers. They say philosophers and free thinkers, “sticklers” for reason and rationality (I laugh again…) get in the way.
After we get over the inside joke(s) we will admit this estimation is somewhat correct. Philosophy is by design and intent a meta-discipline in that it serves as a “check” on the prodigal scientific and ethical systems once borne of its loins. Because it is a critic of not only science and morality, but also history, politics, art, and religion, philosophy has always been considered, by those outside the field, as a consistent and real threat to all these other areas of expertise. Lovers of wisdom have been trained to think critically and logically, and to cull from all modes of understanding, from all sources of information, whatever Truth they have to offer. Informed not only by logic but also an above-average knowledge of history, real philosophers have all the tools to expose many of Man’s follies from multiple perspectives. It was this questioning and criticism that really got Socrates executed.
On the other hand, articles such as these make me sick, I mean literally, as hearing this one-sided homage to human utility gives me a sort of nauseous feeling in the pit of my stomach, just below my rib cage, in the area of the solar plexus. They make me nauseated because, while
these reports are ostensibly true in that there are not many Want Ads for philosophers, there is little to no corresponding protest about, or ever even any mention as to those many ways philosophy, or for that matter any of the “liberal arts” (a very bad name) just might be useful, or even necessary to a healthy society.
Maybe it is true that philosophy should not be a paid position, after all, under the assumption that philosophers must remain objective, as politicians and judges should not be on any payroll for the same reason, when doing the job of politician or judge. Representing only one side of a debate, or having an axe to grind, is the field of the Sophist, or as we call them today, attorneys, who can and will argue for whichever position or side they are being paid to represent.
As many philosophers have said, and proven by their works and lives, philosophy makes one able and ready to do nearly any job. Authentic philosophers, real lovers of wisdom, not necessarily those who merely spent eight or more years in college, have the intellectual capacity, research abilities, and critical thinking tools to get even the most difficult jobs done. You can hire a freshly minted oh, account executive, or marketing team member, or personal assistant, or editor, trained for those specific tasks but, as the turnover rate shows, that doesn’t necessarily mean you have hired a good employee, or even someone who can do the best job. You could also, however, hire a philosopher for any of those positions, and with a little bit of the specific training necessary to do that job, the real philosopher should be able to master the position in short time. Whatever you make, whatever you do, once the method and product are understood by the philosopher, he or she can improve it, and in fact, will be led by the mind to do so whether intending to or not.
But this is not a treatise meant only to defend the usefulness of philosophy. The present chapter will also, hopefully, demonstrate to you that the contemporary disregard of the wisdom-lover has much to do with the comparative disregard of ultimate Truth. The modern day more or less shunning of the real philosophers – now, likely through extreme disappointment to the point of heartbreak, on the brink of extinction (squeezed out by the competition, so to speak) – combined with the removal of religious and ethical discussions from all important public aspects of society, are the main reasons contemporary powers have gotten away with placing Science on the idol pedestal. They have by their actions driven the philosophers into isolation, as with the torch-wielding mob to Frankenstein’s monster.
When this happens who will challenge the experts? When the accused and his jury are from the same mob, who will notice the difficulty? Moreover, who will have the perception to see the problem, the logic to reason why the problem exists, and the courage and creativity to present the criticism?
The Big Bang theory, Macroevolution, conjecture about dating methods, DNA, many of the scientific theories we have been discussing, are today, as we have said many times, treated as deities, like idols and the “graven images” of yore. If things proceed in the direction they are going soon no one will be left to challenge this new idolatry, no “heretics” to deny the divinity of these frequently grotesque man-made totems and fetishes. It is as if a conscious conspiracy exists, instigated perhaps by Science to make sure no outside critics can be heard. They would rather the people not be told that those scientific theories with the most impact on their lives are at best unproven and at worst crackpot; they probably would rather we not mention facts like scientists, and most of those with a name preceded by “Dr.”, do the least physical work of all, but draw salaries among the highest.
