CONSCIENCE-HILARY L HUNT MD

CONSCIENCE-Do you have a conscience? If so, why?—where did it come from? If you don’t have one, why not? Just what is a conscience anyway, and how do we go about getting one?

One might define ‘conscience’ as an intellectual inner voice which tells us right from wrong. Obviously, each person’s conscience differs from all others in some degree or another, because each person’s life experiences and inculcations are somewhat different. Strictly speaking, we are not born with a conscience—only the ability to develop one. So, how do we get a conscience?

There are many sources for conscience formation. The most basic is our parents and/or guardians. From day one, so to speak, we are counseled repeatedly about what to do and not do—later on about what to think and not to think. Then comes the big ‘conscience producer’—religion(s). Consider this; world-wide there are thousands of different religions and/or religious sects—over 33,000 so-called Christian religions alone. Each religion proclaims to be the best and, in some cases, the only way to heaven. Of course that ‘heaven’ is different also from one religion to the next.

It should be very clear that each person’s conscience must be somewhat different .As in literally all considerations, consciences vary from one extreme of no conscience at all to extreme scrupulousness, and fit very nicely on a ‘bell distribution curve’. How, then is it possible to have a limited conscience? I suspect that in most cases it involves little if any parenting—children in such circumstances are exposed to very little if any discipline. Therefore, they have little regard for other’s rights, and seemingly, no respect for law, either civil or religious—witness the blatant irrational civil unrest and rioting of today.

On the other hand, at the other end of the spectrum, we observe people who are extremely ‘reserved’ about everything—often to an very irrational degree. They are so ‘tied up in knots’ of scrupulosity that they have difficulty functioning in everyday society—some cannot and require institutionalization. Others are mandated to be under the influence of mood altering drugs including possible heavy alcohol intake in order to function. Legitimately, one might ask, ‘why is that?’

If we look back to Genesis, we see that Cain had no problem with slaying his brother Abel. Later on, the folks of Sodom and Gomorra had no problem with all sorts of sexual deviations. Fast forward to Moses—he had no problem killing someone, but he did know he’d better run for sake of his own life. Later on, in a desperate attempt to control his subjects, he gave humanity the concept of sin and the guilt associated with it—he gave us the Ten Commandments. They were, in fact, good ‘civil law’ but went unheeded until he put a price on their violation—God’s vengeance—‘vengeance is mine sayeth the Lord’. Instantly, sin, guilt, fear of punishment from God, and religion were invented—all for the sake of enforcing ‘civil law’.

Follow the history. Those ten laws eventuated into six hundred plus Jewish laws which addressed literally every aspect of Hebrew society. Then comes Jesus and Christianity—what an explosive development of God’s Laws. In the beginning, it was a conglomerate of squabbling between various settlements about what the conscience was to think. It became so bad that Emperor Constantine called the authorities(bishops)in those little settlements together and mandated that they establish once and for all a religion (conscience generator) of their liking—it would be the ‘law of the land’ enforced by the Roman army. Only a few came to the generation site (Nicaea), but those few succeeded in reaching a consensus—Catholicism was born. Three to four hundred years later, the Prophet Mohammed appeared with a new religion, Islam—the three Abrahamic religions were established and each with its own set if values.

In the meantime, in the Far East, Buddhism and Hinduism were flourishing—they were/are vastly different from the Abrahamic religions. Simultaneously, native cultures world-wide were establishing their own endemic religious understandings and practices.

Early on in Catholicism, the Ten Commandments, plus some Church laws were sufficient. However, as is usual, loopholes began to appear—peoples discovered ways that their consciences could avoid some of the dire consequences. No way was that to be allowed. So, gradually, as one loophole was closed with a new law, another loophole appeared. It reached a fever pitch during the Inquisitions but even then it had just begun to gain steam. Loopholes were appearing, seemingly from nowhere, and each mandated closure.

When I was a child studying Catholic Catechism daily, the ‘Baltimore Catechism” was relatively small—likely a 70-80 page 4″x5″ pamphlet. Guess what, the collective conscience of Catholics became so cunning and created so many loopholes that the current Catechism of the Catholic Church consists of 904, 6″x9″ fine print pages. The question is ‘who knows exactly what’s in those pages, and better still, how are they regarded’ (who really cares). As Catholics and Protestants alike have come to realize the irrationality of many church teachings, two things have happened—many have quit churching—most seem to ignore the rules. Both of those attitudes are conscience reliving ‘tools’. Observing the lack of Church attendance with the attendant loss of income prompted Pope Francis to proclaim; ‘No rules have changed. We just got to stop talking about them’.

It would seem rather obvious that of the five billion or so non Catholic people in the world, not many of them would know or care about what’s in that Catechism. So what about their consciences—very obviously, they would be vastly different. That’s not to say that we all couldn’t agree on some items. Let’s try ‘murder’ for instance—no way—there are people who consider everyone else in existence to be an ‘infidel’ and must be murdered according to Allah’s dictates. What about sex—try getting a consensus there. I could go on and on and point out countless instances of major societal attitudinal differences regarding what we may consider right or wrong. It would be impossible to get a significant consensus about literally anything.

The point I’m trying to make is that there is no such thing as a ‘universal collective conscience’. Neither is there the possibility of any two people having identical consciences—similar, yes—identical, no. The reason is very clear—religion and ideology.

If everyone in the world could be like-minded, then every conscience would be identical, and guess what—peace would break out.

I have written extensively about these subjects in my two books, Wilderness Cry, and Peace in Spirituality. More importantly, my frequent blog posts, such as this one, elaborate on some aspect of my philosophy. It all begins with an irrefutable definition of the essence of God. God is a Perfect Rational Being. That awareness dictates that the “Spirit of God’ (Holy Spirit) is imprinted on each and every particle of God’s energy which makes up everything in existence. In that real sense, we and everything in existence are ‘one’.

That knowledge prompted me about two years ago to call for the understanding and acceptance of The World-Wide Communion of Spirituality—the absolute only way peace can prevail.

OPPORTUNIST-Hilary L Hunt MD

OPPORTUNIST- May be described as an unscrupulous person who exploits circumstances to gain immediate advantage. Throughout the ages we have seen this form of activity played out in many different forums and on many different stages.

Lets consider the plight of Black Americans for a moment. If I understand history correctly, they were brought to America in the belly of ships equipped for no better than livestock. They were sold into slavery to the southern plantation owners. They lived in shacks on the meagerest food supply, and toiled daily in the fields. They had no rights of any kind since they were not considered to be truly human. Neither could they own land nor could they vote. Frequently their women were raped by white owners—just to enumerate some or their horrible existences.

In the early 1860s’, president Lincoln declared them to be freed—the Civil War began. Eventually, the North prevailed and the slaves were freed—what then? What were they going to do? Having no wherewithal and prompted by their natural instincts to get away from the their ‘slave masters’, they gradually migrated north to the cities. Here again, they were clustered together in meager housing with more meager sustenance—the slums were enhanced and enlarged.

