I've decided after good example to write some diary pages with toughts and events.
Oh, in case anybody fails to understand, I'd like to remind them that these pages are copyrighted, and that everything found here may not be redistributed in any other way then over this direct link without my prior consent. That includes family, christianity, and other cheats. The simple reason is that it may well be that some people have been ill informed because they've spread illegal 'copies' of my materials even with modifications. Apart from my moral judgement, that is illegal, and will be treated as such by me. Make as many references to these pages as you like, make hardcopies, but only of the whole page, including the html-references, and without changing a iota or tittel...
And if not? I won't hesitate to use legal means to correct wrong that may be done otherwise. And I am serious. I usually am. I'm not sure I could get 'attempt to grave emotional assault' out of it, but infrigement on copyright rules is serious enough. And Jesus called upon us to respect the authorities of state, so christians would of course never do such a thing. Lying, imagine that.
Previous Diary
Entries | List
of Diary Pages | Home Page
For those with philosophical background, the idea is that we can do experiments, and derive or get information from those experiments. We can take a thermometer, and a pot of boiling water, and measure the temperature, and find it is a hundred celcius. Then we could go to australia, take another pot with water, make it boil, and maybe make sure air pressure is similar, and measure again wether it boils at 100C. After many times and centuries of the same, easily repeatable, experiment, we would probably agree that water in general always boils at 100 degrees celcius, and that if you measure something else, you probably did something wrong or used a uncalibrated thermometer. The idea that that works underlies the most certain things we take for granted in our society, and it works until the contrary is proven, which no one in their right mind is going to consider much.
Now suppose we'd take a very accurate thermometer and would try to measure the boiling point of some substance under highly controlled circumstances, such as airconditioned room, pressure control, pollution filter, you name it, and would want to try evidence for the thesis that there is a slight decrease in boiling point as more fluid of the same substance is boiled. So we'd at some point measure the boiling point and find it is 100.000123 degrees, with very accurate (and expensive) thermometer, the next time 100.000122, the 100.000.124, and we'd do that a few dozen times and find all values are close together around 100.000123, so we'd take that as the boiling point. Then many physicists around the world would boil the same substance, and a year later, we'd try the same, and measure what we find as the boiling point after so many others have boiled the same stuff, and for instance we'd find that now our expensive measurement tells us that without much doubt, the boiling point must be 100.000122 degrees... That would make us in trouble. We could have prove that repeatedly measuring the boiling point of that substance has made it boil at lower temperature, or that in general all boiling point go down, or of course that our aircondinioner was a bit of temperature or some other circumstance was not the same. Then science would kick in, and we'd have to figure out more experiments to get to the truth. Interesting. If nothing would have happened, the fun would be gone soon enough, anyone knows we could measure boiling points, make a nice table, put it in a book, get your salary, make a web site with it, and shut up. But if we're right, that is interesting enough, and we'd have to think about any new theory along the lines of probably the most prominent philosopher of science of the previous centurie, sir Karl Popper, that our theories can only be considered true until proven false.
A long introduction, but for a guy who would make complicated enough electrical circuits by tying wires together long before the age of 10, that is obvious enough logic, you think about something you want to make, make good use of existing theory, and unless the results works, you got nothing but proof you did something wrong.
And I knew some interesting phenomena, too. Suppose you have this cassette recorder, and a seperate speaker, connected to it through a hacked speaker outlet, and you'd only have a few fitting plugs, so every now and then you'd want to try a new speaker, release a plug from an existing speaker cord, and tie wrap it to the new one. Somehow binding the wires together of a centimeter or so length should be fine to make a good connection, maybe the copper gets a bit rusty and accumulates some finger fat and acid, but still, when wrapped together with some force, the areas touching and connecting to conduct those electrons making up for the current flowing through the speaker should be more than enough.
Yet even when one wraps those wire ends together nice and tight, after some time the connection starts to suck. Realy, it will, except maybe when using gold wire. After some time of making the music play fine, crackles will be heard when moving the wires, and then later the connection will crackle and break or grow soft at times without particular reason. Very annoying, especially when one uses many of such connections because they are the cheapest (just twisting wires together after having stripped the isolation off a bit) and require no soldering (which I couldn't yet do when I was little), every now and then another starts to mess up and give noisy sounds or make lights dim a bit. So I'd once again in annoyance move all wire ends a bit to figure out which one was quirky this time. Just moving the connected ends a bit usually makes the connection work again a little while, though in fact one would have to strip off another piece of isolation, cut of the previous end of copper wire core, and make a new wire wrap, otherwise it will always get worse and worse with that connection.
