Many people have had their own slant on 9 - 11. People say that it could have been prevented, but of course it wasn't. You can't go on a Monday morning quarterbacking orgy forever. The fact is what happened is what happened. If we believe the scientists everything is predistined, including the winner of the Presidential 2008 election. It's not a question of "making the future"; it already exists. It's just a matter of waiting for it to be revealed to us. People say that outer space really isn't empty. It's just as filled with sub-atomic "strings" as the rest of matter. Scientists say this space "traps us" in time. Just to review what I consider the scientific up to date explanation of the subject, at some point twelve or fifteen billion years in the past, both space and time, as well as matter were created. There was no "empty space" in the remote past because there was no space. It didn't exist. Also there is no "infinite past" because it only exists to a finite point. Before this even the word "before" doesn't exist, just after the last moment in time to exist there simply "is no more". That day will come. God had to "ontologically" exist because the creation of time and space is "ontologically" prior to its existance. But we cannot say WHEN God created anything because there was no Time before God created it. It would be misguided to say creation was in the ultra remote past because neither the future nor the past existed till God created them. Both the future and the past have equal reality and validity and importance to God. It's just we don't know the future, now. Perhaps some psychic, if he tunes into the right cosmic vibration can sense it. Of course if he's genuine he won't be able to change it. Nothing has any free will; it's all an allusion. We have the illusion of free will. Those who think they have more freedom are not experiancing more free will but more illusion. The Hindus say that all life is an Illusion. This is not to say that it is false; mearly that we are experiancing something that cannot positively be proven. We cannot prove whether any other being is "sensient" as they say on Star Trek, be it biological or cybernetic or something other.
They say the secret of Beethoven in writing his symphonies is that the music had to have a sense of inevitability to it. I have heard you could reduce a whole Beethoven symphony to sine wave interfearence. Sine waves are technically graphs of the sine function in trigonometry but just think of them as those half circle things you see. In radio if you had one wave generated at 1110 kilahertz and another wave at 1115 or a five thousand cycle difference this would be said to be a modulated "beat frequency". I guess the theory behind what I'm saying is "The whole is contained in the part".
In the fall of 1970 George Harrison came out with the All Things Must Pass album. I think I can see why the Beatles didn't like that song. Some things don't come to pass, they come to stay forever. Back on September 12th. 1970 on a Saturday morning I discovered for the first time that my brother was a Born Again Christian; that's when he "Came out". There is no more taking back of that day than there is the taking back of September 11th. 2001. That disaster didn't come "to pass"; it came to Stay. It's still a reality after five years. Just like the break-up of the Beatles didn't come to pass, it came to stay. I've heard that George Harrison cut his hair just before that album came out. That was the symbolic death of the 'sixties. At just about the same time that album came out, Jesus Christ superstar came out. There were a lot of "those groups" those groups that Calvary Marinatha bands like to immotate that came out at that time, such as James Taylor, Bread, Cat Stevens, Elton John, and Badfinger. Other than the one hit song "No Dice" is a pretty wasted album from Badfinger. It was as if God were saying, "You've had good music for several years running; now I'm going to torture you with a lot of bad music". Death itself doesn't come to pass; it comes to stay. Life is the fleeting thing, and hence precious. Death is far less precious than life because it's permanent. I get a little unconfortable when I hear Born Again Christians say they can't wait for Death, and how great things will be once this life is over. Some may wonder what the saying "Artificial flowers cannot die and neither can a tombstone kill a feather" means. I'll explain it. Christians are always trying to be plastic. They seem to regard the emotions God gave them as somehow wrong, and they seek to, and succeed, in generating artificial emotions. Real people have real feelings. I'm a little tired of the line used by Christians, "Well, if you didn't have your own ego what I just said wouldn't bother you". I feel like saying, "The point is I do, and so I regard it as a dead issue". I was so often told by one spiritual adviser to "Die to self". That saying sounds more Bhudist than Christian but I was always hearing "Die to self" from this man. The second part of the saying is that there is something about life that death can't conquer, if you don't let it. Life is its own reality. Death may bigger and scaryer and more massive, but life has something that death cannot touch. People who are dead, like Christians, seem to always envy the rest of us, who are Alive. Life is in the Now and death is tomorrow and hence irrelivent to now. (Selah)
I want to talk just a bit about how bogus I regard early Church history as. I've thought about it and thought about it- - and have concluded that there is no evidence at all for Christianity for the first thirty years after Jesus' death. That means the Apostle Paul, if he preached at all, preached at a later date, perhaps the turn of the Century. The reason why I say this is because there is no secular evidence at all for Christianity's existance during that time. The first incident we have where church fantassy meats Reality is at the fire of Rome in 64 AD that was probably initially set by Nero, to make way for some new public buildings. However some say the fire initially began accidently in a faboric shop. But there are sources who say the fire showed signs of going out when unidentified people, and they could be Christians, went around setting new fires. This idea was broached by the "Barrabus movie" and I also read it in a book somewhere. So the first "Trials" Christians were on from Rome was not for "practicing their faith" but for setting Fires. We assume they were all fed to the lions but one major arena in Rome, where this was done, wasn't built till AD 80, after Nero was long dead. One powerful argument that St. Paul and that whole croud he hung around with, you know, Silus and Timothy and Luke, didn't live before 64 AD is because since Luke wrote Acts about 85 AD so he most surely would have recorded Nero's depravity and the fire in Rome. It's kind of too big a thing to ignore since it changed everything, along with the fall of Jerusalem, which is also ignored by Luke. Another fact I find puzzling is that the Christian Church was ALREADY IN ROME before St. Paul got there and I'd like to know how that came to be since he was the number one forerunner and "point man". I guess you could say the rise of Christianity was another of those "Inevitable" things. But a lot of people have seen Elvis alive and no massive churches have formed. I have to ask myself "What's the difference". There are those who say that Christianity was not founded by poor working stiff deciples but a group of rich "Illuminatti". There is an obscure early 2nd. century historian that starts with an H who reported that Dometian arranged for the relatives of Jesus to move to protected status by Rome. We hear from Paul of the "Christians in Ceasar's household". (Meaning Nero, supposedly) How did they get saved if they were already saved when Paul got to Rome? You see, I think there is a Roman-centric history of the early Church- - the "Catholic aspect" that people try and downplay. By the way the first time Catholic is ever used in a Christian writing is by Ignatius. Some say over half of his letters are bogus. I say all of his letters are bogus because I don't believe Ignatious ever lived. I believe he was a made-up composit being. Most of the description of his life, and there is very little of it at all, occurs several hundred years after he lived. He is said to have lived around the turn of the first and second centuries. There are those who say real Christian history doesn't begin untill about the year AD 160. I disagree with that only to say AD 135 is a more reasonable date. I believe the Church started in Rome and worked its way outward- - except for Egypt and I discuss that in "Escape from Egypt". Rather than the Beast of Revelation, Emperor Dometian may be the one who gave Christianity its birth. They say that Emperor Dometian was an outward Moralist who did all his sinning in private, just like Christians. I hope I have given you something to think about and hopefully, to investigate on your own. I've done that and looked at all the hints and pointers and where they lead, and where they don't lead.
No comments:
Post a Comment