| Vol. 1 No. 8 | Monday, September 8, 2008 |
Science and Nature - Philosophy and Politics - Mysteries and Puzzles
Music, Art and Poetry - Humor and Satire - Odds and Ends
by Michael Williams Well, the season is getting ready to change again, thrusting us toward another winter, my least favorite season. Here in Florida, Autumn isn't much to behold, as the leaves don't change all at once. In fact, I have three maples in my yard, two of which change (as well as bud in the Spring) simultaneously, while the other lags behind, year after year. So, if you northerners think about it, send me some pictures of those glorious swaths of autumnal colors you get up there, and I'll put it in the next newsletter! This issue isn't chock full of poetry and art like the last one, but there are some interesting new articles from fresh perspectives, as well as the usual fare. My many thanks to the contributors this week: Saint Groucho, Nunya Bizznazz, Thunderf00t, Tristimulus99, Catalyst, Dr. Dooevenless Primate, Pat Condell, Joe G, Kat, Talaus, and Clinton Mason. You all do awesome work! I'm still keeping an eye out for feedback on all the stuff these wonderful people have contributed, whether as writing or art or video, to the newsletter: you can send all feedback, of any kind and regarding anything related to this or past issues of the GMS Newsletter, to GnosisMysterion@cfl.rr.com. And a great big thank you goes out to all my readers, as well, without whom this publication would make little sense. Please keep reading and watching this space, even if you don't contribute! One request of my readers: please let me know if you come across any broken links or gross errors, as in editing this myself, I am liable to miss things. And without further ado, I'll let you get on with it...
| ||
by Saint Groucho (of Nazareth) Let us assume for a minute that the god christians believe exists is a reality... The story line exposes an offended and unforgiving god, stung by the wayward actions of his created human children, Adam and Eve. What a surprise it was for him to find them wearing the fig leaves in the garden that day. They really blew it for the whole human race by eating that 'apple'. So then we see that the entire human race becomes the property of some archdeceivers, and only by the old scapegoating scheme could man be ransomed from the clutch of the apostate rulers and fallen princes of the spheres. The plan was hatched and it required deity itself to descend and be scapegoated on the cross to atone for the racial guilt of mortal man, to provide some sort of effective approach to an otherwise offended and unforgiving god. The very son of this offended deity had to offer himself as a sacrifice to appease the wrath of god and to open the way for sinful man to obtain salvation. Now can we idealize a perfect god, a true and loving Father, the only concept which Jesus ever taught? Then if we do, we must abandon all those primitive notions about god as an offended monarch, a stern and all-powerful ruler whose chief delight is to detect his subjects in wrongdoing and to see that they are adequately punished, unless some being almost equal to himself should volunteer to suffer for them, to die as a substitute and in their stead. The whole idea of ransom and atonement is incompatible with the concept of god as it was taught and exemplified by Jesus of Nazareth. All this concept of atonement and sacrificial salvation is rooted and grounded in selfishness. Does a god even exist that could be satisfied with the childish scheme of substituting an innocent sufferer for a guilty offender? This entire idea of the ransom of the atonement places salvation upon a plane of unreality; such a concept is purely philosophical and hardly worthy of a god that desires its creation to love 'him' ...let alone, believe in him.