I knew that sort of lets say practical science. And wonder what microscopic process would be going on to make such things happen, why would the wire grow rusty at the touching point in the joint? Sometimes the crackling or lets say increased resistance to make a light dim would be sensitive to simply walking around on the same floor as the wires would be! Interesting, but at the time annoying, too.
This lengthy example is to show that I was into such kind of thinking very long ago and early in my life. No one could fool me that a computer would be sort of a spell machine where you'de use the magical words or whatever it is and you'd (german accent on) 'rule the world '. Ridiculous.Crazy. When I was twelve I'd know how to make the logical circuit, built from single transistors (not a chip) if necessary, to add two numbers in digital logic. Those little pain in the but wannabee gurus mean nothing to me contentwise, realy, they don't even qualify at most ages to beat what I knew when I was twelve. Check out the previous diary pages on logical circuits to get an idea of what I'm talking about, realy I knew a lot more than that when I was 12. Seriously. That is important to understand as a mind set, to understand how I've thought about things, especially related to such subjects.
I don't have time now to write more in this section, I'll have to use the same title again and proceed, because the ideas I'm getting at are essential, and much confused and corrupted I'm sure.
We should start to understand what is major catholic, or general doctrine, and understand that we shouldn't start out assuming that is right, according to some correct hidden blueprint of mankind that everyone knows by birth or something, such as that people are born to marry early and be taken in a system where they must produce children without birth control as much as possible to sacrifice meat or something else. Or that some high place official from such or a similar system realy is the only replacement of christ on earth, who can call blue red and all must accept. Many of us may have such deep rooted ideas which have nothing much to do with normalness in human sense even, or truth of some elevated kind, but are planted there by the original father of every creature born in this world which lies in sin.
There are at least two pretty simple observations to be made in the area of marriage, and of course also in other areas, first, when two people are together in such a form, it should be at least fitting and clear to spectators that that is so, I guess. And second, in christian sense, when God has agreed on making two people together that way they can and should, and otherwise they should not. Simple. Being a christian and marrying the wrong person is sin. Without question, and bad, too, I'm sure, for yourself, that is.
It surprises me that I have to write such things, because to me that is dead obvious, and especially for those who have a living enough faith, it should be easy enough to understand that you'd listen to the Holy Spirit, pray about when it concerns the subject of possibly sharing your life with someone in the form of a marriage.
Jesus didn't at all, Peter I think only before he became disciple and later apostle, Paul didn't it seems, most other apostles didn't seem to bother writing about it or didn't get married to my knowledge. Jesus didn't even have a house of his own, though he seems to have had normal enough jewish upbringing and childhood, the way Paul writes in certain letters clearly indicates he's got some strong feelings for some people without even being near them, in short I don't think there is a scriptural need to assume there is a necessity to marry, in fact Paul in literal words seems to prefer not to.
Seriously, I don't understand how a christian and serious human being can on purpose get married (or not of course, I guess that may happen occasionally, too) when they shouldn't and worse, do so with the wrong person altogether. On purpose even. Seriously. Since when do we think that we can get away temping God in such a personally sensitive way and challange getting so closely damned? I don't understand that very well.
So in short when you as a serious person have prayed about it and are sure that both the person you plan to marry, and the idea of getting married are of or agreed on by God, you're fine of course. And otherwise, you're not. Period. How hard can that be to understand. (Godfather tone of voice on:) 'But we must make deals, we gotta live in this world, you see'. Yeah, I guess I see, but I happen to think God opinion is of a higher order, of higher authority, and of more influence if we're smart. Planning on using what is Gods', or going against Him, or trying to make Him jealeous, are in my opinion all equal to stupidity, how would you win of God? Unless He is just some idea to you, a projected or constructed reality, then I'd straight away go against it, I guess, just to test my chances, but I don't He is, I take Him for real, otherwise there is not much point to faith.
Rebellion. Oh oh. A no no for any serious enough person with a faith that matters. Always starts of misery. Rebelion against God ==> misery. Pretty much. Even the reverse may be valid enough thinking, but in the direction of the arrow the equation holds for sure. Rebel against God and you'll find trouble. Biblical language, too, it's mentioned more than a few times in the old testament, for instance talking about the jewish people, and about israel in exile. And the root of bitterness, making a start for a schizofrenic state of thinking. Those things aren't going to make people blessed, but damned.
