.ll 72
.fo off
.co on 
.ce ((Editor's comments in double parenthesis - Homer))
.ce ADR - 405
.ce Copyright (C) Homer Wilson Smith
.ce Redistribution rights granted for non commercial purposes
======================================================================== 163
Date:         Thu, 03 Aug 89 12:47:32 EDT
From:         Homer 
Subject:      Re: God Man Woman Child
To:           "Sylvia Gorman (815) 753-1875" ,
In-Reply-To:  Your message of Thu, 03 Aug 89 09:03 CDT

>    Post this to the list if you see fit.  I'm just confused by
>the terms you're using and want to know if what I'm hearing is what
>your're saying.
>>     The human body has absolutely nothing to do with the particular
>>level that a spirit is working on or should be UNLESS the this lifetime
>>body was chosen freely by the spirit for just such a purpose.
>      So our physical sex can be totally different from our spiritual
>level.  It seems to me that by calling these levels god, man, woman,
>and child you are inviting misunderstanding and hostility.  This
>last  posting is certain to offend a great many people, and if I
>understand what you're trying to say, it's not that a physical female
>is dependant on a physical man,

     Offensive or not, as a body, of course a physical female
is dependant on a physical male although not as much as
a physical child is dependant on a physical female.  Also if
the gods were not all playing hookey, physical men would be
dependant on physical gods, and physical gods would be dependant
on physical children.

     However females are not as dependant on men unless they are
pregnant or have children.  Then the dependancy becomes greater.
The CHILD depends on the male too.

     By herself a woman can get along quite well in this society,
she can even survive with a child but not as well without a man.
Much of man's work has become permanently resident in the structure
of society so that a woman without a man can still survive because
the structures and machines and roadways and transportation and
communication lines are all in place from previous work.  Not to mention
welfare and food stamps.

     A human female body with children alone in a forest would be wanting
a male body real bad though.

     Many woman abhor the idea that they need a man or men's work to
survive at their optimum potential.  They often do not want children or
if they do, they don't see children as a major part of their lives.  Maybe
one or two at the most and lets leave them in daycare so I can get
back to my career.  Such spirits are probably in a male phase but
were forced to have a female body much to their chagrin.

     Of course no one in the right mind would try to live
out their destiny in any kind of physical body at all, but if one
has to for what ever reason, it is nice to have a body that suits
ones spiritual level at the particular grade the spirit is at.

     In general if people are offended at these writings it is because
they are offended by their own view of themselves in the mirror.

>Physical children, in contrast, ARE dependant on human men and women,
>and their spritual counterparts are dependant on spiritual women, and
>indirectly, on spiritual men.

     Your implication that a female can have someone physically
dependant on them (child) but not themselves be physically
dependant on someone else is immature and dangerous for your child.
The problem is that the gods are gone and MEN have no one to be
physically dependant on.  This leads to men trying to BE gods
way ahead of their time, which leads women to try and disconnect
from them forthwith.  This leads to less than complete fullfillment
of potential for the child.

     Some woman may claim to not need a man to raise a child or 10,
but ASK THE CHILDREN.  They will tell you something is wrong with mother.
The CHILDREN will wish they had a father.  Of course you can brainwash
it out of them by 10 years of age.

     The idea that women are physically dependant on men may be
offensive to many including you, but it is obviously true.  If men
had not built the safe haven called physical society around you,
women and their children would still be living in a sort of
primitive dark ages.

     It is easy to say look how I can survive without a man, its also
easy to ignore all the invention, discovery, danger overcome, and work
done by the very men that you no longer need.

     Also because our planet is overpopulated, having children is
of no big concern for many women, men too.  But if the good Lord
called a flood, and only 16 people were left to repopulate the world,
you can be sure that women would be pregnant every moment of their lives,
and men would be in great demand.

     Woman's physical dependancy on men is much greater and comes to
full fruition when she is pregnant, AND has 3 other children.
Many women try to survive pregnancy
without a man but usually because she can not find a good man to be with.
But I will bet she wishes she had one.

     No man in his right mind would try to survive raising a child or 10
without a good woman.  I can not see how it could be different with woman.
Unless woman are very very much better than men on all levels.

      Of course homosexuals are not included in the above.  However
their physical dependancy is not less because of their homosexuality,
they just find alternates to men to help them along.  Again this
works well because of the male structure built around us over many
thousands of years.

      And if you want something REALLY offensive you should consider
that if there were on 16 people left to repopulate the Earth, HOMOSEXUALS
would be given a very thorough second look because if they were not
willing to get laid and make children, the rest of heterosexual
society (all 16 of them) would be chary about helping them survive by
sharing their food with them.  Each must pull his/her own weight,
and that would include in this situation having as many children
as you possibly could.  Children are future workers and breeders,
and their existance enhances everyones survival, and if you are
unwilling to have them, then no one will support you with THEIR work.
It has been said that extreme mono homo sexuality is a luxury of the affluent.

      And there are those who would claim that woman would have done
just as much as man over these same thousands of years if men had only
not kept them down.  This point of view is hardly worth rebutting as
being an innocent victim is a screaming high sign of spiritual high crimes
over millions of lifetimes here and on other planets.

     Further if men are CAPABLE of keeping women down, surely they
are just more capable.  It is fine to claim refinement, but it don't count
for much when you are enslaved and probably is not as high quality as
you claim.

     This last piece of offensiveness applies not only to men and women,
but to all arenas of life where apprently innocent victims are enslaved.
Each must look to their Karma to understand their destiny.

>      If I am correct, (am I?) then why use terms that in this day
>and age are guaranteed to make people see red?  Wouldn't your point
>be made more easily in another manner, or are you of the school that
>nothing worthwhile is ever easy?
     I am of the school that some fear most, physical dependancy of
all levels on all higher (and lower!) levels is an absolute part
of the scheme of things.

     And women who think they can get along witout men should surely
be given the chance to do so, but first remove all of men's work lest
women rip off and claim credit for what they did not and could not do

>     This is just my initial observation.  I'm going to assume
>my interpretation is correct and put the word spiritual in front of
>every reference to man, woman, and child and reread it to see if I
>can make some sense of this.
      For the most part this is correct.  But the assumption that it
does not apply to the human animal species is false.  It may not apply
exactly, but more so than the separatists would wish.

>Sylvia Gorman

 Homer               Sylvia Gorman (815)  8/03/89*God Man Woman Child