With that brief history, fast-forward to my personal memory—post WW2. Every Democrat politician I have known or heard of has made wild, opportunistic promises to ‘help’ Black people in exchange for their vote. In spite of the fact that it was Abraham Lincoln, a Republican who freed them, like dutiful little sheep, they have obliged the Democrats by an estimated %90 or better margin.

To my understanding, and without much support from the Black voter, Donald Trump has done more for Black society than any other president in history. Yet look at the national scene. We have seen perpetual protesting from both Black and White against ‘Police brutality’ fostered by social media videos. Peaceful protests a la Dr. Martin Luther King are impossible—the paid anarchists, in opportunistic fashion, seize upon the moment for rioting, burning and looting. Not only that but it has gone on in some quarters for months with no Democrat ‘voice of dissent’. Donald Trump has been perpetually demeaned by liberal media and Democrats attempting to shift the blame onto him—another example of opportunism.

Now lets address other very visible cases of historical opportunism. The bible tells us that Moses commit murder as a young man. He was forced to escape and live in exile for roughly twenty years. Upon his return, sensing a void of leadership in the Israelite community, he and Aaron opportunistically seized power control over them and became their leader. Moses, of course, was responsible for the 10 Commandments and the creation of the concept of sin, another case of opportunism—Moses could maintain control of the Israelites by convincing them that God could either like and help them or he could hate and hurt them if they disobeyed him.

Now let’s fast-forward a few thousand years to the year 325 AD. Constantine was Emperor of the Roman Empire and the Jewish community as well as the new Christian communities were still under Roman control. By that time Jesus had been dead almost three hundred years. The ‘Christian’ Church was flourishing in a way. Due to the ‘power’ transfer in the hierarchy of the Church, the most prominent male in each little settlement had been consecrated a Bishop—there were 1800 such Bishops at the time. That may seem very well and good but there was one big problem. Few, if any of those Bishops and their followers agreed with the others about matters concerning Jesus, what he did, what he said, and what he meant. They were constantly bickering among themselves—at times actually fighting. They were supposed to be working and producing for the Empire, but their productivity was severely hampered by the distraction of religious differences.

Prior to that time, the official religion of the Empire was a pagan religion called Mithraism, and the Romans generally loved it. Opportunistically, Constantine, realized it would be easier to change the State Religion than try to settle disputes between Christian sects. Consequently, he called a general council at Nicaea. He invited all 1800 Bishops and offered to pay all of their expenses—only 180 or so showed up. Realizing how opportunistic they would be, he commissioned them to form a new unified religion of their own liking—it would become the new official Religion of the Roman Empire—Mithraism would be abolished. Anyone who refused to accept the new religion had two choices, beheading or abolishment to the wilds—what an opportunity for the Bishops. Of course, there were dissenters—some were beheaded. Eventually a consensus was reached and the Catholic (universal) church was born. Guess what, opportunistically, those Bishops put themselves in ‘total control’, and that control was guaranteed by the Roman Army.

So, has anything changed seventeen hundred years later? If so, I have been unable to detect it in my eighty seven years. We persist in having unscrupulous people in all walks of life preying on their fellow man—some say it’s worse now than ever—I doubt that.

There’s a reason for everything, and there’s a solution to every problem. I have systematically and painstakingly addressed the nature of those problems and their cure in my two books Wilderness Cry and Peace in Spirituality. You may wish to take this opportunity to avail yourself of those solutions in their reading.

SEX-Hilary L Hunt MD

Sex–volumes and volumes have been written about this subject, and, undoubtedly, many, many more will be written. Some of those writings have included scientific considerations and understandings—many have been written as a propaganda tool by and for various individuals or groups.

Throughout recorded history, sex has been portrayed as either ‘good’ or ‘bad’. There was a goddess of love and a goddess of fertility—sex was considered to be very good and desirable. The Kama Sutra is an ancient Indian (Asian) text on sexuality, eroticism, and the fulfillment of good emotional life, all of which are derived from sex. It was the Hindu recognition of the beauty in sexual pleasure as integrated into their everyday lives.

On the other hand, the Israelites put ‘chains of bondage’ on sex—a woman became a man’s property, and if she had sex with another man, she would be stoned to death. Parenthetically, Jesus attempted to change that attitude—he got killed for that.

Thereafter, those who developed philosophy and religion in the name of Jesus ignored his attitude toward sex. Initially, they were seemingly tolerant of ‘free sex’. Marriage was not yet considered a ‘sacrament’ and most so-called marriages were not expected to last more than a few years. That attitude seemed to persist until the fall of the Holy Roman Empire. Prior to the fall, the the hierarchy had the absolute ‘backing’ of the Empire—their sole concern seemed to be keeping the flock together by stamping out any heresy which popped up.

With the fall of the Empire, the church had no ‘weapon of control’—guess what—they pulled one ‘right out of the hat’ just like the ‘rabbit trick’. It took a few hundred years, but eventually ‘the lights came on’—sex would be their weapon. Immediately sex became almost ‘criminal’. Furthermore, women became synonymous with evil—after all, if there were no women, men wouldn’t be tempted to sin. Weddings were grudgingly allowed but not inside church buildings—the sex smells associated with women would attract too many ‘demons’ and, consequently, the church would become irretrievably ‘contaminated’.

Ascetics were rapidly gaining control of the church—one such ‘theological expert’ proclaimed that ‘it would be better for the human race to go extinct rather than be propagated by sexual union’. Irrationality regarding sex had reached its peak. Jerome was one such ascetic. According to professor Bart Ehrman, in translating the bible from Geek to Latin, Jerome removed or altered almost every reference to ‘anything good’ about women—such was his warped disdain of sex. Wouldn’t a psychoanalysis of Jerome’s personality be interesting to review—it would be to me.

From the beginning the Church was immersed in the mythology of astrology and Genesis,and it had to have a weapon to eradicate the ‘wayward’ sheep. What better weapon could be had than the second strongest natural urge in nature, sex—and the Inquisition was born. Witches were burned at the stake routinely, as was anyone accused of displaying any pleasure during sex. In addition, sex anywhere except on the ground was cause for execution by fire—the vibrations caused by sexual activity in an elevated structure would cause the earth to fall off its five crocked legs into the ‘netherworld’ below.

The psychological consequences of such irrational restrictions on a perfectly normal drive were devastating, and still are. Taylor in his astute book, Sex In History, describes Medieval Europe as “one giant cesspool of psychosis”—such was the dramatic effect of those restrictions. The Protestants in this country’s early history got into the act with the famous ‘Salem Witch Trials’—I believe nineteen people were convicted and hanged as witches before the government intervened and stopped the practice.