True criticism, by which I mean evaluation, assessment of worth, judgment, and so on, must come from something outside, that is, the criticizing subject must logically be separate from the criticized object or issue under consideration. Otherwise, like that trial of a criminal with his brother as judge, or like a government investigation conducted by members of government, or like those associated with NASA being asked to evaluate the space program, or like military brass and arms dealers asked to say what they think about foreign policy – or like in fact any criticism by those with a stake or personal interest in the result, and those seeking certain specific outcomes – the experiments and investigations wind up biased at best, manipulative and conspiratorial at worst.
If there were no philosophers, no critics of society from outside allowed to be heard, then all change in ways of thinking, and estimations of value and worth, would have to come from the inside, so to speak. Theories that support or challenge the validity of, for example, macroevolution, will then have to come from the macroevolutionists themselves, or a very related field, which would make any scientific revolution necessarily inbred.
An analog can be found in the famous – or infamous – political conspiracy theories, like those about the JFK assassination, an obvious collaboration, or the 9-11 Twin Towers, obvious controlled demolitions. When the “official” stories about, and causes of, these events are questioned by independent investigators, the resulting discrepancies are addressed, bafflingly, by “Committees” composed of people from the very same groups and agencies alleged to be involved in the conspiracies. So, let’s say you get robbed, and in seeking justice, the only people you can appeal to are all friends of the robber. This is where we are heading, regarding not only justice, but regarding what is beautiful, what is good, what is right, what is fair, and for our purposes here, what is true.
I cannot stress this enough. Already today those who do not agree with “Scientific Consensus” on this or that issue are considered to be charlatans, troublemakers, ignorant, or heretics, and too often this name-calling is the entire body of evidence against the disagreement. Science is the new religion. The only thing that stops this New Scholasticism from being Universal Law are the records of history, which themselves are being rewritten as we speak , ostensibly to accommodate the modern – and coming – agendas.
For one nice, controversial example of conspiracy regarding history, there is that “Holocaust” situation, beloved by academia and Hollywood alike. When I grew up, it was presumed and taught to me that Hitler and the Nazi party were examples of all that is evil in the world. I was told the “accepted” United States Of America version of the story, a story that is continuing to be revised to this day. I was told that for no reason whatsoever these bad guys led by a fiery dude with a narrow mustache started rounding up Jewish people and executing them, mostly in gas chambers and ovens, until the Allies came in their white shining armor to rescue the world from the Nazi scourge.
This all changed for me during a graduate seminar in, well, philosophy, and continues to this day, after much travel abroad and reading more history.
Let me tell you a story from my graduate student days. My Jewish professor, who must have seen a picture of Freud as a child, because he fit every “professor” stereotype one could think of – he walked and talked slowly, grew his grey beard, smoked a pipe, talked slowly in monotone, etc. – made the mistake of repeating a phrase I have grown to loathe, and that is the “We Are All Responsible for the Holocaust” mantra, that cretinous slander claiming even those who weren’t involved, or even alive at the time, still bear some responsibility for whatever it was that really happened to the Jews during WWII. If such a “you are in denial” impossible to falsify statement such as this does not make you angry you are either ignorant or one of the chanters of that mantra.
So I started getting angry, even angrier when he insisted, in front of the class, that we are not only responsible, but that we all owe the Jews for what happened. I couldn’t take it any more at that point. Because he was talking to everyone in the class, I challenged him in front of the class. I told him my father, like many non-Jew immigrants, came to this country in poverty, and had to work his tail off with physical labor to make something of himself, never harmed a Jew, and I added, had to even earn the right to become a citizen. I pointed to all the people in the room, and told him how these students were not even alive then, and so could not have done anything to the Jews. I insisted, matching his own obvious vehemence, that people are not responsible for the sins of their fathers, in any case.
We debated at least 20 minutes past the end of class time, and not one person in the room left early. It only ended when another seminar was scheduled to use the room, and its students began coming in about half an hour later. He asked that I meet him in his office, when he more or less tried to strong-arm me into changing majors, saying I really didn’t want to do philosophy, and this all because I challenged his mantra.
