October 26, 2007
Who or what is Satan? Religions have been very concerned about this stereotype of evil, in such a way that they have come to consider it – don’t call me profane, please – at the same level they consider God. Well, if not at the same level at least at the same level in nether regions of spiritualism, an antagonistic force to God’s.
Religions have considered Satan the antithesis of everything godly because they have found they had to have an entity whom to blame for what allegedly is anti-God attitudes, something so imposing that the human beings should be careful not to be drawn by in their way towards God.
Actions and reactions.
In my opinion God and Demon have been meant to be two components of our spiritual being. The one against the other has been exploited for centuries by those who have also exploited us to achieve their goals in our world. Why have they been used almost in all cases when our attitudes have been worth of spiritual study?
If we dare to fall in the Demon’s hands, then we will be entirely against God. But if we reflect on these doctrines we were taught in our early years, we may arrive at the conclusion that the Demon- Satan – was “instituted” to make us fear his influence and definitely dedicate ourselves to the God’s cause.
Does Satan exist? Does God exist?
Well perhaps if we ponder over the two concepts we may conclude they both exist, at least spiritually. I mean inside our spirits, inside our innermost beings. Not that I am being influenced by religions, but because I am convinced that ethics or morals have a remotest origin derived from the successive centuries of coexistence we, mortal beings, have been given to live.
That this was imbued into our minds by a God is something nobody can prove, but along the years many have tried to convince us that God exists and the Devil exists.
It is very simple: If we want to obtain God’s approval then we must reject Satan’s influence.
October 23, 2007
This is copypasted from Richard’s forum http://gatwickcity.phpbb3now.com/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=148&p=859#p859 because I felt I could use your wise thoughts in trying to find out what our spirits are.
Spirit? What is spirit? Can we consider spirit the innermost arcane in the human being which conditions our so-called heartfelt behaviour? Is it really mysterious or is there any explanation to give about the spirit?
If blood does not circulate in our brains it seems our spirit suspends its activity. I say it seems because nobody so far – correct me if I am wrong – has established as a fact that the blood has nothing to do with the functioning of our brain, in fact a simple, minute clot can do the task of suppressing any neural feelings in our body, whilst we are not sure whether the spirit goes on “working”.
So must we consider that that spirit is in fact a condition inherent to the human anatomy related to the blood stream and the complicated system of veins and arteries that is a fundamental part of our organism?
One other aspect to be considered is that human being born with unusual impediments, such as Down Syndrome individuals, impediments that the Science has not been able to find a solution to. Are these human beings born with the same type of spirit we are born with?
And what about what education, breeding does to the human being as far as the spirit is concerned? Why are we not all equal in that connection? Are we born all equal, generally speaking, and our behaviour is conducted by the education we receive and the experiences we live along our lives or are there differences in the way we are conceived?
Sorry, friends. Too many questions.
Thank you for your patience.
October 22, 2007
Are we free? Do we really use our free will? What is freedom?
People speak of freedom as though it were something tangible, something that we have a right to, and I often wonder whether this is truly so. My conclusions always are it is not.
To be free we must have an absolute capacity to behave without any kind of interferences from anywhere or anything or anybody. And this is in practice clearly impossible. Something or somebody will always influence our freedom, no matter how proud we may be of wielding the ideals of liberty. There is no such.
Our right to freedom is also hampered by our duty to coexist. In a way coexistence limits our liberties, which is not in itself negative but suggests our dreams of liberty are nothing but that, dreams.
Democracy also seems to give us a charter to behave as we freely like. Let us not delude ourselves: democracy is illusory, it does not exist, it is not our daily way of existence or coexistence.
There exist influential factors in everything we do, even in our thoughts, they are all affected by external circumstances, by education, by the reading we do or the news we hear or read, by our environment, by Nature, by our families and friends, by the laws which presumibly are enacted to strengthen our liberties but which ultimately constrain them. In actual fact we are living a life of oppression, an oppression that ends up by making us slaves of the circumstances.
Long back in time man and woman were not free either, they did not have an education to go by. Today we do, most of us, have an education, have read multitude of books by learned persons whose principles we have been assimilating gradually, or rebutting in a limited scale. Why? Because our education has not been wholesome, has not been leading us to think for ourselves, it has been an education, generally speaking, conducive to our leaning on those principles which, it has been found out with time, are prejudicial for our free thinking and liberties.
It is time for the world to get aware what is the line of conduct suitable to a better coexistence, to ignore the sirens’ songs of those politicians whose aim is just their own egotistical interest, and try to unite with those people whose ways of thinking are similar in a effort to overcome the ever increasingly overwhelming dictates of our leaders.
Dictates that are meant to coerce our liberties and thoughts.
October 6, 2007
Our friend Anticant, perhaps inadvertently, gave me the idea of this post. Almost every country has a written constitution which is called the Mother of All Laws, except the case of the United Kingdom where the Law rules. But I regret to say that all laws today are a reflection of religion in a way, ethics some times been likened to religions, too.
I think that perhaps this is so because those who cultivated the art of writing were mainly from the clergy side of our societies, persons who had been brought up in religious backgrounds, so somehow this is quite logical.
But the human mind has learnt to think by itself without the support of those who have been exalted to higher positions among us, most of the times undeservedly. Primitivism has long been forgotten, there exist primitives among us but that circumstance is sporadic as education has been declared compulsory by law in most countries of the world.
Why must there be a law for this and laws for so many other incidences in our lives?
If what is taught to children since their earliest principles is the cultivation of Respect in all the ambits of their lives, then perhaps laws would not be necessary, because laws are made by persons like you and me and are in many cases absolutely unfair and unjust. In this connection the use of bail comes to my mind as unjust and unfair. That a person just for the fact that she/he has money enough can be temporarily freed from the obligation to be in jail, whereas another person with no means and who has committed a lesser crime cannot is something that I personally cannot understand. The same happens with too many other aspects of our legislations as is the employment of lawyers and attorneys who defend you better or worse depending on their standing in their profession…and their fees. There are some honourable exceptions, of course.
If Respect were deeply ingrained in everybody, racism would not exist, nor would any differences among us which today are the reasons of conflicts, or at least they might be reduced to acceptable minimums.
Can I not be utopian?
Let me, please!!!
October 3, 2007
I must confess that when seachanges tagged me I had not the least idea what I had to do, I rather lately inferred I was asked to open a post in my blog to give my ideas about book preferences, which in my case is something difficult to do for the reasons I will try to give below.
That I remember not one book has particularly been of my predilection, although perhaps history novels were some time in my life my day-to-day kind of reading, but I came to decide with time that all types of reading were the focus of my attention, some of the topics also depend on the age, the epoch and the circumstances I have gone through.
What I seek in books is the views the author pour on the various/many circumstances they reflect along the pages, how the characters in the book solve their problems and what these problems are.
My big problem is time, life should last longer and days should be longer and we should need fewer hours to rest, but we’d better leave things as they are lest problems increase and then we still be experiencing the same shortage in time or perhaps even worse.