I used the term ‘and still are’ above referring to the Church’s austerity concerning anything to do with sex. For the first fifty years of my life, the Church’s attitude was extremely demeaning and controlling of sex. Their mandates created extreme psychological havoc in Catholics. Gradually, as people dropped away from the Church, the pulpits became mostly silent about sexual matters—haven’t heard a sermon demeaning ‘birth control’ in at least thirty five to forty years. Also, it is quite obvious, that few, if any, Catholics pay any attention at all to the Church laws regarding sexual matters—their ‘common sense’ dictates their behavior.

Pope Francis said it pretty succinctly when he announced, ‘No rules have changed. We just got to stop talking about them’ (paraphrased). Also, totally contrary to Church law, he said that couples should live together for two to three years before getting married in order to check their compatibility and, thereby, reduce the divorce rate. I’m convinced that he is correct in that assessment.

Furthermore, and more importantly, children should be instructed in both the science and psychology of sex. They need guidance in a proper and acceptable method of dealing with the insatiable drive of sex. The Church (sin police) are still attempting to control sexuality, but I can assure you that from my observation point, they are failing and failing miserably. Furthermore, their feeble but persistent attempts are alienating more and more—the pews are getting emptier by the day.

My contention is simply this; instead of attempting to control people with ancient mythology, the Church would be much better off and have much more meaning if it got on the science railroad. Science gives specific and explicit meaning to concepts of God and our universe. It beautifies and glorifies God’ beautiful creation. It shows that God’s presence is in everything in existence—otherwise it couldn’t be. More importantly, it helps to ‘mystify’ the beauty of sexual union—what a wonderful method of insuring species survival—instill in every individual, whether mouse or man, an irresistible urge to mate.

Several months ago, in recognition of God’s presence in everything, which brings everything into ‘communion’ with God, I called for the recognition and acceptance of The World-wide Communion of Spirituality as the only means to perpetual and universal peace. I have routinely reiterated that call. That concept involves an understanding that the Spirit (will) of God is imprinted onto every tiny particle of energy (quantum), of which everything in existence is made. Therefore the same Spirit pervades everything thereby imparting a ‘commonality’ to all in God.

My two little books, Wilderness Cry and Peace in Spirituality say it all.

PHILOSOPHY-HILARY L HUNT MD

PHILOSOPHY- just what exactly is ‘philosophy’? Well, philosophy has been defined several different ways, and I will offer you my definition. Simply stated, philosophy is a set of understandings about any given subject based on known or presumed facts. Please note that word ‘presumed’. Throughout recorded history, presumptions have created constant turmoil in our world society(ies).

For instance, literally all of our philosophy has been based on premises which later were proven to be incorrect—the earth was flat and supported on five wobbly legs continuously in danger of toppling into the netherworld below; the earth was the center of the universe; the sun, moon and stars held the keys to our health, wealth and wisdom; there was a god for literally every aspect of our existence; the one and only ‘true God’ was a grizzled old man sitting in the clouds ever ready to shower you with glorious gifts of good fortune (if you were good) and equally ready to bring torments of all sorts upon you (if you were bad)—just to name a few.

Now, lets examine the consequences of such fallacious premises and their resultant philosophies. Flat earth–people, for fifteen thousand or so years, were fearful of sailing out to sea too far because they would fall right off the edge of the earth into the netherworld. Earth supported on five crocked, wobbly legs–during the ‘Inquisition’, sex on any elevated structure was strictly prohibited and punishable by burning at the stake ,because the vibrations from such activity might cause the earth to topple into the netherworld. Earth as center of the universe–again, when Galileo published his scientific discovery that the sun was the center of our universe (solar system) and that the earth and other planets rotated around the sun, he was brought before the inquisition, and he barely escaped burning at the stake by virtue of a ‘forced recantation’ of his discovery—in spite of that, he was held under house arrest for the last nine years of his life. The sun, moon and stars (astrology) held the keys–astrologers proved to be nothing better than skalawag magicians who tricked people into believing all sorts of untruths. Parenthetically, those structures do, in fact, exert extreme influences on our earth but not in the way astrologers portrayed. Gods (gods)–in the early cultures worldwide, there was a recognized entity (god) in charge of literally every aspect of life (god of love, fertility etc.). Eventually, the Israelites came to recognize ‘one true God’. However, as I will show post haste, their ‘one true god’ is a myth also just as all the other ‘pagan gods’.

The Israelite God was patterned exactly after them. Even though he was all powerful and created the universe, basically all of his other traits were strictly human-like. He could love you or hate you; he could coddle you or kill you; he seemed to always be vengeful. He demanded strict adherence to his ‘laws’ (mind you, those laws were fabricated by Moses)—religion (Abrahamic religion) was created. That (those–Judaism, Christianity, Islam) religion reasoned that such a vengeful god would demand sacrifice–and sacrifice he got.

Now, lets address the fallacy of all that ‘philosophy’. Obviously, people were thinking. They could see plainly that both bad and good things happened in their lives. So, they were trying to understand why everything wasn’t ‘good’. Obviously, they concluded that there was an over-lord who didn’t appreciate some of their activities. That (those) overlord(s) was/were given the general name god. In the pagan world, each god had a specific domain. In the Israelite world, their ‘one’ God was in charge of all. More importantly he had to be appeased—a formal religion of attempted appeasement was born.

Fast-forward a few thousand years and Jesus appears—another sacrificial religion was born (Christianity). Six to seven hundred years later Mohammed appears—another Abrahamic religion appears (Islam). While not strictly ‘sacrificial’, Islam seems to derive it ‘appeasement’ from a strict prayer routine and strict adherence to Islamic Law. In any event each such religion is based on ‘false premises’ and therefore is doomed to be false in nature. While the Abrahamic religions busy themselves with appeasement, the other two great religions, Hinduism and Buddhism seem more contemplative—they have always attempted to understand the ‘nature’ of their god. In so doing, they each have established general rules of good living—those rules (guidelines) are their understanding of what their god might expect of them.

So, what is the truth? Simply stated, all religion(s) of which I am aware are based on ‘false premises’. The reason being that not a single person in the history of mankind has ever defined the Essence of God. Absent an essential definition, nothing has meaning. So all of the gods and the religions derived therefrom are pure myths. At this very moment you likely are astonished, and possibly dismayed, that I would/could make such a statement. I am allowed such privilege because of one deliberate consideration—I, Hilary Leo Hunt, have defined, in irrefutable terms, the ESSENCE OF GOD.

GOD IS A PERFECT RATIONAL BEING.

Let’s examine that definition:

When we say ‘God’, we mean Supreme—there is no other.

When we say ‘Is’, we mean always in the ever-present—not yesterday, nor tomorrow.

When we say ‘A’, we mean singular (triune in nature but singular in Godhead).

When we say ‘Perfect’, we mean complete—cannot possibly be added to nor deleted from—cannot possibly be pleased nor displeased.