by Maps of War
by Nunya Bizznazz People have often asked me why I choose to run from the Christian faith. I find it an incredibly stupid question, given the history of that particular faith. Christians today have done NO research on their religious history. None. I say this because if they had done some research, they would not be Christians. Who would willingly partake of a religion that is known for murdering women and small children? Wait, I take that back, Muslims do. I hold the entire Christian religion in absolute horror and disgust. When I tell Christians of the monstrousities committed in their Gods' name, they are quick to respond with, "Wait!! That wasn't me! Those crimes were committed by other people. I didn't kill anybody." Maybe they haven't, but their religion incites murder and violence. It's not the Christians (sheep) themselves, it's the shepherd Buybull> that leads the way. How many verses can you find that order its' followers to kill all those who do not believe as they do? To bash babies against rocks? To stone people? Biblical scholar Raymond Schwager: "... has found 600 passages of explicit violence in the Hebrew Bible [a.k.a. Old Testament], 1000 verses where God's own violent actions of punishment are described, 100 passages where God expressly commands others to kill people, and several stories where God irrationally kills or tries to kill for no apparent reason. Violence ... is easily the most often mentioned activity in the Hebrew Bible." Is it any wonder then, that this religion is violence-based? In modern times, genocide is generally regarded as the most serious, reprehensible, horrifying and disgusting crime of which humans are capable. Those responsible are considered to be sub-human pariahs. Yet in the Buybull, there are at least 4 incidents of genocide, The Buybull explains that God was primarily responsible. They are: The worldwide flood at the time of Noah as described in Genesis, chapters 6 to 8. From the description, it almost completely wiped out the human race, with the exception of Noah, his wife and sons and their wives; The Passover incident described in Exodus chapters 11 and 12, in which all of the firstborn of all Egypt were slaughtered; The conquest of Canaan, in which God ordered the Hebrews to completely exterminate the Canaanite people -- from the elderly to newborns and fetuses. This is described throughout the book of Joshua; The near extermination of the entire tribe of Benjamin by the remaining 11 tribes, triggered by the serial rape and murder of a priest's concubine by a few Benjamites. See Judges, chapter 20. Throughout history, genocide has been the Christian religions' tool to wipe out entire races of people, simply because they did not belong to their religious set of beliefs. The genocide of America's native people was brought about by "good Christian people" who murdered to inhabit a land that their "God" ordained for them. Greed and religious intolerance proved the downfall for an entire race of people. And yet, this religion preaches "peace and love". There is a story that I would like to share with you. It is the story of the Sand Creek Massacre. Black Kettle was a peace-seeking chief of a band of some 600 Southern Cheyennes and Arapahos that followed the buffalo along the Arkansas River of Colorado and Kansas. They reported to Fort Lyon and then camped on Sand Creek about 40 miles north. This happened in 1864, early America. Black Kettle ever trusting raised both an American and a white flag of peace over his tepee. In response, Major Chivington raised his arm for an attack. Chivington wanted a victory, not prisoners, and so men, women and children were hunted down and shot. With cannons and rifles pounding them, the Indians scattered in panic. Then the crazed soldiers charged and killed anything that moved. A few warriors managed to fight back to allow some of the tribe to escape across the stream, including Black Kettle. The colonel was as thourough as he was heartless. An interpreter living in the village testified, "THEY WERE SCALPED, THEIR BRAINS KNOCKED OUT; THE MEN USED THEIR KNIVES, RIPPED OPEN WOMEN, CLUBBED LITTLE CHILDREN, KNOCKED THEM IN THE HEAD WITH THEIR RIFLE BUTTS, BEAT THEIR BRAINS OUT, MUTILATED THEIR BODIES IN EVERY SENSE OF THE WORD." By the end of the one-sided battle as many as 200 Indians, more than half women and children, had been killed and mutilated. What's amazing is that Major Chivington, leader of this massacre, happened to be a Protestant minister at one time. The wounded were carried to the nearest church to be treated. As they lay dying, a banner fluttered gently, "Peace and good will toward men" it said. This is only one instance of violence done in this country against others who stood outside the religious beliefs of Christianity. I am sure there are countless other instances. I simply cannot embrace the religion that has slaughtered so many others. Alot of people might say that I need to let it all go, but I choose to remember. How can you forget your ancestors being slaughtered in the name of the Christian God? How can you forget children of your people being kidnapped and sent far from home, where they are forced to give up their culture, traditions, language and religious beliefs upon pain of death by good "God-fearing folk"? Christians have long forced natives to accept THEIR faith upon pain of death. And not just in this country, but in countries all over the world. Go forth and make disciples of all nations and if they choose not to believe, kill them. Thou shalt not kill, unless the person you are killing does not believe in the Christian God. Honor your father and mother, unless your father and mother is not Christian, then you can kill them. Hate the game, not the player, I've heard people say. Hate the religion, not the ignorant people that choose to play "The game".
