Now a child can go two ways.

      Either he can learn from his experience with his parents NOT to do
that to his children, or he can become overwhelmed by the abuse and make
it right and so abuse his children in the same way that he was abused.

      Some children have been so abused by fundamentalist religions that
they have become 'What abuse?' cases.

      The golden rule says don't do to others what you don't want done to
you, but the abuse case runs on do to others what has been done to you.

      There isn't much of anyone home in these cases, they are zombie
zoners on a roll, with engrams as wheels.

      When they speak, they say the same things over and over again,
without actually listening to their own words or parsing them to see if
they have any meaning or logical consistency.

      It's fine to say that all that comes from God is good.

      It's fine to say that man is inherently bad.

      It is not then fine to say that God made man, for that makes God
culpable for man's badness.

      If you have had this burned into your brain with electricity and

      1.) All that comes from God is good.

      2.) Man came from God

      3.) Man is bad.

      Then that is how it is, even though as a whole it doesn't make
sense.  The bank will hand out 1, 2 or 3 depending on the context of the
conversation, and never spot a lack of continuity across all of them.

      IF you try to make such a bank notice the incongruity of its
various positions, it will claim you are playing word games.

      If a scientist creates a killer virus and lets it free on the world
knowing it may do irreparable harm, do we blame the virus or the

      If that same scientist creates a slightly larger viral organism
called a child, and it proceeds to rape, kill and suck blood, and not
necessarily in that order, do we blame the scientist or the child?

      If a man creates a killer frankenstein, knowing that the creation
may harm others, do we hold the creation guilty and the creator

      Thus many religious people are simply mind broke, they can't think
clearly, and while they claim that one must love God, they HATE their
God but can't admit it.  They are in unexpressed resentment and covert
hostility even unto themselves.

      It is instructive to ask a person how HE would have made the world
if given the chance.

      Would he create beings against their will and permission, give them
an explosive blend of ignorance and free will, dump them into the
thunderdome called Killer Pit together, and let them have at it?

      Would he consider it makes sense to let his creatures exercise
their free will at the expense of the innocent and trust worthy, in
order to test the quality of the guilty and the tempers of the not so

      Would he consider that beings were born in sin, due to the sins of
their fathers or ancestors?

      Would he not hold the parents accountable for the sins of their

      Now there are two kinds of people in the world.

      There are those that consume more than they produce, and those that
produce more than they consume.

      Some people knowingly consume more than they produce, we call these
criminals, they take the production of others, render it into nought,
and then do it all over again.

      It is one thing to reap what you sow, but a criminal reaps what
other's sow, living at the expense of others against the other's will.

      Other people are trying to be good and produce more than they
consume, but somehow manage to fail consistently regardless of their
best intentions.  They sow and sow and sow and nothing ever comes of it.
It is like they are planting their seeds in a toxic waste dump and don't
know it.

       Some have said that the second kind of people are PTS (suppressed)
by the first kind of people.

      (PTS means Potential Trouble Source, someone who is under
the influence of an SP, Suppressive Person or Parent, and who is
prone to accidents, sickness and bad judgments.)

      Other's have said that sometimes people of the first ilk regret
their evil ways and become people of the second ilk.

      In either case both kinds of people are a severe problem to the
existence of the rest of productive consumers.

      The Sun/Earth system is a gigantic endothermic storage battery for
useful energy.  Endothermic means it stores energy like a rechargable

      The energy is stored in the plants that grow and convert sunlight
plus CO2 into their carbon based structures, releasing O2 into the
atmosphere for the animals to breath.

      This is a kind of UNburning, thus there is more energy stored in
the final product than before the product was made.

      This is the sowing and storage process.

      Animals then come along and eat the plants turning their stored
energy back into action.  This reaping and burning of what was sown,
consumes the O2 in the atmosphere and the carbon in the plant and
recreates the lower energy CO2, to start the whole cycle over again.

      Plants consume photons and CO2 and produce carbon stalks and
Oxygen.  This is UN burning.

      Animals consume carbon stalks and Oxygen and produce CO2.  This is
straight forward burning, just as if you burned a piece of paper.

      Animals are a slow fire to the plant kingdom.

      Thus all life is a continous pattern of sow and reap cycles fed by
the sun.  Unburn and burn.