When we say Rational, we mean an intellect which perceives and a will which achieves.

When we say Being, we mean it is a living entity.

The implications of this ‘perfect’ definition of God’s essence are unbelievably astonishing. In the first place, it shows that all religion is mythical and fallacious. All prayer is nonsensical. God is perfect, and his will cannot possibly be changed (it truly is blasphemous for us to ‘beg’ God to change his will). Our only ‘justifiable’ prayer is a hearty Thank you Lord for my existence, my sustenance and my salvation.

So, back to philosophy—now that we have a concrete definition of God’s essence, we can develop a meaningful philosophe of our existence based on ‘truth’. That philosophy has ramifications unheard of. However, I have begun its development in my two books, Wilderness Cry, and Peace in Spirituality. I strongly urge you to read them both.

As a matter of information, Wilderness Cry has received a 4 of 4 review rating. Furthermore, it will be featured as On-line Book Club’s ‘Book Of The Month’ this coming December. Peace in Spirituality will be featured by On-Line Book Club’s ‘Book of the Day” on my birthday, Oct. 23, 2021.

CONSEQUENCES-HILARY L HUNT MD

Consequences– seems like a strange title for a blog post, or does it? Please allow me to explain. Knowing the ultimate implications of consequences is undoubtedly the ‘most important understanding’ we can possibly have. I can hear you now saying to yourself, ‘what is that simpleton talking about?’. And I answer by saying, ‘listen-up and I will explain post-haste’.

The word consequence means ‘the effect or result of an action or condition’. So, you may say, ‘what’s that got to do with anything?’—I would say, ‘everything’. The primary question, then, is ‘when did consequences begin?’. The obvious answer is, ‘with the beginning of time’—time, of course, is a measure of ‘change’. So how and when did ‘time begin?’.

Once upon a time, there was no time; only eternity. However there is that Perfect Rational Being who exists in eternity. With its ‘Perfect Intellect’ it perceived of converting (demonstrating) its perfect energy by the creation of Perfect Little Particles of itself, known as quanta (pleural for quantum). A quantum is the smallest particle of energy (matter) which can not be subdivided. That Perfect Intellect perceived of several varieties of those quanta to which we humans have given names such as leptons, bosons, quarks, etc. Each of those particles is identical and indistinguishable from its counterparts. Collectively, they represent all of the ‘bricks’ from/of which every material thing in this universe is made.

We human have dubbed that Perfect Rational Being (Prime Mover) by hundreds of different names—the most familiar in modern times likely are God, Allah, Yahweh, Buddha and Brahma. I know of no human dead or alive who recognized that Prime Mover as ‘A Perfect Rational Being’ except me and Jesus. And I can hear you again screaming, yelling, tearing your hair our at my extreme brashness. All I calmly ask is, ‘show me another’—you can’t. Now back to the subject at hand.

Having visualized those perfect quanta along with a ‘performance task’ for each class, that Perfect Intellect said ‘hmm, I love that’. So with its Perfect Will (the Will of God, The Holy Spirit), it said, ‘I will those quanta to be Perfect and stay Perfect—I “love them; I choose them; I put my ‘brand of Perfection’ on each. Instantly, they came into being and simultaneously ‘time began’. Immediately, those quanta ‘went to work’ doing perfectly what they were created and commissioned to do, and guess what, they’re still doing it.

Of course, as each performed its task, something happened—there was a consequence. They rapidly formed Hydrogen and Helium atoms. As those massive gas clouds gathered, their density increased and a ‘star was born’—-there was light—another consequence. Eventually, the universe was filled with celestial bodies of all sizes, shapes and descriptions as we know them today—each a direct consequence of what went (happened) before—always in prefect fashion—a perfect consequence.

Now, fast-forward a few billion years. The sequences and consequences had resulted in the generation of ‘living’ things—that is, things that could reproduce themselves, and that they did. Initially, those living organisms seemingly had no intelligence of their own—they could, and did, react to stimuli—always in ‘perfect fashion’—a perfect consequence.

Now, fast-forward again—intelligent beings were consequentially generated and in perfect fashion. Cumulatively, and individually, each and every one of those distinct rational beings progressed on its own path of ‘perfect consequential development’ to being the ultimate individual it became at its death. No two could possibly be the same because no two could possibly have experienced each and every identical stimulus.

Somewhere, sometime, along the way, those intelligent beings noticed considerable differences in each other. They didn’t/couldn’t agree on a ‘code of civil conduct’—the reason for that, of course was each had different ideas about what was proper—each was a different ‘consequence’. Eventually, as their numbers and differences increased, they split into diverse tribes/nations and did develop rules of conduct—a direct consequence of intelligent ‘common sense’. They established ‘leaders’ with names such as Pharos and Kings.

One such tribe was the Israelites who the Bible tells us were enslaved by the Egyptians. The Israelites were stricken with a famine, and consequently, were forced to purchase grain from the Egyptians. During their forty year enslavement, a new leader named Moses was born. Mind you, the Israelites has already ‘recognized’ a singular God. They knew that when bad things happened, it was the consequence of their misdeeds. Likewise, when things were going well, they had God’s favor—consequently, they best behave.

As luck would have it, Moses grew to manhood, murdered someone, and was forced to live in exile for many years. However, upon his return, somehow (the Bible never made that clear to me), he and his brother Aaron assumed control of the Israelite tribe. They petitioned the Pharos to release them from slavery so they could go to the ‘promised land’. Of course, the Pharos refused, so Moses petitioned his God to send plagues on the Egyptians. After the tenth plague, the Pharos relented and allowed the Israelites to depart—a direct consequence of torment from God and fear of more of the same.

The Israelites escaped with many sequential and consequential events occurring on their journey, Eventually, as they wandered aimlessly and helpless in the desert, many of the tribesmen lost faith in Moses leadership and even his God. As a consequence, they began worshiping idols, and doing all sorts of illicit things. Moses and Aaron scolded them to no avail. Moses was no dumb-bell (after all he has weaseled his way into being leader, so he sat down and wrote out what he considered to be good ‘rules of governance—the 10 Commandments. when Moses presented the commandments to them, the Israelites just laughed at him and went right on their merry way—Moses was not happy at all with that consequence. So, in disgust, he threw the tablets upon which the rules were written to the ground, breaking them—a physical consequence.

Up to the mountain he goes again. He re-writes them on new stone tablets. This time he presents them as ‘Gods Commandments’ with warnings of any breeches having ‘dire’ consequences. Officially, ‘sin’ was born.

So we fast-forward several thousand years to Jesus. By the time he came along, the Jews had utilized that ‘sin’ complex to make a triple fortune for the King, High Priest and Sanhedrin—the poor peasants were just ‘out of luck’. Jesus recognized the ‘hoax’ being perpetrated on his people as a consequence of that ‘sin complex’ abuse. Not only that, but for the first time in history, Jesus openly de-vowed the nature of the Jewish God and offered an entirely different understanding of God to his followers. Of, course he was convicted as a traitor and, as a consequence, he was killed.

Now, fast-forward again 300 years. During that hiatus, as a consequence of total lack of unanimity of understanding of who Jesus really was, what he really said, and, more importantly, what he ‘meant, literally every village had its own ‘bishop’. Not only that but, literally, each of them had different ideas about the ‘Jesus thing’. Consequently, instead of working and producing for the ruling Romans, they were bickering and fighting among themselves. As a consequence, the official Church which Constantine commissioned them to form, put themselves in total hierarchal control—the ‘Sin Police’ were recommissioned. We know the rest of the story, so lets get to the punch-line.

Sin is a manufactured process aimed at controlling the masses—since Moses’ time, it has been that way. What no one, seemingly, has understood is one, plain, simple fact—everything in this universe is perfect. Every murderer, rapist, thief, or social ‘undesirable’ of any kind is a ‘perfect consequence’ of all the consequences that went before in his/her life. God knows no ‘sin’. Everything (quanta) God created is perfect—everything in existence is the ‘perfect consequence’ of each and every stimulus applied to it from its inception. Therefore, we as rationale, civilized beings must re-orient our understanding of our Perfect Supreme Being. We must know that God, with his ‘Perfect Intelligence’ knew in advance exactly how each of us would eventuate—and through ‘no fault of our own’.

Yes, when we are hurt by someone, we consequently feel anger—a ‘normal’ human reaction. A more rational reaction would be a feeling of ‘sorrow ‘ for the offender. As a consequence of that ‘understanding’, we, as a rational society must come to grips with this reality—we, each are the direct consequence of every stimulus applied to us. Having said that, we as a society must have order and civility. Accordingly, people who breech our major societal rules ‘must be taken out of society’ until, and if, they can be ‘reprogrammed’, and made fit again. We have been, and still are, exerting our efforts in the wrong way—consequently, things are getting worse by the day.

The proper course of action stems as a consequence of proper understandings. 1-a proper understanding of the essence of our creator, and 2-a proper understanding of how our psyches are developed. The immediate consequence of lack of understanding of God’s essence is cultist religion which feigns appeasement of that God, but which, instead, creates feelings of guilt and hostility in people. All religions seem to be based on the ‘false narrative’ of that ‘humanistic God’. The direct consequence of religion is guilt and rebellion, both of which create havoc in society.

We must expend our resources in the training thousands of clinical psychologists specifically trained in Psychoanalytic Psychotherapy. Most importantly, we must quit sending everyone on a ‘guilt-trip’ through ‘cultist religion’. We need ‘Spirituality’ which is the understanding that the ‘Spirit of God’ Is imprinted on everything and everyone. God is Perfect—God cannot possibly be hurt or pleased. God is Perfect Love (perfect acceptance). God loves everyone, criminals and all—he cannot possibly love one more than another. The consequences of that would be an ‘Imperfect God’—not possible.

I have elaborated those concepts endlessly in my two books, Wilderness Cry, and Peace in Spirituality. I implore you to read and study each for the consequences of ‘peace of mind’ and ‘peace in society’.

FAITH vs. RELIGION-PART 2–HILARY L HUNT MD

Due to a glitch in navigating WordPress yesterday, I had to cut short my comments—my apologies. Today, I will continue with my conversation about faith and how it relates to Religion.

To begin with, just what is ‘faith’? Strictly stated, faith is the acceptance of something as being true without concrete evidence of that truth. In addition, there are two basic kinds of faith, ‘implicit’ and ‘explicit’.

A common example of ‘explicit faith’ would be a warranty on a new automobile—from past experience and hearsay, we know that manufacturers typically stand good for their stated warranty. So, we are legitimate in having explicit faith that they will again.

A common example of ‘implicit’ faith is demonstrated in our willingness to believe that when we greet on an airplane, it will take us to our destination safely. We know from historical experience that commercial airline crashes in the US are rare. However, we are willing to ‘take that’ chance under the umbrella of ‘implied faith’ that all will be well.

Understandably, you may say ,’what’s that got to do with God and religion?’—and I would say ‘everything’, and here’s why. Those, among both the ancients and relative neophytes, who have concocted religions, have done so based on their version of ‘explicit faith’. In other words, God has ‘revealed’ to each of then a set of absolutes. So what then? Gradually those ‘absolutes’ demand interpretation and in that process of ‘implied faith’, a gazillion different religions have been formed (created). In truth, every human who ever existed has had a different faith and a different religion.

You may object, saying ‘I know twenty people who go to Saint ‘so and so’ Catholic church, and twenty more who go to ‘such and such’ Baptist Church, and so on and on and on. That may be absolutely true—-they go to a certain church, but no two of them have the same identical ‘faith or religion’

The reason for all that is very simple indeed—each of them knows (visualizes) a different God, because as I stated yesterday, no one before me has defined the ‘essence of God’. Therefore, not one of them knows the God about whom they think—each of those billions of gods are pure myths—they are like Santa—each similar but different, and all mythical.

It is impossible to know about any entity or concept without first defining its essence. Jesus didn’t know ‘particle physics’, but in his brilliance he recognized that the Spirit of God pervaded all existences—otherwise nothing could be. He set about to enlighten (Christ) the world about the universality and Perfect Love of God—that activity got him killed. He knew it would, but seeing himself as the ‘sacrificial lamb’, he willingly chose an ignominious death so that the world might be ‘enlightened’ (I am the light of the world) to the truth of God’s essence—Perfect Rationality.

It seems very doubtful if anyone either understood his message, or if they did understand, they were willing to accept it. Remember, The Jews killed him for treason—teaching anything contrary to the Jewish religion was treason. Guess what—the formation of so-called Christianity followed in the Jews footsteps. They set themselves up in hierarchal arrangement. I guess one might call it ‘trickle-down power. Regardless how one may perceive it, the result was/is the same—power, control, money.

So what are the implications of defining God’s essence as Perfect Rationality. Very simply, something perfect cannot be changed. Time is a measure of change. Since God is perfect he exists in eternity, a state of no change nor time. God cannot be hurt. God cannot be pleased. God cannot possibly ‘change his mind’ about anything. So all of this praying, sacrificial ritual, begging God to change his mind, etc.. could, in fact be considered blasphemous. However, God’s Perfect Love precludes any possibility of ‘retribution’ on his part.

In fact, out only justifiable prayer, while not expected by God, but to keep us humble and appreciative of his love, is a great big ‘Thank you God for your loving acceptance of me , a selfish sinner’.

So where does religion fit in? My belief; it is the most major deterrent to tranquility and peace that the world has ever known. It is also the most ‘monstrous’ money machine the world has ever known.

I mentioned my two books about these subjects yesterday. I will attempt to insert info about them.

FAITH vs. RELIGION–HILARY L HUNT MD

Do you have faith?—-do you have religion, or better said, do you practice some organized religious exercise? I suspect an honest answer would be ‘yes’ on both counts from the majority of people. Why do you suppose that is? I would suggest to you that you have been (to use a common term) ‘brainwashed’ by either your parents or your preacher or both. So, the obvious question to be asked is, ‘what do you believe and why do you believe it’.

The majority of people in the USA profess some sort of “Christian” faith. Then the obvious question is. ‘just what does that mean?’ What does it mean to be a ‘Christian’? And how is it possible that of the 200,000,000 or so ‘Christians’ in this county alone, no two have an identical faith. So what does it mean to me Christian? Most immediate answers would be something like this—well. I accept Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior.

And I would say, ‘wait just one minute; who or what is Christ?’ Your answer likely would be fluttering, stuttering, and possibly unintelligible. Could you explain to a common simpleton, what it means to be ‘Christ?. If you could, you’d be one extremely much more talented than Jesus the Nazreen. As best I can determine, Jesus spent his entire public life attempting desperately to explain who the ‘Christ’ was to his apostles—literally 99.9999% of all written accounts show that he failed miserably.

Jesus spent his entire public life in the shadows preaching the singularity of God—that is to say he kept telling them that God was/is Perfect Love—they certainly didn’t want to hear that—that was unbounded heresy and demanded death by the most ‘cruel’ means—crucifixions—he was a traitor to the Jewish religion .

Now, Just what is religion? Plainly stated, religion is a cultist practice, overtly aimed at appeasing a vengeful God, but subtly aimed at power, money , control. Just check a little history—who were the reapers of benefits from the Jewish ‘religion’?—The King and the High Priest. Has anything changed in 4000 years—if so, its imperceptible.

So what was Jesus telling them that was so bad? Very simply, that ‘God is in everything and everything is in God’—God loves you in spite of your wicked self. Even his apostles didn’t understand that (they had been brainwashed, just as you).

Jesus was telling them what the Christ was/is. Christ is the ‘Light of the World’—Jesus was the ‘explainer’ of our Heavenly, all loving, Creator. Jesus was a liberator who steadfastly looked the ‘scoundrels’ in the eye—he called them hypocrites, as indeed, they were. He knew his fate, but he courageously forged on. His apostles didn’t understand—maybe John a little. In his letter, John wrote, ‘brothers, what we are now, we know we are children of God. What we are to become is yet to be determined. But. we know that when we get to heaven, we will ‘be like him, because we will see him as he truly is’ (paraphrased).—how beautiful. It took me seventy five years of observing religion while exploring the meaning of faith to realize what was ‘missing’—-the essence of God had never explicitly been define—thousands had tried—all failed.

By pure happenstance, I stumbled onto a monumental scientific course in Quantum Mechanics (Particle Physics)—it was like a miracle—Christ, the ‘Light of the World’ was plainly visible to me. Finally, God’s essence could be defined in ‘no uncertain terms’. Furthermore, that ‘essential definition’ not only defined our Creator conclusively, but more importantly, it ‘negated completely’ the practice of ‘cultist religion. That definition ‘opened doors’ never before opened except by Jesus the Christ. Seemingly, he was totally ignored—we’ll never know for sure, so distorted and ‘corrupted’ is the written word we have.

So once again for you, the uninitiated—

God Is A Perfect Rational Being.

Absolutely nothing can be added nor subtracted from that essential definition—if you think so, I dare you to try.

I have outlined my complete philosophy, based on that essential definition in my two books, Wilderness Cry and Peace in Spirituality. I encourage you to ‘liberate’ yourselves in their reading.

DERELICT-Hilary L Hunt MD

cropped-img_0360-1-e1509913859388.pngDERELICT—In common usage, this word typically refers to a vagabond-type person. Dereliction of duty typically refers to failure to shoulder one’s obligations and/or responsibilities. I think yours truly may fit into the latter category as of late, because, as a regular philosophical blogger, my followers were likely expecting to hear from me before now. However, as the old saying goes, ‘I’ve had other fish to fry’.

Since late January of this year, weather permitting, every spare moment of mine  has been spent in my gardens, clearing, fencing, tilling, planting, feeding, watering and finally harvesting. All of the above effort has been directed at fresh vegetable production for our local Community Kitchen which feeds free meals to  hundreds of indigents daily. With the dutiful help of my dear wife Ginny and a friend, Carol Cain, we recently finished the harvest of roughly 1000 pounds of fresh cabbage.

With all other crops and projects under reasonable control, I decided to ‘rationalize’ my way onto the golf course this past week. With a worn out back and two arthritic hips, walking any distance is impossible. So if we can’t drive our golf cars on the fairways, I have to refrain from playing golf. It finally quit raining two weeks ago which allowed car traffic on fairways, so I took advantage of that. Now back to the business at hand.

During the last several weeks we have witnessed episode after episode of apparent dereliction of duty which were, again, rationalized as justification for  episode after episode of looting and violence of all sorts.

IMG_0082So what are the causes of such derelictions. If one can believe any so-called news casts at all, it seems much of it was done by ‘hired guns’ for both political and social reasons. The leftists would use any excuse to blame President Trump for any and every untoward event of any kind in an attempt to sway public opinion against him. Then there are the genuine ‘lawless’ who seemingly want to take over chunks of entire cities so they can ‘have their way’ undeterred.

People who wished to protest peacefully had no chance—their voices and activities were drowned out completely. Thankfully, in our smaller cities and towns, civility pertained.

I am convinced that the breakdown of family life among black Americans is the prime culprit. Where there is no father-figure disciplinarian and role model, what can one expect? On the other hand, when black Americans were emancipated, what choice did they have but to migrate to the cities—and once there, what chance did they have?—slim and none.  They were still enslaved in an economic system completely untenable—they had no money, they owned no land, they were forced to live in slum conditions. More importantly, they were neither positioned nor conditioned to obtain the one vital thing they needed for prosperity—-education. So the inevitable happens—unwanted pregnancies with no father figure, and a mother with no visible means for support of her child(ren)—a welfare state was created.

I grew up a total pauper. But I had two very distinct advantages that the average black child in the ghettoes and slums cannot possibly have— we owned a little 30 acre farm from which we produce literally everything we ate, and we had extremely dedicated, hard-working parents who taught us hard work, determination and perseverance. With that paradigm as a model, success was possible and it did, in fact, come to fruition—would that every black child had that same opportunity.

Oh there have been, and are now, thousands of successful, honorable black Americans—-they were the fortunate ones. I have no statistics to back my statement, but I’ll bet most came from stable homes, or at least had trusted guardians and advisors.

I know many very successful black people in West Kentucky. Our educational system here encourages all to strive for excellence. Yet there are many, many who seemingly can’t help themselves. Much needs to be done yet.

This is Father’s Day. Isn’t it a crime that so many black and white children are fatherless—they obviously had a sire—a father?—no.

But who is the biggest culprit in this charade? Without any doubt in my mind, it is so-called Christian Churches. I recall vividly about fifteen years ago, when I was formulating  ideas for my first book, Wilderness Cry, my wife and I were having dinner with three other couples one night when I made that indictment of the ‘silent Churches’ regarding race. All but one of my friends bolted in ‘righteous indignation’ at the mere suggestion. I had just noted that, in general, not a single word was ever heard coming from any pulpit regarding slavery, or its aftermath, ‘implied slavery’. I was well aware by then that the almighty dollar was what concerned churches the most. Obviously, if churches were to point out the plight of blacks, then they were most obviously mandated to do something about it—that means spend their ‘almighty dollars’.

Furthermore, the mere mention of such an undertaking would alienate many parishioners, further reducing the coffers. Oh, if pressed, they might pay ‘lip service’—nothing more.

IMG_1065I believe without doubt, if there is lingering ‘systemic racism’, it comes straight from the ‘coward’ pulpits.

I recently watched a video interview of Cassius Clay shortly after he had won the Olympic Gold medal in boxing in 1960. He related how proud he had been to stand on that box, have that medal put around his neck, and listen to the playing of our National Anthe. He was so excited to get back to his home town of Louisville, KY, and celebrate with his friends and family. They went to a nice restaurant, and promptly were told that ‘blacks would not be served there’. He had been raised a Christian, but at that very moment, he determined that the Jesus he had been taught about was no friend of his—Allah became his God—Mohammed Ali became his name.

Where were the Christian Churches then—where are they now—where were they 400 years ago? You got it—blind, deaf, mutes.

Where do you suppose all that blindness comes from? Is  not the Old testament rife with stories of slavery. Were not both Ishmael and Esau the products of slave girl impregnation by their Jewish owners? Were not the Jews enslaved for forty years by the Egyptians? I don’t recall Jesus addressing the slave situation in the Bible we have. I may sound cynical, but I’ll bet he did—we’ll never know—how many ‘versions’ of the Bible have there been?—you don’t suppose Jesus’ possible words about slavery could have been a ‘convenient’ omission, do you? Knowing Jesus the way I do, my suspicion is very strong.. As best I can tell, all those monstrous church buildings in Europe and elsewhere were built with ‘slave labor’. God must ‘love slaves’ because they built all those beautiful churches to ‘please him’—guess whom they really pleased—I’ll give you three guesses—Popes, Cardinals, Bishops.

Derelicts in dereliction.

If you care for a real education, read my two little books, Wilderness Cry, and Peace in Spirituality. As an adjunct, read G. Rattray Taylor’s book (out of print but available used), Sex in History—you’ll get an ear full.

906242_Press Release for Wilderness Cry

Press Release for Peace in Spiritiality

PICTURE OF GOD-Hilary L Hunt MD

cropped-img_0360-1-e1509913859388.pngPICTURE OF GOD–Do you know what God looks like? Have you ever seen pictures of God? If someone ask you to draw a picture of God for him/her, would you be able to do so? If you were to draw a picture either on paper or in your mind, where did that picture come from? How did you come to know what God looks like?

At first glance, you may consider all of these questions to be ‘simpleminded’ in nature. However, I suspect that, if you were to be truly introspective and honest with yourself, you’d have to admit that any and  all images of God that you may have were imprinted on your mind by pictures of God presented to you as ‘real’ during your earliest Christian indoctrination period—-I know mine are/were. Consequently, it is literally impossible to think ‘God’ without conjuring up one of those images.

Now lets examine the legitimacy of such images. In my experience, God is frequently pictured as a grizzled old man floating in semi-bust form in the clouds. Another usual presentation is that same grizzled old man in gala attire wearing a stunning crown sitting in the clouds on a brilliantly adorned throne with Jesus, in diminutive form, sitting by his right side. These are the two that stand out in my imagery. Logic demands that we, as intelligent beings, must ask ourselves the obvious question—who concocted those ideas and presented them to as a real, and for what purpose?

IMG_0082The Old Testament tells us that the Jews recognized God—they could talk to him and even bargain with him. In addition, they carried him around on their shoulders in The Arc Of The Covenant. I don’t recall the Old Testament describing what God looks like. As a matter of fact, I don’t remember any verbal description of God’s appearance in the New Testament or any later Christian writings—maybe there were some I missed. So, how did we become indoctrinated  with those images of God?

My common sense tells me the following: the Jews imagined a God patterned exactly after their own demeanor, only much more knowing and powerful—after all, he did create the entire universe. He could be loving, helpful, pleased and forgiving. Just like them, he could be displeased, hurt, angry, hateful and vengeful. So why not imagine him as a human-like person—he had all the ‘human-like’ characteristics.

It seems to me that both that identical  image and understanding of God has been perpetuated by the ‘Christian’ Church, and likely for a definite reason—they were determined to have a  humanistic relationship with God—their God could not possibly be elusive or intangible—he had to be ‘real’ in their minds. That mandate eventually became very ‘profitable’. As time went on, many paintings depicting Jesus, Mary, Joseph and many saints came to be—God had to be depicted somehow. So he was, and is, and is, and is……….

Jesus never described his Father in any way except eternal and loving. Nowhere, that I am aware of did Jesus describe God in ‘humanistic terms. Throughout the ages, great philosophers and theologians alike, recognizing the miniscule depiction of God in the Bible, determined that a ‘true’ understanding of God must be ascertained. Each, in turn, determined that the ‘essence’ of God must be defined before we could know the real  God. Each made a desperate effort at defining God’s essence—some came close—all systematically failed.

IMG_1065Why do you suppose the all failed. I think two main reasons—number one, they couldn’t abolish that image of a human-like God, and number two, they had absolutely no scientific understanding of anything in God’s creation. Had any one of them known the scientific facts of our existence, a true definition of God’s essence would very likely have been forthcoming.

The only ‘meaningful’ record we have of Jesus’ teachings about God is the Bible, and as a matter of absolute fact, we will never know exactly what Jesus said and did—so distorted and corrupted is the Bible. The earliest copy of the original writings is  a copy of a copy, of a copy made 200 or more years after the original. Since that time, dozens of different versions of the bible have appeared, each with a different twist.  Why do you suppose that is?

I believe, without doubt, there are several reasons. The original Christian (Catholic) church which emerged from the first Nicene council was fashioned by people who put ‘power’ over love. They lorded over their constituents in the most virulent and terrifying way. In the beginning, of course, they had the absolute protection of the Roman Army—their wish was the Roman Army’s command. After the fall of the Roman Empire, that protection ceased. The debauchery and simultaneous abuse by the hierarchy following Rome’s fall is well documented.

Based on this ‘humanistic’ image of God, well meaning mystics and ascetics alike began rationalizing the meaning of Jesus’ words. It has been shown by Prof. Bart Ehrman, that as Jerome translated the Bible into Latin, because of his extreme ascetism, he deliberately eliminated or change the meaning of almost every reference to anything good about women—after all, women were the ‘root of all evil’—women were evil. With the advent of the Protestant Reformation, Bibles began ‘sprouting up’ everywhere. Each ‘version’ was another man’s attempt to place Jesus’ words into a picture of his own God.

The ultimate result from all that confusing imagery is a Christian world fragmented into 33,000 or more denominations and sects, and each professing a God based on their own individual ‘imaginations’—not a single one of them knows the basic nature of God—Gods essence.

God cannot possibly be depicted rationally with a paint brush—God is supernatural and eternal. God has no body—God has no physical appearance. Teaching little children a  depiction of God in humanistic terms is ‘criminal’ in my opinion, because it leaves an indelible false image about the most important consideration of their lives. Little children soon learn that Santa is a myth.  His image will harmlessly persist in their minds forever. On the other hand, God is no myth—-he should not be presented to little children with a mythical image.

Neither I, nor anyone else can ‘paint you a picture’ of God—the invisible cannot be painted.

I can, however, and already have, irrefutably, defined for you God’s Essence— God is a Perfect Rational Being. That Perfect Rationality translates into ‘Perfect Love’. Therefore, God cannot possibly have any human characteristics—he cannot be hurt—he cannot hate—he cannot be vengeful. He can only ‘know all’ with his perfect intellect and ‘love that all’ (will, accept, choose) with his Perfect Will. Therefore Hell, Purgatory, Limbo, Higher Places in Heaven, etc. are all myths dreamed up (imagined) by various people trying to know and understand God from a humanistic standpoint—and likely for purposes of maintaining power and control which translates into owning your pocket book.

All of that imagination has engendered  the biggest money-making racket the world has ever known under the guise of keeping your soul out of Hell—that racket is known as Religion.

My two little books, Wilderness Cry and Peace in Spirituality say it all. You might want to investigate.

906242_Press Release for Wilderness Cry

Press Release for Peace in Spiritiality

RATIONAL vs. RATIONALIZATION-Hilary L Hunt MD

cropped-img_0360-1-e1509913859388.pngRATIONAL vs. RATIONALIZATION- A strange and unusual topic eh? Maybe so, but I suspect most people get caught in the trap of either not understanding the difference , or not honoring that difference. Rational refers to objective truth whereas rationalization refers to using objective truth in an illegitimate or unrelated context in order to justify a position of some kind, either attitude or action.

In his famous Gettysburg address, Abraham Lincoln is quoted as saying, “We hold these Truths to be self evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness”. The objective truths of which he spoke were to be found in the Declaration of Independence. Reasoning and reasonable men, after observing and enduring centuries of oppression by tyrannical governments of one kind or another, were able to glean those basic truths. Furthermore, they had the stalwart courage to express and promote those basic truths with their lives, if necessary.

So, rational or rationality refers to the intellectual ability to discern truth, and the willful  mandate to accept, choose, love that truth.

One might ask how it is possible to know the truth. Truth is established in various ways and by using various techniques. In the world of science, truth is established by the ‘scientific process’—postulation, experimentation, observation. If the same identical result is obtained with each identical experiment, then that result becomes a scientific truth (fact-law). A similar formula may be applied in the field of philosophy—however it may be a bit more ‘tricky’ and always involves subjectivity. As in Lincoln’s proclamation, ‘We hold these truths to be self evident’ , meaning, of course, that after centuries of observation and experimentation with human beings lives, the basic truth of human dignity  became obvious.

Another form of ‘truth establishment’ is Logic, which deals with premises leading to a conclusion. In its simplest form one, might use the following example:                                        Premise 1—all houses are white                                                                                                          Premise 2—that building is a house                                                                                                    Conclusion—that building is white. Nothing more, nor less can be added to that proposal because no other factual information is available, However, in the ‘real world of speculation and rationalization, the average ‘Jack or Jill’ may be caught expounding endlessly about the additional qualities of that structure. So, in such a case, one rationalization leads to a pseudo-truth which may be expounded upon and expanded to the point that,  in very short order, that basic house could not be recognized using verbal communication.

IMG_0082Here we are, at this very moment, embroiled in a national revolt because the ‘truth’ of Lincoln’s observation has been ignored—likely by rationalizing individuals. At the same time, decent, respectable, citizens are attempting to stage ‘peaceful objection’ to such rationalized activity. Their voices, however, have been drowned out for the most part by ‘insurgents’ who have a different agenda—that seems to be overthrow of our government which was founded on a precious concept of equality of all and prospects of happiness for all. Their subversive agenda no doubt sprang from hatred and deceit and is justified in their minds  by the ‘rationalization process’.

Now, lets turn to our Creator which President Lincoln recognized. Just who is that Creator? How do we know that there is such an entity and if there is, what is it like?

Simple observation of world history will demonstrate rather clearly that our Creator has been denoted with at least a thousand different titles, understandings, qualities, abilities, attitudes, demeanors, locations and intentions. How is that possible when literally each person speaks rather authoritatively about ‘his/her Creator’? The answer to that question lies in a very simple framework called ‘Rationalization’. 

Throughout the eons, each king, society and person, aided by the process of rationalization, has created an ‘image’ of their Creator. Their god/ being, of course, was fashioned nearly always for self-serving purposes. In more ‘modern times (6,000 years), those Gods served a wonderful purpose—-to keep the troops in line.

Of course, most of those ‘gods’ were fashioned with human qualities—selfishness, ire, revenge, mercy—a little bit of occasional love—but don’t get too snuggly—you’ll get burned.

Quite obviously, that god had to be appeased, and, usually, with sacrifice—RELIGION WAS BORN.

That form of rationalization possibly began with concepts of god/s and , of course has pervaded the human ‘thought process’ ever since—rather dramatically negatively, I might add. Just look at our streets this very minute.

IMG_1065How did all this confusion about God come about? Remarkably, everyone, including ‘Honest Abe’, talked/talks about god, but not a single one knows God—none were able to define the essence of their god.

With God’s help, I did.

Without an essential definition, absolutely nothing nor any one, especially God, has any meaning at all.

My definition: God is a Perfect Rational Being. That Perfect Rationality means that with its Perfect Intellect, it perceived ‘all’, and with its Perfect Will, it loves (accepts, chooses, wills ) ‘all’. Furthermore and most importantly, there is not the slightest possibility of ‘any rationalization’ coming from that Perfect Intellect’.

If you choose rationality over Rationalization, please read my two little books, Wilderness Cry, and Peace in Spirituality.

906242_Press Release for Wilderness Cry

Press Release for Peace in Spiritiality