And aided by the false doctrine of raising up some brach of so called christianity by marrying someone supplied by the world system or worse, it's religeous wannabee leaders, or by the desire to have power over or through children, both rebellion and double thinking achieve many, many people in a wrong life, even though maybe they weren't the worst people and possibly at some points serious about their faith. Is it then such a bad thing to just be married to the wrong person.
Of course, for one thing, you'd probably miss the right one, and that one, too. Or, you'd be tied instead of being free to do what He'd want, or even to be and do what you yourself would want, more than a little. And when you'd have some faith, and some good intentions, they may be quite frustrated by having the wrong person by your side and maybe on your mind and in your spirit. And someone who might have an interest in dealing with you and some trust in God you might have, or other good things in life, may be put of by you shacking up with a person not fitting you or worse, selected to bring you down or let you stay in some sin the world or some evil leaders want you in. Of course that is independent of wether you'd marry the insignificant having become significant, the principle applies either way I guess.
As I wrote, it surprises me that I should even mention such things, they are so obvious in my idea, why would you be with someone that doesn't fit you? Why would some world system get a sacrifice of such a kind of me, why would I bother? To piss my family off? To get a position in the many secret or public hierarchies in the world system? To receive some mark that the nazies need to be enrolled in a job? A statement of being non-jew or something, but then another way?
Maybe holland is retarded in certain ways concerning the spiritual and the many possible walks of life unto damnation, but it seems all over the world relationships are way often not aimed at two (or more) people liking eachother and thus being together, which at least is strange. I know, I know, there are not so many relay nice and good people out there, but seriously, it shouldn't be the aim to mess up everything to begin with to arrive at societies worth living in, I'm sure.
Anyhow, what do you expect in a section on marriage and christian enough doctrine? Singing praises of virginhood before the weddingnight. I'm getting to the point where I'm willing to go cynical about the subject without feeling that I'll realy hurt anyone at all with it. Seriously, or write that marriage is realy Gods special and sacret institution, and that all nudity and like between men and women outside it are forbidden, or how bad it is that so many of us go to the beach instead of going to the proper channels to sell our children for I-don't-wanna-know-what services. Sorry, got cynical halfway the sentence again.
Isn't it sacret, marriage? Yes, I'm sure it is. Holy matrimony. Holy shit. Seriously, no real offence intended, but I'm not willing to accept the sort of double-lived-ness which may even take people who might not have been so bad to the point where they become bad enough to become a real threat to some others by not being willing to view the whole picture at stake here, and take it for what it is. Ugly, to say the least, usually, I'm sure by now.
I'm sure that also for not romeo and juliette, marriage is sacret, and that there are some who are indeed by God and the Holy Spirit (in my opinion also God, and a person, not an influence) called into a marriage which wouldn't realy need official ceremony or confirmation with major ring materials, though I guess a good jewish party never hurts. And then those people would belong together in a good way, I'm sure, and not cynical. I just don't see many of them around, and also am unwilling not to notice that there are many other types of relationships both between the sexes and amoung, which can be very important, and of the latter kind at least as important as what is seen as official marriage. I think I could have easily imagined myself married when I thought about such things as for instance teenager, and I never much challenged the idea that that should be the way it goes, by and large, though I didn't think much different then that it was natural to have girlfriends without that, so the main future idea was at stake not so much what and who I was into. I'm just talking about the general idea of a lets say reasonable ok life I had, where probably marriage would have been part of in my thoughs in general, without there being a real reason. That may be just academical, I could just have stated that I liked a woman in my life, also in personal and close sense, and that that is equivalent to saying I'd like to have married at some point, and maybe bring in that in certain, christian, but also other like moslim circuits, an unmarried position would be a disadvantage, and disallow me to become leading person, manager maybe, anything where the autorities in life have something to say about, let me be generally taken unserious.
I'm sure that isn't much true now, for various reasons, but still, I would have been wrong about the essence for myself if that would have been the picture, and if my life would possibly have become an institution trying to prove the wrong principles. Then again, I would never have considered starting a serious relationship or marriage deal for the sake of gain or arriving at some station in life, the girlfriends who were near me or who I lets use that word desired I wanted because I liked them, was in love with them, that sort of reasons, which should at least normally turn out good enough. But still, you'd get your degree, if lucky, marry that sort of woman of your life, get a loan and a house and a car and a child, and become part of the great league of those who did or do the same, and all is importantly well, it would seem. How many movies are about the contrary, seriously? The disappointments, the depressions, the lies, and of course the real great evils of molestation, abuse, family trouble and blackmail, secrecy, and simply the realisation life passes by in the wrong mode.