I refer to this story because since that time I have been spurned to do more research into the actual events preceding World War II, and the treatment of the Jews by the Nazis at that time, and the reasons for the German enmity toward the Jews. I came upon many “facts” unknown and at first strange to me, like the Jewish declaration of war on Germany years before Hitler came to power. I learned about what the Jewish Bolsheviks did in and to Russia, [see bad rebuttal view here] and the Russian-Jew plan under the regime of Trotsky, Lenin, and the rest, to systematically rape millions of German women. I learned about Eisenhower starving thousands of Germans, the imprisonment of American Japanese, and the horrid, inhumane treatment of post-war Germans, by Slavs and Poles, and the thousands of German women raped by the these and other liberated states. Yes, I had heard in school similar things about the Nazis, the bad guys, but not that such things could possibly be true of the good guy Allies.
So I needed some more background, I needed to dig even more into the unpleasant history of the situation. Obvious from the beginning was an important fact never presented to me in school, it being that before the Jews declared war on Germany and began boycotting German goods and services they were an accepted, happy, and thriving part of every community.
After hearing about the Balfour Declaration, as conniving and deceptive as any antic in the history of an already and continuously corrupt politics, I was led by this revelation to read some of the Talmud and the Jewish Encyclopedia, and not only the book but the history concerning the Diary of Anne Frank. I found out about what was going on in Poland before Hitler’s “unprovoked” invasion, how Germany was treated after World War I, and the Jewish/Zionist banking cartels still alive today (The Zion Mafia), with origins in Germany, and who got really upset when Hitler divorced himself and his nation from their banks and began printing his own carefully controlled money:
When Hitler came to power, Germany was hopelessly broke. The Treaty of Versailles had imposed crushing reparations on the German people, demanding that Germans repay every nation’s costs of the war. These costs totaled three times the value of all the property in Germany. Private currency speculators caused the German mark to plummet, precipitating one of the worst runaway inflations in modern times. A wheelbarrow full of 100 billion-mark banknotes could not buy a loaf of bread. The national treasury was empty. Countless homes and farms were lost to speculators and to private banks. Germans lived in hovels. They were starving.
Nothing like this had ever happened before – the total destruction of the national currency, plus the wiping out of people’s savings and businesses. On top of this came a global depression. Germany had no choice but to succumb to debt slavery under international bankers until 1933, when the National Socialists came to power.
At that point the German government thwarted the international banking cartels by issuing its own money. World Jewry responded by declaring a global boycott against Germany. Hitler began a national credit program
by devising a plan of public works that included flood control, repair of public buildings and private residences, and construction of new roads, bridges, canals, and port facilities. All these were paid for with money that no longer came from the private international bankers.
The projected cost of these various programs was fixed at one billion units of the national currency. To pay for this, the German government (not the international bankers) issued bills of exchange, called Labor Treasury Certificates. In this way the National Socialists put millions of people to work, and paid them with Treasury Certificates. Under the National Socialists, Germany’s money wasn’t backed by gold (which was owned by the international bankers). It was essentially a receipt for labor and materials delivered to the government. Hitler said, “For every mark issued, we required the equivalent of a mark’s worth of work done, or goods produced.” The government paid workers in Certificates. Workers spent those Certificates on other goods and services, thus creating more jobs for more people. In this way the German people climbed out of the crushing debt imposed on them by the international bankers.
Within two years, the unemployment problem had been solved, and Germany was back on its feet. It had a solid, stable currency, with no debt, and no inflation, at a time when millions of people in the United States and other Western countries (controlled by international bankers) were still out of work. Within five years, Germany went from the poorest nation in Europe to the richest. Germany even managed to restore foreign trade, despite the international bankers’ denial of foreign credit to Germany, and despite the global boycott by Jewish-owned industries. Germany succeeded in this by exchanging equipment and commodities directly with other countries, using a barter system that cut the bankers out of the picture. Germany flourished, since barter eliminates national debt and trade deficits. [source]
I found out, too that what were previously numbered as several million dead at the nazi prison camp at Auschwitz has now been changed by the curators of the museum with that name by millions of lives, with no corresponding change in the total reported World War II dead. I also read that, by some estimations, the alleged number of reported deceased Jews in WW II actually exceeded the amount of Jews living in Europe at the time, and that many whole populations, like all Hungarians and all Polish or Czechs, were counted as Jewish casualties, and others counted twice, as both dead Jews and dead Poles and Czechs and Hungarians, also artificially inflating the numbers.
As what I thought I knew about this Holocaust became murkier and murkier beneath the myriad of discrepancies and contradictions, I had to continue to research, hoping to separate the facts from the fantasies. I ended up reading about how the Nuremberg trials were conducted with total disregard of all prior protocols of war, and learned that they were presided over by the image of the Star of David, prosecuted by mostly Jews, and that the bulk of the evidence against the accused was based on a lot of false, forced or forged testimony. I discovered that at the same time all this was going on, post-war Eastern Europeans were hanging and shooting ethnic Germans in the streets, raping thousands of German women and children, stealing German goods and possessions, destroying German businesses, and making millions of Germanic people homeless through exile.
Never mind that I also came upon the aspect of this conspiracy theory that claims there may never have been any gas chambers at all meant for the killing of human beings, despite the sworn affidavits of people who claim to have escaped it – strangely, sometimes even numerous times. This, I hear, from thousands of alleged “survivors” who, were they actually to be killed as the alleged program claims, would probably not be here to tell their stories.
Most disturbing of all, perhaps because it is to me the most likely true claim of all Holocaust Revisionist theory, I learned the German prison camps were run like most wartime prison camps until Allied forces, inhumanely and without regard for the obvious consequences, cut off the supplies of food and medicine to and throughout Germany.
I have been led to wonder why we hear about the millions of Jews at a daily rate (“never forget”…), but never about those perhaps even more millions of massacred Russians and Germans, or for that matter the fallen enemies of the Khmer Rouge, both of which did not have the benefit of their spokespersons having tons of banker cash, and financial and media influence.
It is one thing to imprison and kill an enemy, real or imagined, in times of war. It is something else – to me inexcusable horror and the work of cowards with strength only in numbers – to round up and mutilate innocent people when the war is over. It is like getting beat up in a fight you picked, then returning later with a dozen men to help you get even with the person who put you in your place.
I’ve even been exposed to theories citing a Zionist kabal, allegedly present in education, Hollywood and the media, entertainment, politics, banking and economics, insurance, NASA, the Department of Homeland Security, and all the biggest of businesses in the world. If this all sounds too sweeping or even crazy to you, then you need to really see who is in charge at all these institutions.
Just as it is not racist to notice over 75% of basketball players are black, or hockey players white, citing a fact such as over half of all the largest corporations and richest people in the world are of a Jewish background is not hateful because it is a fact. It is strange but telling that this stronghold on business and finance, which should be considered something of an accomplishment, and even a sort of proof of the “chosen” nature of those of Jewish heritage, is so often denied, and even criticized as that impossible thing called “hate speech”.
Now, having said all this, exactly what’s true and what’s false about the Zionist history the monkey boy Professor initially drove me to investigate further is still an open question. My only intended point here, in relating the “other side” of the Holocaust issue – this conspiracy about the treatment of the Jews during the war – is that the history being taught just might not be the true history. Much “accepted” history, especially about issues of large financial and societal concern, or a particular presentation of which is important for generating a desired image, are just snapshots of the whole scene, presentations of pictures and angles that best produce the desired portrayal. Russians and Germans, even the French, for instance, have a different view of WWII, and tell a different tale than that usually told by the British and Americans.
Continuing our example here of the truth about the history of the Holocaust, what is a known, and another disturbing fact, is that revisionists and other people who question the established history are not only excommunicated from the Church of Standing History, fair enough, but in some unfathomable cases are even prosecuted by law and put in prison for merely challenging the accepted version of events. Mainstream publishing will not even consider any re-investigation of this holocaust history, it is the story and by God [sic.] they are sticking by it. If this is not EXACTLY the same type of injustice experienced by scientists, philosophers, and mystics during the reign of crazed religious zealotry and Crusades, I don’t know what is.
Like the standing sciences of the laughable Evolution and The Big Bang, which are accepted as facts, there is a standing or “accepted by scholars” history, and it is a selective and incomplete history,
with many pieces being phased out – and others added in – as time moves along. This too is a handicap to discovering the origin of Man. Like The Big Bang and Evolution, the lack of proof and false premises behind much interpretation of recorded history does not thereby stop these opinions from being considered, and treated as, being Truth, with inaccuracies and omissions intact, monopolizing education and the media, and without the use of asterisks. Just like in the olden days, when there was not much popular protest about the beheading, burning, or stoning of heretics, the masses have also today been indoctrinated into a whole mess of lies and self-serving scheming they are force-fed to believe as Truth, and so frequent and prevalent are the behavior modifications established by this programming that protests against such speculation are unsurprisingly few and far between.
Never mind the obvious clues that should reveal to any thinking mind the hypocrisy and misinterpretations we blindly ignore, for example, that it is un-Christian to kill even a non-Christian according to the very books on which Christianity based, and for a Christian to seek revenge on enemies; or that the Land Of The Free ought not imprison more of a percentage of its own citizens than any other country on the globe; or that something is wrong when individuals can be worth more than nations and when nations must borrow from what can only be higher powers; or when immaterially-existing, that is non-real corporations (and for that matter animals and robots) are given the status of personhood.
In times like these, as it was in the days of the stonings, people rarely bother to investigate the issues to any depth. Rather today, as then, about History, Science, Ethics, and so on, even the best, the people who consider themselves knowledgeable, instead rely on the opinions of those in authority to determine what they should believe and do.
Those in power like it that way. In our recent history, it has largely been the pragmatic practical philosophy of John Dewey and behaviorist psychology popularized by Skinner and Watson that are most responsible for this style of education that emphasizes practical use over the search for Truth. Rather than teach people to think, this system teaches them just enough to know how to regurgitate and follow instructions. It preaches free thinking, but only so long as that thinking is in line with the majority opinion. The goal of this public education and media programming is not to make a person wise, but to train him like a Pavlovian dog to do certain tasks – at the bell. Truth becomes no longer eternal fact, but rather amenable pragmatic postulates determined by democratic process, and sometimes, in conventions and think tanks, literally by a show of hands.
Our search has so far already exposed us to the extent of bad evidence given just in attempt to answer for this one question, the origin of Man. Certainly at points we, more correctly I, have surely been mistaken. Nevertheless, we have found NO legitimate evidence for Evolution. We have found so far NO legitimate evidence for the Big Bang Theory. The more we question, the more we encounter resistance, and this resistance is not necessarily from the theorists themselves. The resistance to criticism levied against the predominant accepted standards in history and science come really from the public, your neighbor, the layman. Even the one who considers himself educated on your block or street is likely a parrot of faith, hardly ever one who has actually investigated the source of his beliefs. When it comes to modern-day oppression, it does not come just from the powers-that-be. It comes from your neighbor and fellow citizen, brainwashed by the dictates of his authorities.
These common men, laymen of blind faith, or bad faith, perhaps through no conscious fault of their own, are the real obstacles to true progress and the Truth. No oppressive regime can last without a squadron of buffoons doing its bidding and repeating its mantras. In the same way the military drums orders and obedience into the heads of recruits, a modern society and its scientists know many behavioral, subliminal, hypnotic, and other psychological tricks to advertise, and make appealing, whatever idea or product they want to sell you.
Say, for example, you are one of those who think America, or your own country, is in bad shape, and that the best bet would be for you to divorce yourself from your government. Such a dismissal of the sitting leaders is allowed by the American Constitution, and was actually endorsed and encouraged by the founding fathers. This possibility of a revolution of any scale or means, in any developed nation is, however, highly unlikely
these days for several reasons. Over half of the people in this country, and in really the entire Western world, rely in some way on a government check, subsidy, pension, loan, disability payment, or similar. Add these dependencies in to the weekly, bi-weekly, or monthly checks already expected by those working for, and so on the government payrolls, plus money to pay workers associated with those jobs not directly paid by taxpayers but whose employers depend on government contracts, and an argument can be made that we are nearing a complete communism, or at least socialism, where everyone is dependent on the government, and everyone therefore a ward of the state. Given this scenario, would you expect any of these dogs to bite the hand that feeds them? Do you think your neighbor is willing to give up his stipend in favor of rebellion, or a revolution?
It has been said, by I think a fellow name Walt Kelly “I found the enemy, and he is us”. As we’ve searched for the origin of Man, we have encountered the most common theories and found them wanting. In the mean time we have been doing what I will call the Philosophy Of The Origin Of Man, and that is a loving pursuit in attempt to detect Mankind’s origin. This Philosophy ideally should be unbiased, and take into account all, or most of the existing theories about the origin of Man.
We have done this, to some extent, and while an ideal study would be impartial, I plead guilty to pronouncing judgment when necessary. Philosophers like Richard McKeon, polymaths and without many peers as far as depth of knowledge goes, represent for me modern-style philosophers long on information and short on evaluation. They are useful in that they can tell you all the existing alternatives for any issue, but the fact that they more or less remain silent when it comes time to choose makes them all but useless. Some of us already know the alternatives, what we want to learn is the BEST, or the best way, and for what reasons it is best. I don’t have a problem finding out the alternatives, I have a problem which to choose, and that is the advice I seek from my life tutors. It is in this spirit that our Philosophy Of The Origin Of Man has progressed, and it is how it will continue. I will not keep you hanging, at least as to what I currently believe.
To recap, we have thus far sought Man’s origins in archaeology, anthropology, biology, historical dating, language, various religions, and several alternative theories. In my opinion, something like an idea of God, and a corresponding eternal type of Truth, are ontological and ethical necessities. Call this force a demiurge, logos, Allah, deity, Buddha, Krishna, gods, High Spirit, Ra, Mother Nature, whatever you like. The evidence of design, varied and marvelous as it is, I am convinced necessitates a plan, presumes a plan, and a plan necessitates a planner. This Planner has been named, and you can call, God. Far from what mental midgets like Richard Dawkins concluded, I see the same evidence and think God, whatever name you choose to give this Creator, a better and more sensible alternative.
This does not mean one need be a proponent of any particular religious creed, as my opinion right now is EVERY ONE OF THEM is incomplete, and in a word, somehow wrong. But, as that “useless philosopher” Aldous Huxley once did, if you look deep enough into each separate religion you will find common elements that show men how, and the best ways, to live in this world and with each other. There is, the way I see it, no difference between a pious catholic and a devout Muslim, sincere Baptist or righteous Hindu. Take away their particular smells and clothing and skin colors and languages and they are all the same, pious, righteous, or simply good men and women.
There is also a right way to act, evidenced by the heroic deeds of great men all throughout history, most of whom acted as if under the eyes, if not power, of their Maker. But while I believe in what you may call God, for me what a person believes means very little. For me, as I have said already, what a person does is what matters. Physically, morally, even scientifically, every movement and action physical and mental that you perform makes a disturbance in space and is what matters. Between genocide and feeding the hungry, there is no difference outside of action.
What is it you do? That is what you are. What good does it do to say you are a happy person, then cry or complain at every moment? Call yourself an optimist, then always expect the worst? Say you love your significant
others, but then treat them worse than strangers? Or for that matter, what good does it do to say you are a peaceful nation, and then proceed to war or stir up war every single day? Talk about how you have no money…and then proceed to waste more on galas, banquets, and further wars and caskets? Criticize certain wartime actions, then perpetrate worse crimes in supposed times of peace?
Verily, you are what you do, and by what you do, you will finally be judged. Your every move, expressed emotion, and spoken word makes an impression and has consequences, and I dare say is being recorded. The consequences of these actions and ideations good or bad should not be seen as attributable to God directly, and are little more than the way the world operates, and is really let’s say a scientific proposition, like the old logos. The result of our actions are determined by a need for balance, and rather than from God what we endure is determined by our own accrued imbalances. Recall our section and discussion about “negative space” and the like a few chapters ago.
Some of the rabid atheistic ilk like to spew on about how “The God Idea” stifles science and research. Considering that no problems of science or life change merely by the acknowledgment of God’s existence, these seem to me to be the mutterings of idiots.
Truthopia 