      Now plants are supposed to consume more than they produce because
they are the storage mechanism for the system to work.

      But when an animal consumes more than it produces, you have a
criminal or an invalid.

      Because animals are intelligent, at least the human being is
allegedly so, it is assigned the duty of consuming IN ORDER TO SOW, thus
guaranteeing future food to reap.

      Because of the endothermic nature of the plant storage system, one
kernel of corn can give rise to a whole stalk of corn with many ears and
thousands of kernels.

      If the farmer has to eat 100 kernels of corn to allow him to sow
one kernel to produce 1000 kernels of corn, clearly he is reaping a
profit at the end of the sow and reap cycle.


      The profit is not made when the excess corn is sold to another for
a markup, the profit is already made once the corn has been reaped.

      If instead the farmer eats, gives away, or wastes 10,000 kernels of
corn for each kernel he plants, and still only reaps 1000, he is now
down 9000 kernels of corn gone forever.

      That is consuming more than you produce.

      Every breath you take in life must produce more than you consume or
you are on your way out, and probably dragging down others with you.

      In your early life, you are not expected to produce more than you
consume, a baby is an investment on the part of the parents who expect
a return later in life when the body is grown and able.

      Babies like plants are sort of "endothermic."

      They consume much and deliver little, but unlike a plant who stores
energy in the form of carbon, the baby stores knowledge, kill and
training, so he can go out and produce later.

      Thus one accumulates a debt to those who raised you until you are
able to repay it in spades.

      Since every being is invested in by every member of society the
debt extends out from one's immediate family to everyone around you.
And once that debt is being paid off, you have to start investing in
your own children and THEIR future also.

      This is in part why it's no ok to hurt yourself even if you don't
hurt others, because in hurting yourself you ARE hurting the others that
invested in you, or who will depend upon you later, which one way or
another is everyone.

      Thus nature expects one to profit mightily in life because one has
been consuming mightily all along.

      Note the profit is not being taken from others, thus lowing their
potential for survival, but from the Sun/Earth system which is here to
give you all the profit and sow and reap cycles you can stand, at least
in abundant times.  However if you create a dust bowl around you, either
intentionally or accidentally, then you may starve to death as your
plants wither and die.

      You can destroy a rechargable battery though misuse.

      Society suffers a lot of costs that don't produce any actual
return, they are a kind of insurance against disaster that only gives
back when a disaster strikes which may be never.

      Protections against any future contingency, including terrorism and
foreign attack, can burden the sow and reap profit margin during tough
times to a point where engagement in life is no longer viable.

      Thus your life debt increases, and your life gets worse along with
the lives of those around you who depend on you, even those who don't
exist yet.

      How many wars can you fight, how many walls can you build, how many
munitions can you store up, and still educate, and care for your kids
and old ones, and produce enough affluence of CORN to get you through
the vagaries of the solar cycles?

      You can't eat bombs.

      You can't even eat the dead bodies of your enemies.

      But its the enemy who usually starts it, so we have no choice in
the matter.

      Affluence of survival factors is the only guarantee of survival in
a world of no guarantees.  When affluence of bombs and armaments becomes
more important than affluence of winter stores, then you know you are on
the way out.

      You need to find a better way to deal with your enemies.

      On the other hand the world is full of criminals, who have no
intent to share with you, but who feel you have the greener side of the
grass and who are willing to die to kill you off so their people can eat
at the expense of yours.

      Natural competition and animal territoriality is driven insane by
the insanity of the cowboy riding the animal (thetan and body).

      The whole world can be destroyed by this insanity.

       And if the bombs start dropping, can't it be said that SOMEONE
should have been killed or deactivated with prejudice just prior?


- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith     The Paths of Lovers    Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF        Cross            Internet Access, Ithaca NY    In the Line of Duty
Sun Jan 25 17:52:01 EST 2009

================ ====================
Fri Aug 28 12:06:02 EDT 2015
Send mail to saying help in body
=========== ===============
Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning without Certainty.
Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Being an Effect.
Learning by Being an Effect implies Learning without Certainty.
Therefore, Learning with Certainty implies Learning,
but not by Being an Effect, and not across a Distance.

Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)

Mon Aug 31 19:35:25 EDT 2015