Is that a great evil? Probably not all of it, just the wrong idea and growing in it is not the worst in that sense, I guess, one coudl even to happily chose another alternative at some point, I guess all that is not the worst, but then again, they are such ideas which make people buy the evil fabric of society according to the former ruler of the world. When the pope mentions 'holy matrimony' we still things that generally God is in that picture in major way, and that there is no way around that, while we might be very wrong, because the God that one talks about is usually another, or at best a mixed up image, which obviously can bring in a lot of confusion. The idea that marriage as an institution is sacret and sort of diplomatically immune or untouchable as a concept is wrong, and, as we all know, very catholic. And Verelst ain't no catholic, and is convinced protesting at least when there is no other way out or simply changing things when there is, is important in this area of life. The focus on the subject can be considerable, and the idea of unlawfull children should at least be checked against the idea that Jesus was one. Though luckily he seems to have been no voodoo child.
Then what should we respect in all this, when people make it through 50 years of life together? Let them throw a party to celebrate the occasion, but respect, especially? Maybe, to make it through life together, and maintaining something worthwhile in the mean while. Maybe. Could be. I guess respect usually can be in place for acting right in hard circumstances, regardless of the subject. Of course making the measure of acting right important, what is that? Is the right thing to do to get a pregnancy and then marry to make it legal, and forsake all others, and make the child well aware it was the result of a not so good experiment the rest of its life? Is it the right thing to plan on taking part in the world system, and paying ones' dues by going through the motions of marriage and its official positions, making sure it is only acting and that the other person, too, will never realy love or live in truth.
No. It isn't. Is it right to like and love a person, live near them, after thinking that may be right sleep with them, and then reject them and kick them out and make sure they'll not grow attached? No. The first part seems fine enough, probably one of the most important areas of life, though I'm sure that varies from person to person.
Why so much in the negative in this chapter supposedly about doctrine? Because I want to get an important point across. Our minds are set and formed with a lot of nonsense, and it may take serious shaking up before we realise how far that extends, also for some who may be more than willing enough to take solid doctrine at least serious. And I'm not willing to be had by some who as always will want to pervert and change to their advantage the sort of things I write or speak about, which can be achieved be refuting them explicitly.
And of course I've made a little joke about being halfway pregnant, but different. We can go out with a woman, have a drink, even be at home, I guess, and than for the more advanced or normal, nothing much has to be concluded or said, that freedom exists enough, luckily, the stasi, ss, kgb, or karmacontrol will probably not make it to hard in most western countries to get away with that. Also, if one would decide to sleep with a woman, in europe and the us, I guess not all too much will be said against it in general enough to realy bother, which probably is lucky. Supposed both parties know what they do, have not too evil intentions, aren't whoring or taking such services, aren't spreading deseases, and volantarily want so. How many would? I don't know, but even if it is one in a thousand, the sort of misery that goes with that freedom not being there is considerable, I'm sure. And an amount of normalness between man and woman, including both respect for privacy, and not eucharist and mary and potentially her little lamb induced fear and prudeness, and the respect for free choice and taking consequences of the freely uttered exponent of such, is important without question. And if not present, I take that as a sign of being lesser developed, not more sacret, christian or of higher authority.
I remember rehearsing the famous 'paradise by the dashboard light' (meatloaf) with a band I had put together, to see if that would work, and was sort of amused with the latter part:
Stop right there, I gotto know right
now, will you love me forever will you need me, ...
... will you love me till the end
of time
This feeling came upon me like a
tidal wave, so I swore unto my God
and to my mothers grave that I would
love you to the end of time, ...
So now I'm praying for the end of
time,
'cause if I got to spend another
minute with you,
I don't think that I would realy
survive.
Praying for the end of time,
so I can have my time with you.
And of course liking the rock piano and rythm stuff.
Also I remember having 'fornication, fornication' shouted over the street leaving a house in swiss after having been the night there. Well well.
All those things are still there, the thoughts, the evil systems, the thoughts that I think aren't the way I think they would have to be to actually work right. So I think it is needed to get a lot of minds hopefully back or into the right thinking mode, which without question was the idea of the letters which fill up the major part of our new testament. And I do claim that I am indeed also about such a purpose, and that what I have to say is to have at least bearing at that level, as hopefully it will, though I don't need to have the honor of being the one who does all that, I guess there should be more than a few who should take up such jobs.