uploaded by Atheist Media BBC 2 documentary aired on Thursday, September 20, 2007 - "Beliefs, and believers, come in many shapes and sizes, and not all of them can be described as 'religious'. This program provides an introduction to a fascinating range of non-religious people and their beliefs."
| ||
by Michael Williams Ever been in a debate or discussion with someone and they counter your proposition by saying, "[X] can't be true, since there's no evidence for it"? Or they try to support their own claim by saying, "[X] must be true, since there is no other explanation"? I know I have, and it's frustrating for the rational person to be confronted with such bad reasoning. These are arguments from ignorance, or from a lack of imagination: the person thinks something is or is not true, as a matter of fact, simply because they cannot imagine it, one way or the other. As to the claim that something is not true because of a lack of evidence, there is an old saying, that "lack of evidence is not evidence of lack" - in other words, just because there is no evidence, its reality or existence is not automatically disproved. Hard atheists often make the claim that since there is no evidence for the existence of god, god does not exist, but this is simply not reasonable. As with most of our modern scientific marvels, we have discovered evidence of things we never knew existed, and have since been made able to apply that knowledge to the world and make it useful to some end or another. Even 500 years ago, no one would have believed we could fly to the moon, vaccinate against lethal infection or communicate with one another via computer over long distances - these things would have been called impossible, at the least, and perhaps even supernatural. On the other hand, regarding the claim that something must be true because there is no other explanation, the same rational rule holds sway: that a lack of evidentiary support does not rule out the reality or existence of a thing. The most classic argument of this kind is religious: "God must exist, since there is no other explanation for how the universe came to be." On the contrary, there are alternate explanations, some religious and some scientific, but one's bias has led one to more or less ignore the others, preferring one's own explanation for whatever reason, but most often out of ignorance. Creationists, for example, vehemently reject evolutionary theory because they 1) are biased in favor of their own explanation, upon which their belief system is usually based, and 2) are ignorant of the science behind evolutionary theory, and hence, distrust it. But in no way does this establish the fault or falsehood of the scientific explanation. Perhaps if creationists properly understood the scientific explanation, they would not be so quick to reject it. The creationist example above is actually indicative of an argument from personal incredulity, where a person argues from his or her beliefs or convictions, but the principle remains the same as for arguments from ignorance. Arguing from one's beliefs, and one's beliefs alone, constitutes a gross error in reasoning which relies on the bias of how one sees and understands the world. Not only is this completely subjective, but it tends to be preferential, which only exacerbates the rational individual's attempt to explain why and how it is wrong...comparable to trying to pry a meaty bone away from a ravenous dog, in this author's experience. Arguments of this kind tend to be rooted deep in the personal worldview, and are hard to eradicate apart from a paradigm shift. Whichever of these fallacies a person might choose to employ, they exemplify the same attempt to ignore basic epistemology, insomuch as they insist upon a fount of knowledge that comes from special revelation, or trust of some authority, and not through investigation and deduction. Claims and arguments from ignorance, whether clinical or personal, will tend to be based on either one's own personal preference, alone, or else sources will be garnered which seem to support one's own biases. Very often, burden of proof comes into play, so that instead of the claimant supporting his or her argument apart from incredulity or ignorance - and perhaps because the claim cannot be supported otherwise - the claimant will shift the burden of proof to the opposition, without having done more than make a claim. The easiest thing to do in this scenario is to shift the burden of proof right back, and explain why. Irving Copi, a professor of logic at several universities until 1990, said, "The argumentum ad ignorantiam [fallacy] is committed whenever it is argued that a proposition is true simply on the basis that it has not been proven false, or that it is false because it has not been proven true. A qualification should be made at this point. In some circumstances it can be safely assumed that if a certain event had occurred, evidence of it could be discovered by qualified investigators. In such circumstances it is perfectly reasonable to take the absence of proof of its occurrence despite searching, as positive evidence towards its non-occurrence" (Copi 1953). The sense is that, if it is possible to investigate and discover evidence relating to any given claim, and it has been investigated without the discovery of any evidence, it is reasonable to assume the claim is dubious, at best, since no evidence has been found to support it. Avoiding the argument from ignorance fallacy comes with a caveat: to ascertain a reasonable and appropriate level of necessary evidence to establish or demonstrate any given claim as true. Of necessity, this level will not be the same for all claims. For example, claims like "the sky is blue" and "water is wet" have a lower burder of proof level than, say, "Jesus was born of a virgin" or "9-11 was carried out by the US government," and one can easily appreciate why that is true unless one has lived one's whole life in a cave. There are some premises which, through long-standing social or scientific acceptance, are considered as being substantiated, or axiomatic: not proved or demonstrated, but presupposed as being true as either self-evident or subject to necessary decision. It is upon these axioms that all logical thought is based, if only as a matter of practicality, and so this should be kept in mind when confronting arguments from ignorance. To summarize, the argument from ignorance fallacy takes two forms, to wit: 1) that something has not yet been explained, or the explanation is insufficient or not understood, so it must be untrue and 2) that a lack of evidence for one claim establishes or supports the truth of another claim. The argument from personal incredulity is basically the claim that, because one cannot believe something, it cannot be true, and is this disbelief is often touted as evidence, in and of itself. Both logical fallacies share in common the false assumption that a lack of evidence for one claim or hypothesis validates the truth of another claim or hypothesis, and unreasonably shifts the burden of proof. Both can be avoided by establishing the level of necessary evidence for any given claim, considering the ability of qualified investigators to garner any such evidence and, if any, examining any evidence related to the claim, which will objectively focus the argument on the issues, and not one's personal feelings, convictions or beliefs. It sounds difficult, but like with developing any ability, practice is the key.
by Thunderf00t "Part of a series of videos exposing the funny stupidity of creationists and why they deserve to be laughed at. In each case the creationist statements are shown to be outrageously stupid by even the most rudimentary knowledge of science." This is the first 12, of 24 short videos...
| ||
by Michael Williams In 1953, James D. Watson and Francis Crick were the first to discover, using data scattered about several laboratories, the double-helix structure of DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid), and solved the mystery of just how genetic instructions were passed on from parents to offspring. The structure of DNA is key to it's function, insomuch as the complimentary base pairing of adenine with thymine and of guanine with cytosine allows for replication. DNA is a nucleic acid, composed of chains of nucleotides. Each nucleotide consists of the following bonded elements:
A completed nucleotide is expressed something like this:
by Tristimulus99
History of the Structure of DNA Animated Outline of DNA Structure Human Genome Project Information
Major Breakthrough In Cancer Research,
Creating Lung Cancer Risk Models For Gene may predict an individual's pair-bonding behavior Cracking enzyme code opens way to new cancer drugs
You Can Be Replaced: Immune Cells Compensate
Harvard Researchers Awarded Grant to Further How Plants Fine Tune Their Natural Chemical Defenses Potent Promise: Back to the Womb DNA databases blocked from the public
| ||
Author Unknown
by Michael Williams "Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves." Abraham Lincoln Freedom of speech is generally considered to be the freedom to express oneself through speaking, writing or symbols, without limitation or censorship, and is one of the primary concepts of the founding of the United States of America. This freedom has been challenged in recent decades, not only in America, but abroad, with regard to such things as intolerance and hate speech. Is there really a point at which we should declare speech unlawful because it offends someone? Where do we draw the line between upholding and violating freedom of speech? I strongly support freedom of speech, and believe all our struggles to attain that freedom for the masses (when it has not been mere pretense) have been necessary and noble, even to the point of martyrdom. At the same time, I also find myself highly opposed to bigotry and prejudice, which is often expressed through speech and writing. It may seem like a quandry, but it's not, since for everyone who has the freedom to speak or write what they want have a corresponding right to listen to or read what they want...it's really very intuitive, insomuch as the ability to speak, write, listen and read is very much within the sphere of individual power to do with how and when and where one desires. After all, I should think everyone would agree that someone being forced to listen to or read something would be exactly the opposite of freedom. Hate speech laws in America are exactly the kind of thing the Framers of the Constitution were trying to avoid with the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press". Telling someone their speech is hateful is one thing; penalizing them for it is something else altogether, and in this author's opinion, quite unConstituional. When we begin to limit or censor speech, of any kind, we are crossing a line which ought not be crossed, since in effect we are saying it is allowable when the Constitution says it is not. A very hot topic right now is criticism of Islamic Sharia law, since reports that Muslims have been trying to get governments worldwide to impose Sharia law on its Muslim citizens (at least with regard to civil matters), most notably in Canada1 and Britain1 2. But it seems that the issue itself is being inflated and sensationalized so that some think the Muslims are literally trying to take over governments around the world, and this is just not so (although some would argue "just not yet"). In Canada and Britain, Muslims are being given the same options Jews and Christians have enjoyed, by law, with regard to civil matters such as marriage, divorce and wills. In other words, some Muslims are looking for equal treatment under the law, namely the freedom to practice their preferred religious views. The problem seems to be that some people (this author included) do not like the fact that religious views from the seventh century are being considered to replace civilized secular laws for anyone, they have been vocal about it, and have subsequently had inroads made to shut them up by law! What an ironic twist to human rights, to censor criticism! Here's a video by Pat Condell, full of "disdain and contempt speech," but no hate speech, where he talks very eloquently about the real issue of our freedom of speech...at least to begin with...which he so aptly names "Islam's War on Freedom"...
As Pat says, freedom of speech is "sacred" among civilized people: it's not to be exchanged, given away or otherwise limited by political panderers, religious ranters or UN councils on human rights, and its erosion is not a good sign for civilized society. For my own part, I find this dependence on religious strictures to be the one "sacred cow" that we, as rational human beings, continue to allow, and that is fine, so long as no one is trying to silence the opposing opinions of those like Pat Condell and myself. Just as this freedom extends to me, I believe it ought to extend to everyone else in equal measure. This means that my disdain and contempt, as well as Pat Condell's, is as permissible as are their religious beliefs, in spite of any objective validity (which simply doesn't exist); expressing subjective opinions, whether they be religious or anti-religious, is what freedom of speech is all about, and anyone who disagrees with that...is allowed to do so. As much as I hate bigotry and prejudice, I have to admit that my stance against it only goes so far as to not listening to or reading it, as I believe people have the right to be prejudiced and bigoted, and to have the same freedom to express this that I have to oppose it. Even terrorists have the right, in my honest opinion, to think and believe whatever they choose, as well as to speak and write about it. Same goes for Westboro Baptist, the Klu Klux Clan, Black Power organizations, Zionists, anti-semitists, revisionists, and all like them, in my opinion. Doesn't mean that I have to listen to and read, much less agree with, their opinions.
by Catalyst and Dr. Dooevenless Primate One of the biggest calls to religion is morality. As if somehow the world would would be morally corrupt if not for the afterlife prison that different religions say, in their oh so many different ways, awaits us if we did not live up to the par set by them. One such afterlife prison we all know and love is HELL. Yes, hell. If you're an atheist/agnostic that is active in the religion and philosophy blog circuit you have probably been accosted by the idea of hell, or prayed for so your soul might be save... I have approached the topic of religion and morality a few times, but usually by addressing the bible's morality. Typically, such an argument just upsets Christians when I quote scriptures from their book and they just cry "out of context." What has always humored me about the "out of context" argument is they never explain to me the alleged context they would like to see it in, and they seem to be interpreting the bible under their own authority as they see fit. Ahem, *clears throat* the last time I checked talking about things like slavery, rape, and genocide denote a particularly fairly straight forward content. This only give rise to question if these actions can ever be justified. The one thing that the bible has going for it in this corner is the absolute qualities of the Christian god. "GOD did it" "God commands it" "I believe it and that settles it." God is the ultimate end all being and "who are you to question God? HIS ways are unbeknownst by you" and yeah, we know the rest. The buck both starts and stops with him. And really, how much can it be argued? If someone says they've seen or talked to this god, (not as uncommon as you might think) what can you say? Can you just dismiss it? No, not in my opinion. That is part of what I do here on the internet - I entertain people's claims. Let's put divine command to the test. I'm going to put a little twist on this blog though. Thanks to Modern Primate, we have a very peculiar moral model to work with here. Modern primate authored a blog not too long ago discussing this situation (I admit, the bloke has quite the sense of humor)... "Save the world from Modern Primate!!! Stop him before he kills again!!!" by Dr. Dooevenless PrimateAgain, I'd like to thank Modern Primate for this excellent, twisted but genius, moral riddle. My answer was this: "The problem with Bundy's statement is in his idea of freedom... 'I discovered that to become truly free, truly unfettered, I had to become truly uninhibited. And I quickly discovered that the greatest obstacle to my freedom, the greatest block and limitation to it, consists in the insupportable "value judgment" that I was bound to respect the rights of others.'He has become inhibited by his own personal contentions under the pretext that he will find his freedom by surrendering fashionable ideas of morality. In this sense he has become a slave to (or inhibited by) his will. His "inhibitions" along with his idea of freedom may have been completely illusory; therefore, not fitting withing the parameters of being "truly free" at all. This gives rise to the question of will. Is there any justifiable freedom within the will of a person? Or is the will comprised of as a mere compilation of the current modern contentions?" I also asked Modern Primate: "So, do you contend that divine command is the only answer?" His response was: "Just because I ask a question doesn't mean I have the answer. But I do contest the idea that religion is of no use and that a religionless society would be able to have any firm ground for its moral structure. As Hume points out, there's really never any firm ground for logic to stand on, and I use Bundy to point out the consequences of that. People, atheists in particular, like to think that you can have a rational basis for morality, but really you can't. You always have to start from some arbitrary, unsupportable position, and so far, religion has been the primary, if not the only place to start from. Is divine command the only answer? I don't know. Are the tenets of Buddhism "divine command"? Personally I can't think of any other source for morality, but I'm all ears if you can find one that's supportable.So we extend the riddle to you - AA's and the religious alike. Can you solve the riddle? Is divine command the answer? Why or why not?'The problem with Bundy's statement is in his idea of freedom.'I agree that that is a problem, but it's not fatal to the proposition. If I deleted the first sentence (and I wish I had), his argument is just as strong if not stronger. The crux of it is "why should I resist the pleasure I get from killing you as opposed to any other animal."'This gives rise to the question of will. Is there any justifiable freedom within the will of a person? Or is the will comprised of as a mere compilation of the current modern contentions?'One can of giant worms at a time! Is there even any "will" at all? Actually the question renders itself irrelevant as soon as you ask it. If there is, we can carry on with the current line of questioning, and if there isn't, it's a moot point. Have fun ;)
| ||
by Joe G. I hope you recall my initial skepticism which governed my investigation of this subject matter. These doubts were based on my limited exposure to any reasonable explanation which might give these ideas credence. When I found a philosophical precedent, it provided me with a foundation which allowed me to begin my investigation with a small degree of acceptance. This belief was and is the catalyst which opens the door to a myriad of incredible experiences. With this foundation in place, I was ready to begin the journey to understanding. Once I had established the philosophical principle of being connected to all of existence, I began an intensive reading schedule on a variety of related subjects. This led to a number of experiences which confirmed the validity of my newly acquired knowledge. One memorable experience took place prior to any formal instruction or development process. I was visiting a close friend who was, to say the least, even more skeptical than I was initially. We were having a pleasant conversation with an older couple who had dropped in. Their comments were making my friend and I laugh. Upon hearing my friends responses, I realized that we were not laughing at their comments, we were laughing at tangential ideas that resulted from the comment. This happened four times and I found myself thinking that for some unknown reason, we were on the same wavelength. So, I decided to try a little experiment. With my thoughts alone, I said to my friend, “Bill you can hear me?” There was no response. Once again, “Bill you can hear me?” Bill became somewhat ashen in appearance. He looked at me and said, “Don't get heavy with me.” It was quite obvious that he had heard me. Why was this attempt successful? It worked because there was absolutely no doubt in my mind that he was going to hear me. He had become an unwitting subject in an experience that was outside of his realm of understanding. Afterward, he tried to avoid talking about it. Once again, belief is everything. Shortly after this event, I decided to become actively involved in some type of developmental process. It happened to be a class to develop mediumship sponsored by a local spiritualist church. I was very hesitant, but it seemed to be the only opportunity I could find. It was, however, not what I had been searching for. I was primarily interested in some form of psychic development. The possibility of becoming a medium strained my new belief structure to its limits. I made myself a promise. I would quit as soon as I felt that someone was trying to fool me or that I might be fooling myself. The year was 1978 and I have been working at this developmental process without a break of any kind. As I became more and more involved with these classes, it quickly became apparent that the possibility of psychic and mediumship development was genuine. The developmental portion of the class was a learning circle. We would sit in a darkened room and observe the images in our minds eye. We would then attempt to interpret these images and give messages to the appropriate person. This was not an easy process at first. Many people would hold back for fear of being wrong. We were told to talk about the very first image we saw and that we would become more and more correct as our confidence increased. Once again, it became quite clear that this was indeed true. The perceived images included people who were deceased and their descriptions wee forwarded to the person receiving the message. There were some instances that were not correct. These instances became fewer and fewer as the classes proceeded. It was through these classes that I met individuals who would have the greatest impact on my beliefs and my development. The first person who was in he class in order to get certified as a medium through the National Spiritualist Association. She actually had no need for further development. She was seventy six years old and had been aware of her own abilities for over sixty years. She was one of the most kind and loving persons I have ever encountered. She introduced me to one of er friends who was capable of channeling spirits. I was invited to attend one of these sessions. I agreed to attend, but I was not entirely positive about proposed experience. It was during this first session that I met my Spirit Guide. A guide is one who assists you in all the various phases of development. They also provide a great degree of protection from undesirable experiences. For some reason, I was allowed to know the name of my guide. I am told that this is not the normal procedure. His name is Red Cloud of the Oglala Sioux. At this point, I should mention that the person channeling was from Argentina, spoke with a rather pronounced accent and had not been in the country for an extremely long time. For this reason, she would not be familiar with the early American history. The information given to me was verified by research at a local university. These included many historical events regarding the conflict between the Sioux nation and United States Government. Red Cloud’s first words to me were, “You are so white. I fought and killed the white man to protect my people. When I came to the other side, I learned to love all men.” The first session was filled with polite conversation and a myriad of questions which filled my mind. The second session was similar in content until the end. I was told that he wanted to speak to me alone. This was possible because the medium was completely unaware during these sessions. We set a date and time for the meeting and I looked forward to it with a great deal of curiosity. At this point, I was impressed, but not completely convinced. I needed substantial proof if I were to accept the validity of the experience. I did not have to wait long for this validation. The second session began with the usual greetings and some conversation intended to put me at ease. I guess it was very apparent that I was nervous and somewhat tense. He began, “ I am your spiritual father. There is nothing about you that I do not know.” Have you ever heard of the idea that we all present an image to the world and then there is the real person who only we know about? This person is one's true self and is cautiously guarded by one's ego. He then proceeded to create an extensive list of the qualities that were mine. As mentioned, only I was aware of these attributes. Some were positive and others were not. He then proceeded to tell me how some would help me in my growth and how others might stand in my way. he explained the true spiritual growth comes from within us. It is the true measure of our own efforts and continues throughout our lives. It was one of the most valuable lessons of my life. The task set before us is not an easy one. Facing our true self and creating true spiritual growth is the constant battle to overcome and discard those qualities which are negative. The second instance which solidified by belief occurred within a short time. I managed to acquire a herniated disc. I found that I could only stand for about five minutes without having extreme pain in my back and left leg. This continued without relief. I experienced a severely painful episode while driving. Pulling to the side of the road was my first action. The next move was to find the woman who helped me meet Red Cloud. I received a healing by means of an energy transfer. This took place in the late afternoon. During the following morning my wife and children left to shop. I found myself on the floor of the family room writhing in severe pain. Within about five days, the symptoms began to subside. They disappeared in about two weeks. I believe that the nerve impulses were once again traveling down my leg. This caused a spasm and the subsequent pain. This second event, combined with many other experiences, convinced me to eliminate any further doubts. I assume that there are may of you who doubt what I have just related. There must be some way to verify this phenomena with a much more clinical method. Can a scientific approach verify the validity for this type of communication. If you follow this link, you can access the research method employed by the Veritas Research Program conducted at the University of Arizona. It is a triple blind experiment with very positive results. Why is the dissemination of these events so important to those of us who have been involved. We have seen the good that can be accomplished with the incorporation of this knowledge into our daily lives. There are many individuals who wish to make contact with us. The resulting contact can result with a true understanding that we do survive beyond death of the physical body. Beyond that, there is incredible benefits of contact beings who are far more spiritually advanced than ourselves. The one true purpose of this contact is to fulfill their desire to be of service to all of mankind. With their assistance, we have the opportunity to learn and grow to the greatest degree possible.
There are 7 bums on an otherwise empty ship. How many legs are there on the ship?
Answer:
email me at GnosisMysterion@cfl.rr.com.
| ||
by Kat (May 5, 2008)
A FRIEND ACCEPTS YOU AS YOU ARE AND BELIEVES IN YOU.
by Michael Williams Can you see the FSM coming out from behind the planet? He just showed up!
by Talaus Brae
These voices that are screaming in my head,
Hear me scream,
These voices that are screaming in my head.
Cut out the pain,
Raise your hands in the air,
Dance with the devil,
Hear the laughter,
These voices that are screaming in my head.
Wear your guilt like a ribbon.
Now don't feel sorry for me.
Pay the piper,
All must pay,
These voices that are screaming in my head.
Feel my pain,
Sanity and life,
These voices that are screaming in my head.
by Clinton Mason
| 
from Joke Warehouse "Aim towards the Enemy." - Instruction printed on U.S. Rocket Launcher
| 
For those who use the chatrooms on MySpace, you might be interested in a client program written by JasonPro, which has several perks, including an ignore feature (so you can get rid of those pesky flooders!) and the ability to join new rooms without closing the client. You can download it at The MSPC2 Project. You will need Microsoft .NET Framework in order to use this program, which you can download at Microsoft. The newest version is now available.
"Cell Phones for Soldiers was founded by teenagers Robbie and Brittany Bergquist from Norwell, Mass., with $21 of their own money. Since then, the registered 501c3 non-profit organization has raised almost $1 million in donations and distributed more than 400,000 prepaid calling cards to soldiers serving overseas." The envelopes/labels are postage-paid, although you can also pay for your own postage, thus saving them that expense. For more information on donating a cell phone, click here.
|
Questions, comments or suggestions? Email GnosisMysterion@cfl.rr.com.
All contributions to the GMS Newsletter remain the sole property of the creators,
with all rights and privileges. (Submission Rules)
All other content © 2008 The Gnosis Mysterion Society.