Fear of 'Others'

Don’t you think,

late at night,

alone in our room,

when we have removed all the clothes and other accessories meant to cover ourselves with identity,

when there is no one to watch our performance and measure themselves to it,

Don’t you think, when we are all alone, we all very well know that all humans should be equal

In their chances to enjoy life?

When we are all alone and not a part of our crowd, aren’t we all afraid?

And what are we afraid of? Lions? Tigers? Snakes? Earthquakes?

Depends on where we live.

Other humans? Most probably.

And more power we have over other humans more we must be afraid to be alone.  More power we exercise though does put us in a position where someone might desire to hurt us for some righteous actions of ours. We truly might get in danger for being impartial in our implementation of justice. But the fortress of protection we, when we reach such position, build around ourselves, provides us with impunity (or at least immunity from the immediate consequences) both for our correct and our unjust conductions.

Don’t you think that power is wrong to be given to anyone over anyone? In most inclusive meaning possible? 

There is not one case where power over someone is a necessity. Parents must have power over their small children in order to save them from injuries while kids don’t know. Others, under name of society, must have power over individual who chooses to destruct someone’s integrity or any personal or public property.  (Yet the definition of property should not conjoin more then what the individual can practically use for himself or herself. It will be difficult to construct of how, but the private property must somehow be limited and piling money restricted to the level of, at least, what is expedient for the life of human being). 

But giving power to one adult human over another grown and fully conscious being, allowing a decision power over life and death of that other to anyone, is not only beyond what natural law should make us believe at the present state of our intellectual development, but more importantly the permission and a frame for unjust conduct to be and remain possible to perform legally.

Don’t you have sense that it is equally important that others receive justice as for ourselves to be in it’s favor?

Or, at least, don’t you have a sense that, even if we don’t share the same destiny our grandchildren with high probability will?

When we think of fixing the system and improving the righteousness of the distribution of resources, we somehow always start from the upper middle. As much as we pretend to behave otherwise and as long as we are spitting on each others shoes talking of helping poor and oppressed, the fact is that the right of the second, who is next after first, to be more equal to first, is considered first.

Openly pronounced or not, the salary of the high executive of some company is more likely to rise, and more likely to rise more often, then the salary of his subordinates. Yes. The market decides our value. But who is market? And to whose interests and benefits we are of a particular value?

Aren’t we earning our daily bread by serving those who are robbing majority of the world’s population of their resources for life?

Private property, as the primary notion of respect and ultimate object of legal protection, is a dictator above any individual. Those who constructed the legal system to protect it above all human rights, were for sure not ones deprived of such possession at the time.

But when all of us are consenting to such law, we are presenting it as just and it produces thinking that poverty can be voluntary. Due to the comfort of the libertarian philosophy we are ready to deny historical reasons of both someone’s poverty or riches. But even if there weren’t any, domination of private property will never allow majority to come out of poverty even if they want to. Rule of private property in every human law is a key point of preserving the way resources are distributed in a current order. It will allow the disparity of distribution up to the point where it can protect own self. It will keep as many people in a complete or in relative poverty as it can militarily or by the sources of the system of corruption (which we all – willingly although not always agreeably – support by our participation in it), keep incapable for rebellion.

Now let’s double-check this claim.

Do we feel that we have a power to subdue those oppressing us? Do we believe that the rebellion against the system that is oppressing us should dare to expect some success as a result, or is it more likely that we shall lose our social options, our freedom of choices and, very possibly, our life?

Don’t you think that system is so twisted that we cannot change it by the decree? Doesn’t it seam as equally unlikely that a violent rebellion would have any chance? Doesn’t it appear as if this system is a paranoid schizophrenic who can be made less harmful by some remedies, but never cured in his functional fault?

Are we not afraid that humans that will live after us will have more horrible challenges to face?

That when we deceive ourselves that we are doing best in our power to prevent it.  

Do we think that we can talk about equality and human rights while not questioning capitalist legal system and the notion of private property as inviolable right?

Do we pretend to believe that we can leave the notion of social hierarchy unexamined as such? Can we in any real case distinct it from the ladder of corruption? If corruption means taking undeserved value, which person higher in hierarchy can claim themselves less corrupted then the lower positioned one?

Doesn’t it look like the purpose of social hierarchy; originated to meet the need for consensus, protection of the group and every individual, hence it was choosing the strongest and wisest for leaders whose advice and orders others will follow; is now (and by now I mean since the beginning of what we call human society and is opposite from what we see as primary community), as the structure has grown, turned out to serve the opposite – quarrel and uncertainty?

Do we have any more realistic reason to defend current conception of social hierarchy then the definition of what it should be standing for with it’s assigned authority? Or do we have any reason to believe that it is standing for it in reality?

Is the only synonymous for the state without hierarchy – anarchy? Is that what we are afraid of when we chose to participate in preserving hierarchy? Or is it just us talking who see for own selves opportunities to climb the ladder?
But isn't the current state the anarchy of some?

It is one thing to count lives from the safety of the UN palace in Geneva. You are simply not capable of perceiving own life as the one in danger to become a number in your count. Isn’t it most important for you for that particular fact (us to count – not be counted) to remain as such? It is much more important then to stop counting lives. Or isn’t it?  

It is another thing to count lives of own family and neighbors, not ever hearing formal concerns of your government or seeing anyone come to rescue.

Aren’t we all, in a first place, happy to not be them? Isn’t our first interest and demand from the global justice not to become them? Aren’t we all, by maintaining our ‘citizenships’, defending our birth right not to share their destiny?

And if it is a case that we believe in interference of some supernatural omnipotent entity in sharing lots at birth, where such entity also decides of the merits to be accredited to the particular newborn, we have good enough excuse to be content with the comfort of such belief while exploiting our privileges. Our beliefs support compassion, but do not oblige us to action besides one named as charity and which is directed towards mitigating misery, yet not towards creating option for them to become equal to us in their chances for self-realization - which would involve, by any available means, changing legal structure that allows their oppression. Or, and which is a same thing, our oppression as long as we are not on the power end.

Didn’t we learn already that counting lives ends once the interested party has achieved preservation of own interests? Do we really think that other in power will be merciful to us until their last breath? Can we afford to deceive ourselves that we in particular are more valuable as a number to those who are deciding of who to count off? Or do we actually think that, due to the potential that we ourselves carry for contributing to the society being larger then of the one who didn’t have our chances, we have more right not to end up as cut-off? Person can agree to what they are used to. We are used to be privileged. We can not accept less then that, or can we? As the lots can change in a blink of the eye with the press on one button.

Human identity, or - who we are in a course of our actions, is directly proportional to the quantity and quality of information received by the moment of observation. And that, again, depends on who had the right or monopoly to inform us in a first place and what were their intentions.

Value of the information, both quantitative and qualitative constructs the frame for our lives. While receiving valuable information is not a guarantee for one’s realization, not receiving it will most certainly deprive us of desirable options; where by desirable options we can think of those that would be preferred by persons who have a true possibility to choose.

Now, what is, in the final end, our cause and our interest in global?

Do we, as humanity, have a common interest of so ever? Or does the stand on that question classify us into different species of humans? Do we, ourselves, need to make that classification openly and be counted by this division? Shall we then give each group of humans authority over own selves?

Didn’t the time come already to make some kind of all inclusive consensus? Some more human to more humans (or, be it an utopia, to all humans) social agreement? Isn’t it a time already to stop leaving someone out in our arrangements? Even if we consider own selves unreachable to anyone as a possible slave, even if we see ourselves well enough positioned in an existing system, don’t we think that, taking what we believe is a fair share and reward for our service to the community or to, what we opt to call society at large, and leaving issues of ‘less fortunate ones’ to ‘more fortunate ones’ - namely to those who are tailoring our own frame of destiny as well – has to be exchanged with some more responsible attitude? (How is, in honesty, our conscience when we look at ourselves in the mirror in the evening after finishing our day?)

Isn’t it what should be done? 

Expedient for the apologist of the ‘step-by-step-within-a-system’ strategy; one that claims to have interest in bringing to some future generations of oppressed communities better life in a long run, and where no one is able to tell which particular generation the recipient of our good actions is estimated to be; is to run over what straight to the question of how, knot themselves in to it and then dispose what, labeling it as impossibility.

But how about if it’s a necessity? If we decide to observe it as such at least?

No one knows how until what is determined as a direction and non-dismissible goal. Using our experience to predict whether is possible to get there is only one course that our reasoning must take. The other course must be the question of whether is good for us to get there as a civilization? If meaning of life is no more and no less then providing other humans, of present and of the future, the opportunity for the same experience as a self-conscious mixture of matter, then how are we serving our purpose? By taking a share that our position in a society allow us to legally take for ourselves, regardless of what it means for the interests of others, and enjoying it by the justice of God? Or can we better serve our purpose by better calculating our takes in respect for every living human?

If the purpose of intended change is establishing a new line of hierarchy within the same set of rules, which is to be presumed as if the better (informed) and more moral, or at least less immoral individuals will replace the ones that got corrupted, it is reasonable to fear that, on a current level of humanity’s saturation with darkest bitterness, such a movement will not suck in much energy.

We have to change human perception of what should be our legal and moral rights. We have to oppose to this system of justice without trying to hide our intention to demystify it, discredit it, de-root it from the human mindset and replace it with more impartial and efficient one – if with any.  Social change needs leaders who are well informed about necessities and equally in a sense of own purpose.

And the purpose must not be setting ourselves on the top of the food chain instead of a current dickhead, but a decomposition of the system of hierarchy and rendering the notion of authority to only just criteria – one’s moral standards, as we must slowly start building new organizational constructions, alliances based on interests and preferences of individual contributors and formulas for exchange products and benefits that came to exist by joined efforts of such organizations.   

Now, is there enough of us to join efforts on this matter? Is there enough of us who are willing to set such goal for ourselves of changing the tissue of social justification system? How can we know if there are enough of us willing to engage for a change? If there is enough of us standing openly for that purpose? How do we know that we will not ‘only get killed’ and ‘waste our only life for the sake of utopia’?

And while the question is how can we know, it somehow seams that it is not enough yet.

U šta gledamo i koga to slušamo?

U Srbiji, u kojoj su uticaji savremenih svetshih socijalnih razmišljanja i trendova u političkoj i moralnoj filosofiji ograničeni na, gotovo u potpunosti getoiziranu nevaznu manjinu, a pogled i diskusija javnosti bez mnogo odstupanja usmerena na lokalno razmisljanje i sve vreme ka unutra, mnogi se mlad čovek može osećeti do te mere zbunjen nerazumevanjem sistema koji ga tlači, a za koji vidi konkavno ogledalo u ‘velikom’ svetu, da nema ni pojam o postojanju jednog drugog sistema misljenja i vrednosti i ljudi koji su njime istinski motivisani i vođeni.

Svaka diktatura, koja ima za cilj uspostavljanje poretka u kome ce pravo na ostvarivanje svojih idejnih ciljeva pretpostaviti ljudskim pravima svojih podanika, prvo će se postarati da nam zatvori umove i spreči logične alijanse koje bismo mogli stvoriti sa ‘moralnom podrskom’ sebi sličnih i istomišljenika.

I zbilja – kome verovati?

Čovek je biće interesa. Kako da znamo ko stvarno misli na nas?

Rečeno je: “Veruj onome ko nema nikakve koristi od toga da te prevari.”

Ili: “Onome ko ima interes da ti ostvariš svoj.”

I kad pogledaš – tako je. Ne mora da znači da će te svako ko ima interes i prevariti, ali tu prevaru možeš i da očekuješ.

Sad, ako gledaš iz pozicije nekoga ko je u Srbiji i do koga ne dopiru istinski bilo kakva uverenja koja su za vlast suštinski nepoželjna te kao takva ekskomunicirana is sistemskog dijaloga, ti jedino i možeš da tražiš uverenja koja će te podržati u samoj Srbiji. 

I može da ti se okreće glava kao Zemlja oko svoje ose, a da ni u zametku ne primetiš nešto što bi tebi i svakom tebi sličnom išlo u korist, a ima nekakve šanse da pusti malo stabilnije – dublje i razgranatije – korenje. Što se više osvrćeš, to manje vidiš ikoga s kim bi bilo korisno udružiti se jer poseduje bilo kakvu moć da ti nešto pomogne, a ko nema nikakvog interesa da te prevari. Nema ni nekog sa kojim je nekorisno udružiti se a ko nema interes da te prevari… 

Tu figurira i duboko uverenje koje su nam sistematski usadili da 'svet boli briga za nas', te da je svako ko bi nam izgledao kao saveznik, zapravo maskiran u nameri da nas ultimativno iskoristi. 

Potrebno je izmaći se iz Srbije makar mentalno.

Što je u najmanju ruku težak, a za većinu nemoguć poduhvat; da čovek stekne/oslobodi u sebi prostor da poveruje da su naprednija socijalna razmišljanja i tendencije uopšte prisutni u svetu.  Još teže da u njemu probudi nadu da ti glasovi globalno dobijaju na važnosti, ukoliko je čovek u nemogućnosti da se fizički izdvoji iz te atmosphere.

Misli ljudi u Srbiji su fudbalska lopta koja se šutira između sportskih malverzacija, vrste muzike koja je ‘dobra’, moralnih dilema na teme odevanja, mrtvačkih glava, spomenika budalama i militantnih procesija. 

Čak i oni koji su skloni da kraj svog imena dodaju etikete koje bi trebalo da sugerišu odstupanje od većinskog religiozno-siledžijskog i moralno psihopatskog sistema vrednosti, retko uspevaju da naprave lični otklon i od manira u ophođenju koji preovlađuje prilikom sučeljavanja stavova. 

Možda bi se uzroci tom nekakvom stavu prezira prema onima koje smatramo manje naprednima od nas samih mogli tražiti u ideološkoj obmani, koju još uvek nisu uspeli da nam izbiju iz glave, da nam društvo svima obezbeđuje jednake šanse, te da stoga naš sopstveni nivo razvitka odražava isključivo rezultat sopstvenih sposobnosti i napora. Možda tek podsećanje na ovu, svima nam promoviranu, doktrinu, uspe da nam pomogne da osvestimo činjenicu da nikada nije ni bilo, a sada svakako nije tako.

Nepotizam je u srži raspodele i to nam se bez zazora baca u lice zajedno sa ustavom i jednakim pravima za sve. I to ne nepotizam samo u personalnom smislu, već u smislu potpunog generalizovanja ideje o zadatim ograničenjima mišljenja i omogućavanja jednoj strukturi da se promoviše u sistem vrednosti sama po sebi.

Ali i to je deo srpske tradicije, nije li?

Ima još jedna prepreka kada pomislimo o javnom izražavanju svojih stavova, a što u jednoj dimenziji neizbežno predstavlja i samo-promovisanje onoga koji govori.

Šta reći ako te neko pita gde si ti bio/la kada su se nepojmljiva zverstva dešavala da javno protiv njih govoriš?

Može li na to čovek da spremno i bez osećanja krivice odgovori: “U Srbiji.”

Ako pogledamo i u sve ono što je ovde nenavedeno, šta je za život ljudskog bića značilo, i još uvek znači, činjenica da mu on protiče u Srbiji?

A da isključimo iz pogleda u ovom trenutku one koji taj život posmatraju iza zatamnjenih stakala blindiranih vozila, što im kreira prcepciju da su u nekavoj simulaciji. U nekakvoj naprednoj kalkulativnoj projekciji moguće realnosti kojom se oni bave na nivou istraživanja o korisnosti određenih principa za sopstvene prostorne i kapitalne zahteve, a ono što su ljudska bića na ekranu je takođe deo experimentalne simulacije. Oni se ponašaju kao da se bave predviđanjem o tome koliko će ljudi nastradati ako povuku određeni politički potez. Oni su jedini, iz sopstvene perspektive, stvarni. Svi ostali su u mašini i pojave su na ekranu.

Ako izdvojimo njih koji i onako ne pripadaju istoj realnosti a s tim ni istom krugu percepcije, šta bi bile reči koje bi mogle opisati psihološko stanje ljudskog bića pod takvim propisom o ličnoj svrsi?

Strah, nesigurnost, beznadnost, ogorčenost, zavidnost, mrzovolja… nije li to ono što čovek oseća?

Gde smo bili dvadesetak (a ako se šire posmatra poslednjih pedesetak) godina, za koje vreme je jedan deo sveta zakoračio u novi vek socijalnih ideja?

Smemo li da se opravdavamo time što smo sve to vreme proveli u Srbiji?

Ja mislim da smemo. Jer kada si dopustimo da prihvatimo da nismo lično u potpunosti odgovorni ni za sopstvenu ispoljenu reakciju na određenu extremnu situaciju, možemo da pređemo sa samo-sažaljenja, samo-osuđivanja i rezultirajućeg samopovređivanja, na istraživanje i učenje o onome što smo za vreme svog bavljenja lokalnim masovnim ludilom propustili.

Ali ima jos nešto u nama što tu stoji kao stub tradicije bez premca: udrilovani smo od strane prosvete, da dosledno i tačno danas istrkljavamo nešto što smo juče čuli od autoriteta koji nam je uramljen. Od nas nije zahtevano da argumentima podržimo neku ideju, već da je dosledno interpretiramo. Zato se, generacijski, tokom desetina godina, nismo naučili racionalnom argumentovanju. Učili su nas Marksizam, ali ne i da čitamo Marksa, Darvinizam i tako dalje... 

'Socijalističko' obrazovanje; a ovo što ga je nasledilo nema dovoljno konzistentnu smernicu ti da mu se kritički pristupi (osim ukoliko se takvom ne smatra uterivanje đacima tradicije u kosti); istini za volju ni malo usko ili fundamentalno obmanjujuće, nikad nije prestalo da odslikava prvobitnu potrebu prema kojoj je dizajnirano: "Daj da na brzinu ideološki potkujemo naciju. Objasnimo im uopšteno to oko čega nam je bitno da se složimo. Potkujemo to sa malo nauke i puno oda u slavu nauke i popularnim objašnjenjem zašto je nauka u pravu, bez nepotrebnog produbljivanja..."

Čast i bezgranično priznanje onima koji su tokom sveg tog vremena bolji i prosvećeniji u tome ostali, i onima koji su to u bilo kom trenutku postali. Bilo bi zanimljivo saznati u koje su uzore gledali i gde su motivaciju za to pronašli.
Na žalost malo je prostora za odjek njihovih reči i dela. Narod se ubedio da ga to ne zanima. Narod ne vidi nikakvu perspektivu pa sa prezirom i gadljivim sažaljenjem posmatra svakog ko se 'još zamajava' socijalnom pravdom koje nema. 

Ko sme da mu zameri? Narodu? 

I na kraju - ovo i nije obraćenje 'narodu'. 'Narod' sada gleda televiziju... 

Neumorni pokušaji da se 'narodu' nešto dokaže, mnogo češće nego argumente nude podsmeh, omalovažavanje i potcenjivanje. Ali nije li to ono što 'narod' doživljava i od sviju drugih? Nije li to razlog što 'narod' više nema interesa da bilo koga sluša? 

Na svakome je ko želi da se razvije u mišljenju i postane spremniji da vrši uticaj, da pre nego što ikoga potceni u raspravi, pre nego što se i usudi da o izvesnim stvarima samouvereno diskutuje, mnoge sate provede učeći šta je o tome već rečeno i analizirajući izražajne koncepte i načine na koje ‘hendluju’ situaciju oni koji više znaju (a gde se pod znanjem podrazumeva količina kvalitetnih informacija koje je čovek tokom svog života za sebe uzeo).

Pošto ovde nije namera da promovišem sopstvene favorite kada je  razvoj racionalne spoznaja u pitanju, izostaviću imena i linkove. Tek, među našim savremenicima se mogu pronaći i čuti ljudi sa čijim prosvećenim moralnim stavovima i vrednostima koje zastupaju, sa čijim načinom ophođenja i univerzalnošću rezonovanja, može da se složi, ako ne svaki čovek, ono svaki potlačeni. 
A to je valjda razlog za promene u socijalnom poretku – prava za potlačene. Nije li? 

Uvalili su nam etiketu “strani plaćenik” i njome nas dočekuju na bilo koji pomen o nekoj ideji sa strane. (Pri čemu je liberalni kapitalizam u svojoj sirovoj formi najverovatnije smatran domaćim produktom, zasnovanom na pravoslavnoj tradiciji, a što u neku ruku i jeste, jer nas vraća s početkom u prošlost gde su još sve teze neprikriveno zamenjene za razliku od razvijene forme gde je ta činjenica zamaskirana putem namenskih ulaganja). Toliko je to ozloglašeno zanimanje da smo zastrašeni i od toga da slušamo šta se priča s one strane grane. 

Međutim, ako se usudimo da svoj pogled i misli proteramo iz Kosovskih manastira i prestanemo da ponavljamo ista pitanja i odgovore, pa se okrenemo slušanju šta pametniji od prote imaju da kažu ma oni govorili i stranim jezikom, može nam se desiti da i neprimetno počnemo sticati veće samopouzdanje u svoje osećaje, jer neko zbilja mudar i jednako toliko poštovan od strane progresivne javnosti, deli naše utiske i stavove.  
To samopouzdanje bez koga nema ni mogućnosti da se dovedemo u sposobno stanje da izvedemo neophodne socijalne promene…  

THE TRUE CREATIONIST SCIENCE or why "When Jesus Came Into my life everything went better and better..."?

Ready For The Online Conversion?

And... consider this the last post of an ex non-believer...

Just few days ago I got converted again. That seams to happen every time I bump in to a profound scripture that moves me deeply and touches my heart as nothing before did. But this time it’s final. Because it's based on SCIENCE!!!

At last someone has managed to hunt down the fear in me, as I managed to find on the internet list of scientific proofs that there is a place called HELL! 

This well grounded article bases its credibility on a testimony of Dr. Maurice Rawlings, cardiologist, who reported nearly 700 near death experiences he encountered during his practice of which records could be found on as many as 21 and wrote several books about the nature of Christian hell based on their reports. 

Being an ex atheist according to own testimony, good doctor had changed his mind after listening to their screams and seeing horror of hell in their eyes, in the short moments when they would wake up from the cardiac arrest and state of deep unconsciousness, and as many times as they would wake up, while he was on them performing a resurrection.

In his books and studies this brave professional described the nature of hell that appeared from the devastated eyes of his cases. 
The devoted atheist and medical scientist then started to look for the references on a word "hell" in scientific literature and research studies and he happened to find not so many, except in research documentary called New Testament (written by a group of experts some time between year 100 and 300, so the truth about what they discovered must be explained to you by this guy) where he found no less then 162. He also discovered that over 70 of those references were made by the character called Lord Jesus Christ. 

He searched even deeper and found the supporting theory in a scientific document The Old Testament

The amazing discovery was that the nature of hell described by witnesses in those scriptures were matching those images of burning fire he saw in his dying patients. 

Reading more carefully mentioned document he also managed to find indications about the placement of hell and found it 100% accurate from the point of view of modern astronomy and which again was compatible to his case studies.
He concluded in his book that, according to his patient's testimonies, "this place must be UNDERGROUND or WITHIN THE EARTH... in some way".

Now, Dr. Rawling's evidence wouldn't be enough for a skeptic like me. But a look further back into history of science reveals more proofs.

Scientist and Bible teacher Henry Morris also agrees that hell is a place inside the centre of the Earth and argues that the space is big enough to have been able to serve all the sinners ever lived, proving it with the equation in which size of the spiritual body would equal the size of the physical body of the deceased.  

With the reference to latest discoveries in astronomy, namely to the article published in Birmingham News not long ago, on April 10 1987. and which reveals the hot new truth about the Earth's inner core's temperature, Morris concludes that it matches conditions described in bible as a situation in hell. 

Reading further the New Testament it is easy to understand that the soul actually arrives there trough places of leak - kind of wholes in the Earth's crust placed smartly by god under the deep sea which is probably needed for the cooling-down effect. 

Number of evidence follow, including some more revelations from the book and matching examples of existing animal species. Evidence also involve all mentions of the word hell ever made to exploit its symbolic meaning. 

But the most convincing and purely horrifying evidence of hell, which no one should miss exploring, is the sound recording of the voices from hell, recorded in Siberia, that the uncle of one listener of a local religious radio (according to this listener's testimony) made during his research and it's available for download on same page. 

Do not miss to hear it, as after listening I was fully convinced. In following I learned that hell is for ever and... I mean - take a look, really!

Creationist science

Now, when I understood what horror might happen to me if the Christian god interpreted by those prominent thinkers by chance exists, I wouldn’t dare disbelieving in him any more. Better safe then sorry, right? 

And I realized trough instant revelation that I urgently need a god. In a trans of that moment I typed in my browser "I need god!"

And there it popped up. The solution!

As a new fanatic believer, which I became after receiving empirical proofs for existence of hell, I consider my duty to spread the word that has reached to me, with its pin-point targeted teachings, of how to avoid the eternity in hell and attempt to convert all of you today.

I have added some free comments and explanations to the original text with the intention to help less educated ones understand better the deep meanings behind all statements and why are certain parts so touching.

For more comments subscribe today for only 99,99 and save up to 90% on all editions from “The Advanced Preaching Course” I am preparing to publish by Friday.

DO YOU NEED GOD?

I mean really – do you need a god? You have to first ask yourself that question. 

Look at me – I think I always needed god. And I still need the god. 

I also need a breast-reduction operation and esthetic procedure for my face. I need postgraduate diploma and a second car. 

But I always needed god to fix the injustice I had to witness wherever I turned my head. 

Now I understand why the injustice, why this madness 

is still there: 

I haven’t had found god yet. Now, as I found ‘him’ I feel like a newborn blind. The injustice has simply vanished and it’s a miracle. 

I found ‘him’ and world looks suddenly just like it’s supposed to be.

How do you like the concept?

Do you think that you as well started to need god? 

Looking for someone who’s selling one?

To find out if you need God, you must ask yourself some very important questions.

•   Are you a good person... by God's standards?

•   And if so... are you good enough to go to heaven?

•   Do you think by chance that you CAN be good enough?

You can establish it easily by consulting our experts

THIS IS WHERE YOU NEED TO CLICK

for free online conversion. 

No, they will not have the god displayed for you (out of stock I guess). But they’ll be willing to explain why you should buy him now and they’ll be more then willing to sell you one  (you pay all your life - delivery time the day you die).

So how will they do it? 

When we exempt the question whether there is a god, assuming that the answer is yes, what appears to be the question is whether you NEED 'HIM'.

If you answer the list of 10 questions regarding issues like whether you’re obeying some commandments and respecting religious duties (such is reading bible, going to church and giving money for charity), and click for the score, you will find out that you are sinful. You will also learn why it is impossible to score 10 in righteousness (and be innocent) by the definition.

No matter what you think or do, and however much you try, you can never be righteous due to the mistake in the intelligent design (of which god is aware and that’s why he mercifully ‘did what he did’) – namely – ‘God knows that we are not capable of keeping the first commandment.’ And he feels personally responsible. 

Also, you can never be righteous because going to church, reading bible and especially doing charity, do not buy you any credits with god. Basically, if you are doing it, it means zero. If you are not doing it, then it’s a minus, which in a final sum mean the same sentence… HELL!!!

Next, and what ever your score counts to be (I scored just five and I bet no one can score more then that), you will be asked what you think you deserve – heaven or hell. Try choosing both options. Both will lead to the conclusion that you deserve hell, that you are sinful by default and that you DO need god and both will open the following page

What God Did (check the link or read further)

All ears? Now turn on your brain and open your mind, as you're going to need it!

Tink of it this way... Imagine you're in a courtroom again, you're guilty of many serious crimes.

Why would I imagine myself guilty of any serious crimes? I never committed any neither I am planning to. Do you have some analogy that I can fit in? This one is for criminals.

The judge says, "It's a fine of $500,000, or prison.

What is the jurisdiction under which this process is being held? What serious, multiple law offenders are being offered such options and where? And remind me to stay away from that place.

" You don't have anywhere near that amount of money,

This message is for ones who don’t have money to bail them selves out of social consequences for their crimes. Others don’t have to bother I guess…

so the bailiff begins to walk you out of the courtroom

Very dramatic moment in deed. You can really see yourself lost without money and power to escape consequences and punishment for atrocities that you’ve committed…

when someone you don't even know appears.

Just as happens on a daily basis in a real life to the real people, doesn’t it? Someone who we never met before (though we might have been told that no one has ever met him before either), appears to get us out of trouble that we found ourselves in doing bad (I mean REALLY BAD) things.

He runs up to the judge with a check and says, "I've paid the fine for you."

Hey, let’s return to the beginning. Payed for what? What did I do in a first place? What is the serious crime I had committed and am being on a trial for? Rape, murder, mass-murder, war-crime…?

Now that the fine has been paid, the law no longer has any hold on you.

Yes. I have heard of such cases. It’s called corruption if I remember well. Are you offering same abolition for all future crimes committed AGAINST me as well?

You're free -- because of the gift you were given.

Shall we summarize to size the gift proposed?

You, an unworthy filthy criminal, will not suffer the deserved punishment because an anonymous guy (who obviously has personal affection for criminals), came to give money to the judge (society) and society has given up its duty to protect the right of your victims to justice in exchange for that money.

This is what God did for you by sending Jesus to die on the cross in your place.

Oh yes: in fact, he already deposited the bail for you and it’s just waiting for you to commit your crimes. And he didn’t actually make a payment himself. Well, he did – if you believe that one’s children are one’s possessions.

So that you wouldn't have to go to Hell,

God made both you and the first commandment. He had made a mistake when creating you and if he wouldn’t have done anything to save you from the deserved punishment for his own mistake, you would have to go to hell. 

God doesn’t want you to go to hell for his mistake, but first commandment is first commandment. The fact that you are not capable for something is not exculpatory and someone still has to pay for it, or god would suffer terribly. That’s why

God sent his only Son, Jesus,

The one that he imposed on an innocent virgin to give birth to. He did that because god is a man(!). 

I wouldn’t be able to understand what this obsession with virgins is all about. But I am a woman and a newborn believer, and I understand now that it’s my inferior brain, given to me by god because of the inferior position he designed me for, that creates obstacle for me to understand male virgin obsession and other god’s directions.

to die on the cross -- suffering the punishment that justice demands.

Justice for the crime of not being created with the ability to fulfill the first commandment.

Basically, to not have to punish you for having made you imperfect he decided to make a son, kill him, and in such way prove to you that fact?

Then He rose from the grave, forever defeating death!

No. It didn’t happen yesterday. And it didn’t happen ever again after that one time that was witnessed by other characters mentioned in a story. We have solid profs in documents made by innocent bystanders few hundreds years later.

The Bible tells us, "For God so loved the world,

No Bible doesn't mention any slaughters of innocents. And even if it does, those are just proofs of love god has been sending to us if we decide to believe so. So much love described here is almost unbearable for the one who feels it. God was torn out and tortured by it…

that He gave His only begotten Son,

He could have made as many sons as he wanted with as many virgins as he would have chosen to, but he never repeated unprotected virtual sex again, thus he remained childless after he murdered this one.

And why for god’s sake such an insemination on that exact point of history? 

Doesn’t god know what he is doing here? What was the purpose of that one-time experiment? Like, why didn’t he just make new Adam and Eve in a first place? He knew the design and the process of making. Just this time, put the tree of knowledge out of their reach and never even mention anything about it to them… Instead, he chose a virgin (god is all-knowing but still to make sure), impregnated her (imagine virgin’s surprise and horror while realizing that something’s growing inside her) and reproduced himself.

Let me enlighten you: 

With this complicated and long lasting plot, set in an ancient past, without clear causality or logical system, full of bloodshed and corruption, that god designed to show us all these circumstantial proofs of his existence, god taught us a lesson of love.

that whosoever believeth on Him, shall not perish, but have everlasting life."

*For which hypothesis, as a proof, see all above-mentioned.

(John 3:16) If you will repent of your sins and put your trust in Jesus,

What happened with the courtroom and my imaginary trial? Haven't I said that I was innocent? No one is dragging me out of the courtroom for any imaginary crimes. No chance for it.  Why am I still a part of this analogy?

And in anyway, I don’t like the idea that other people are offered same kind of deal under same jurisdiction competent in my case.

God says

He will not join us for this session. In fact, he is usually not joining us to speak for himself. But he speaks to us in our heads regularly and we are here to speak for him in his absence.

he will forgive all your sins and grant you the gift of everlasting life.

Aaaall your sins. Even if you raped your mama.

He’ll even forget the fact that you didn’t love him before, along with smaller crimes such is cutting someone’s head off. ‘He’ IS very humble and grateful in fact.

Just like the court case we just talked about, if you repent (that means to confess and forsake your sins)

Where in fact was that mentioned in the courtroom example? The confessing sins part? There was a mention of some serious crimes. And there was a mention of a large amount of money. How did the crimes I didn't commit become sins? And how the money turned into confession? 

And again, how does this analogy apply if I am not guilty for crimes I have been accused for? Does the guy still have to bail me out? And if yes, why?

and put your trust in Jesus,

Fine. Show me the guy, I want to see his $500 000. If he has that money ready for me, maybe we don’t have to give them to the judge. 50-50. Tell him that’s my offer.

then you will not have to suffer God's justice in Hell

As in a bottom line it’s not about the justice and whose fault is it, but about monetary payment that god requires.

because the payment for your crimes was made by Jesus on the cross.

And what does Jesus get in that deal? Your ‘thank you’ next time you meet? Don’t fool yourself – he is sitting on his father right side and judging whether you love him enough to pray and share your earnings with us.

So, you know now what you have to do. Now prove it!

If you're not sure what to pray, read Psalm 51,

No. It doesn’t talk about injustice in the world, billions dying of medically preventable deceases, pollution that is threatening to extinct some living species or the suffering of oppressed communities around the world. No. It asks from god: Forgive ME and give ME.

and make it a model for your prayer.

…. Forgive me bla, bla, bla… now give me bla, bla, bla… Like this?

The words are not "magical,"

Most likely you will not be getting any feed backs; at least at first and until you stop all other activities. Then you might start hearing what ever you can imagine. So don’t worry for the absence of the result.

what God cares about

is that you satisfy him first. And keep satisfying HIM until you die – then he will pay your damages if we happen to be right. 

More important for god then whether you have burned few villages or smaller cities along with their populations

is the attitude of your heart.

Miss Universe couldn’t complain to that treatment!

This all doesn't require too much effort either. What you need to do is to make a brake now and then in your usual criminal offensive duties and perform a conversation with god by talking to yourself, alias to pray.

When you pray, it should sound something like this, "Dear God, I repent of all my sins, such as (name them).

OK. For instance: … “such as murder, rape, armed robbery...”

I put my trust in Jesus Christ as Lord (to say Jesus is your Lord means you are now making Jesus the master over your life)

Thus how you will accomplish two things:

1. Dislocate your crimes from the context of free will while deciding to believe that it is not possible to have it (free will) you being servant to the master.

2. Clear your self from responsibility for anything that you do and/or happens to you in the future

Rather cool, isn't it?

and Savior.

And if you are buying it until this point you most certainly need one to save you from the claws of your own illiteracy and affection for fantasy

Forgive me and grant me your gift of everlasting life. In Jesus' name I pray.

Awesome! Simple words, easy to memorize and reproduce. Not at all nuclear physics or cellular biology that you have to study, research, experiment and all. And for what? For nothing.

Not even then

would you be able to say

that you have learned 

it all.

Amen."

That’s it? That’s all? No “Please help the pore and oppressed, empower them and give them support to rise and dissent”? No “Take power away from the tyrants” or “Stop human trafficking and pre-puberty rape”?

That was easy. I mean that was REALLY easy.

No worries. Pre-puberty rape case is being taken care for by ministries of all the gods. It's called child-marriage.

Now read your Bible daily, and obey what you read. God will never let you down.

"...never want to come down, never want to put my feet back down on the ground..."

...na, na, na, na, na, na...

A? What? There's more? A. Read bible daily... o... ok... even more?!

What should you read? We suggest that you start in the book named "John,"

If you are worried that there will be too much to read for free, then you must have learned the wrong meaning of the word ‘book’. The book named “John” contains only about three pages. For clarity we are considering renaming it as “Little Johny”.

and then read the one named "Romans."

Slightly shorter then the one named “John”

Whatever you decide to read,

What ever? How about the book “The Origin of Species”? 

Oh, ‘what ever’ was related to the two books suggested above? Good. Not much to think and search.

make sure you read every day.

If you are a slow reader it will take for you at most 15 minutes to read trough both of them every day.

No, you will not understand much and it will not make any sense from the point of view of the contemporary life; and it doesn’t contain instructions in how to deal with any rational problem; yet, it will introduce you to some characters and their relations which is (as hard to believe as it might be) a solution for every problem.

Now, as we are clear with the clarity part,

We now suggest that you read "Save Yourself Some Pain" which contains 10 very important steps for new and growing Christians.

Let’s just mention here one of the ‘steps’ suggested in a ‘book’.

Spiritual Warfare

When you became a Christian, you stepped right into the heat of an age-old battle. You have a three-fold enemy--the world, the flesh, and the devil.

You know, of course, how you are supposed to treat the enemy, don’t you? It’s you or them, isn’t it?

Now as last (for free) 'but not least' 

Please also listen to Hell's Best Kept Secret which is a free online message that will give Biblical direction to your Christian life

(Video is about 1 hour long, and no – I didn’t watch it by the end. It’s the time of my life I am dealing here with after all…)

And meet your new idol, Reverend Ray Comfort, the popular BANANA-MAN if you haven’t met him yet…

But nevertheless...

Congratulation!

You have completed our free online introductory course. In this way you became fully converted Christian and accredited to claim that 

“There’s nothing more important then the eternal salvation”.

Now is the time for you to purchase from us more instructions for how to earn it. 

Start shopping now 
BUY FROM US STUFF NOW! 

We do not forget even those 
WHO DON'T LIKE OR DON'T KNOW HOW TO READ

or 

Join our ONLINE UNIVERSITY OF CREATION SCIENCE

or, if you don't want to learn anything you can just

PAY FOR YOUR SALVATION!