Intellectually, reasonwise, understable for any person of normal intelligence, I think, it is realy about basic principles of truth, respect, freedom, love, such things, which aren't in the world with satanic roots. I've quoted 'sympathy for the devil' in some previous diary page I think, where the act is about the main character wanting to make sure it gets its name across, and calls for it to show some courtesy, because it can't itself, and just to make itself higher reversed the principle altogether. I'm not showing courtesy to heads in a system where child abuse is the root and all kinds of evil and blackmail are the fruits of life. I hate them. I protest against them. And I claim anything than has been won against them, to live in that, and plan on being no less than devastating to their system. And as revolutionaries should know, that starts with the doctrines, the foundations of life, the mind, the ways of thinking, the leaders being respected and taken serious, and love not being replaced by blackmail, and freedom being honoured as important principle, instead of motherfucking the whole of life and the world in to one supposedly great system resembling a church while it isn't. That english king was usually played against the same, and the waves in that equation are way to miserable to be interesting, historically. I've lately flipped a coin some time to make sure that no all seeing eye construction was going to be able to predict what would happend, no matter how much information it would try to get. Statistically I had some improbably outcomes, but oover all the law of the large numbers didn't disappoint: head over tails about 1 to 1, so we can all rest assured in at least some truth of mathematical and practical nature.
The desire to control life and strife for power and a great name are unsually not out of God, and certainly not in a corrupted way, and when marriage takes a crucial role in this, something is wrong.
Arranged marriages are out of the question, unless the in my opinion only qualified authority, being the real God, occupies Himself with our lives. What I would want some people to realize is that the god which is behind all such urges and desires and supposed needs and schemes may well be not the real God, and usually plainly isn't, and that without question such ways are not good for people. And if a persons sees no other way in lots of misery than to be in an unchosen life, don't make that into God's will in the sense that He wants that, because don't believe that to be so. It may be that we go through undesirable lives (lets say my financial position is an example, ridiculous as that may be, then again the irritation levels certain people arrive at when mentioning the holy money subject is amazing), but we shouldn't be deluded about what we're actually doing, going for, or arriving at when we achieve what we aim for. Uprightness is probably not cheap, but a good way, I'm sure, and when we can look at ourselves in the mirror and not dislike too much how much the sinfull world and our original natural impulse to evil has touched us, that is impossible to buy or get at in any other way than live such that that is possible. No other way. Once we currupt something, it is corrupted, and hopefully can be corrected, but still, something wrong is something wrong, and certain ends may justify certain means, but for those meaning well, one's own honorability cannot be bought back. Though the papal system (I think the nicolaitians were early representatives of them and other like them, and don't think a synagoge actually being the synagoge of satan is new thing or too deep for God to even mention) will have you belief differently, and sell you anything so may seem to want, including their mother. They can have mine instead, they should like eachother, like the key fits the lock, every pod has a lid (probably a dutchism), and the thyebone is connected to the backbone ...
So your family, your pastor maybe, your 'friends' and your so tell you it is best to marry because that way you'll magically find a way out of the world systems misery, like no one yet had discovered, that special secret is all yours? It might work sometimes, I don't know, can't say, though I'm sure there is not much reason to trust anything much in such a game then the sanity of people who may love you, and if possible what is in the relationship that you might want, because that most likely isn't going to change much getting the official note or not.
What about the good stuff, the positive side ?
I think I've seen it quoted recently from proverbs even, I'll look
it up:
Thus say the holy scriptures...
Not nothing such an excerpt on the possible value of a human being, even without the salvation christ later brought in the picture. And what are we (thank God) reading here, if we can trust the translation enough, an emancipated jewish woman, who goes out, has actual power and position, money, who does business and appearantly still fears the Lord (which i.m.o. means she's not too impressed with the ways of the world and takes God for who He is). Superwoman? No, though that would be fine with me, I'm sure this is serious.
In the same middle of the old testament, though I'm not sure where it fits in the tenach Jesus had access to and learned about and quoted from, there is talk of various kings of Israel being involved, whatever that must have been at the time, with more than one woman, alledgedly even according to the will of God. And as I always took it, bases on love or at least attraction, which makes it interesting, though I by natural position in life wouldn't have seen much point, except when I would have considered, and would have found place found place for, that there was more than one girl that I realy liked and more, and in some cases was near enough.
The idea of freedom, an almightly God, honorability and other imporant subjects I knew about as little boy, for instance from the bible stories in school should be taken for present in the dedication of the book of which the above is the concluding chapter, and the following the dedication, or the introduction: