Here is the fourth and final part of my book. Thanks.

What about destruction and destructiveness: Do we need it? or can we get by without it? Do we need a little bit to give us challenges -to keep us sharp (so we don't atrophy); and to weed out the weak and inferior people, in a social evolution type program? The idea that we need harshness/destruction to give us challenges (to keep us sharp), is invalid, since as we GROW(destruction-free), we encounter (non destructive)barriers to growth, and then overcome those barriers in non destructive ways. These are challenges which exist and which keep us sharp and we don't depend on destructiveness for this.

With destruction present, stagnation is also present, as people are unable to grow and outgrow the stagnation, as destruction destroys their growth and keeps them stagnant. It is actually the people caught in stagnation, who use destruction to give challenges to keep them sharp, who use destructiveness to weed out the inferior and to run their command system: -it is actually these people who are at a learning disadvantage because they have no experience overcoming the barriers to growth outside their stagnation, since their stagnation from destruction keeps them from growing. Those free from destruction's stagnation have the more well rounded education, as they are able to have experience overcoming barriers to growth beyond the area of stagnation; unlike those in stagnation who've never grown to those high levels. So this is a resounding denouncement of social evolution, and of evolution in general, that uses destruction to weed out the weak and inferior. No. Instead we should take the weak and inferior, and help them and bring them up to our level so we all advance together as opposed to our group fragmenting and pulling itself apart.

What about destruction and harshness? Why is it so popular? Well, destruction and harshness has an effect on people. People respond to it. People under the gun say, we'll do anything you ask if you'll just not hurt us. Destruction (punishment) can be used as a deterrent. People will obey your laws if you punish those who break our laws. It is a means of control to get people to do what you want. People will obey a boss and do what they say so the boss doesn't punish them.

Some people make a distinction between rewards vs punishment. And there is a valid distinction. To deny a reward if someone doesn't do what you say, isn't hurting them, and still leaves them to their own devices to overcome the non destructive barriers to growth they are up against: but to punish, if someone doesn't do what you say; is a direct harmful act. However, in the area of essentials, this distinction (between rewards vs punishment) no longer exists nor is valid, since to deny someone the reward of their essentials, is the same as punishing them, since without their essentials, a person's own body harms itself: so that here, harm is done and not avoided in either case.

Destruction then is popular as a means of control to get people to do what the boss says. It is what whole systems can be based on and how organizations and groups can function and be run on. -if you as an individual don't do everything the group wants, then they'll punish you or deny you (the reward of) your essentials, -which forces your body to harm you. If you don't do all they say, you'll be harmed, is the message. And this is how they get people together in a group to do things together. Can't we come up with a better way of running a group? that doesn't use destruction/harm?

Now, the effect of destruction: -that many people will obey -some even totally: is not the only effect of destruction: also a consequence of this very destruction, is that some or many are hurt and harmed (just to keep deterrence alive) (America has one of the highest per capita incarceration rates). And with people being harmed, growth is hindered thus resulting in stagnation. The price we pay for letting the bosses have their way under such a heavy handed system, is that the group is made a stagnant group by this. With the individuals brought low and kept on a short leash, there is less trouble from these individuals. Individuals here are easier to control; and it is true that if you give them more freedom and more resources, they will give you more trouble. But the individual is not going to be the source of trouble for the stagnant group. It is alternative groups -growth groups, that allow their individuals much more freedom and build up the individual position, that will give the stagnant groups trouble. Since this type of group doesn't harm their individuals nor keep them low; there will be growth over stagnation, and this will be a growing group that outperforms/does much better than the stagnant group. Individuals in the stagnant group will then abandon it and join the alternative growing group. So if the cost of freedom for our individuals, is to have a little more trouble from our individuals, then I say we should pay that price to order to have a growing group and not a stagnant one.

Now then. When a group has rules to enforce; some people get the job of policeman to enforce those laws. What I want to point out is that the job of policeman is a destructive one. That is what a policeman mainly does -is be destructive. They write tickets that take away your money, they put boots on your car so you can't drive it they arrest people and throw them in jail thus taking away their freedom, they club and shoot people. Basically all they do in their job is be destructive. I just want to establish that point first off: -that we can be nearly 100% certain that their job requires them to be destructive. Of course, they are only destructive to lawbreakers. Now if the laws they uphold/enforce are laws based on destruction vs growth (where a lawbreaker is always being destructive by breaking the law), then the police will be being destructive to a destructive lawbreaker. and will thus prevent that lawbreaker from doing their destruction onto innocent citizens. The innocent citizens, having been saved from a destructive act intended by a lawbreaker, can do more good having escaped being harmed; and the policeman then shares in being the cause of that good (along with the innocent citizens that have been spared).

But if the laws the police uphold, are not based on destruction vs growth, but are just the whims of some dictator or group of bosses, then those who break those laws are not destructive so that those police do destruction unto non destructive lawbreakers. In this case, the police have not caused any good, and are just as bad and harmful as destructive criminals and are worse than the non destructive lawbreakers and other innocent citizens. Just realize that if you ally yourself with destruction, it is not easy to turn that into something good. Although it can be done by policemen upholding just laws in as least destructive a way as possible. However, policemen upholding unjust laws -which cause them to do destruction unto people who do no destruction by their lawbreaking; are just one of the instruments of stagnation by which stagnant groups hold down their individuals and thereby stagnate, and are overgrown by growing groups. Policemen enforcing just laws is the only valid exception -otherwise the enforcement of other laws and rules causes much of the harm that stagnates that group and makes it a stagnant group.

If you set one mirror in front of you, and one mirror behind you: a person can see many duplicate images of themselves. As we humans go through generation after generation of humans; this process of living and dying and passing on genes to offspring, generation after generation; has effects on us, as well as all living (and dying) things; so that we are not duplicated exactly as the images in the mirrors are. This process of one generation living and dying and being replaced by the next generation: and then that generation in turn replaced by the next and so on and so forth -so that over the history of a life form there is a sequence of many generations on down the line: -this process of generational transfer itself, I suggest, has effects on the life form involved in it. One effect I suggest it has, is it causes a liking of sex or sexual desire to be amplified and selected for.

Another effect it has (I suggest), is it favors a system of reproduction by as few of the members are allowed to mate as is needed, resulting in sexual frustration for the rest of them. -Like the male walrus takes on a harem of cows and drives off the other males. -Just think: if a gene codes for a little more testosterone and makes a more aggressive male and the more aggressive males are able to corral and take all the females for themselves and prevent the other males from breeding; then the gene coding for more testosterone is passed on while the others are not -resulting in more aggressive males and favoring this setup where a dominant male drives off the other males and takes all the females for himself.

Generational transfer selects for a liking of sex. In the genetic variability (of sexual reproduction -as opposed to cloning or asexual reproduction) -some genes would code for the liking of sex while others code for not liking sex or being ambivalent to it. Those with genes for not liking or being ambivalent to sex would not have sex and thus not have offspring: thus these genes would be weeded out (not passed on). -leaving only genes for the liking of sex to be passed on from generation to generation. How do these our genes, cause us to like sex? Just as our bosses use punishments and rewards to get us to do what they want; nature also uses bodily punishments and rewards to get us to do what it wants. So that if adults aren't allowed to have sex, their body punishes and/or denies rewards to itself: thus keeping these people down low -at reduced capability; and thus in stagnation.

Now, another thing that generational transfer (evolution to some) selects for, is concubines, harems; and a frustration of the sex drive for all but a few. The animal kingdom is filled with a dominant male or female siring the majority of the offspring, while the rest go sexually frustrated -and thus brought low and in stagnation. Consider the behavior of having an aggressive drive to take and corral all the females to yourself, and females with a drive to passively congregate in groups to be sired by a dominant male: vs males and females freely intermixing. The one who is able to corral all the breeding to themselves is able to deny other breeding systems from being passed on, while causing this one system of a dominant animal breeding, to be the one passed on -to the extent that genes can control this. (And this benefits the group by toning down the variability of sexual reproduction so as to lock in the best addapted individual.)

Recall the concept of property and ownership: what does it mean to own something and to have something belong to you? It means that only you can use it -that others cannot use it, but you can. All the animals practice this concept of ownership religiously, in the area of mating; in that the dominant male does own the breeding rites to his harem, so that no other male may share in them. Perhaps our human concept of ownership is a throwback and comes from evolution and what the animals have been doing for eons: -as a byproduct or effect of generational transfer. -Where only the few rich enjoy the spoils while everyone else suffers in poverty. As thinking intelligent animals: are we going to passively accept this as reasonable if it is just an effect from generational transfer -of life passing from one generation to the next many times?

Now, what many animal systems have been doing for eons in that dominant animals breed the next generation while the rest are left in sexual frustration; has deeper advantages than just being the one selected for by generational transfer. You see, a long time ago in earth history, the prominent type of reproduction (by plants) was asexual -basically cloning exact copies of the parent, with an occasional mutation. But this strategy didn't work well because when a change in the environment occurred; these life forms were unable to adapt very fast to the new environment. Thus nature came up with sexual reproduction ie flowering plants. With sexual reproduction, the offspring were not exact clones of the parents, and greater variability was introduced into the gene pool. With sexual reproduction , life forms were more quickly able to adapt to changes in the environment, -due to being able to produce a more varied group of life forms.

Now, the best strategy would be to use the greater variability of sexual reproduction to quickly produce the best adapted animals to a changed environment: but once that new environment had stabilized -to then lock in that best-adapted-animal by then toning down the variability of sexual reproduction and going back to a less variable mode similar to cloning. When the environment is stable, and the variability of sexual reproduction has produced the nearly perfect animal suited to that environment, then it would be best for that animal to go back to cloning and abandon the variability of sexual reproduction, as any further varying of the perfect animal (for that environment), could only result in less perfect animals -thus wasting the group's life resources.

Thus when the environment is stable and we have the best suited animals; we don't want sexual reproduction (with its lots of variability): yet we wish to retain a sexual reproduction with the POTENTIAL for considerable variability in the event the environment becomes unstable in a catastrophe and changes markedly. Now, the advantage I speak of in having only the dominant males breeding; is in controlling the variability of the gene pool and offspring. You see, in addition to this system being selected for by generational transfer; it also delivers survival advantages to the group. By having only the dominant males sire offspring; the variability of sexual reproduction is suppressed (-since they all have the same father, they're more genetically similar than if they had different fathers). This also preserves a greater potential for variability within the process of sexual reproduction itself, as such isn't otherwise weeded out during times of environmental stability.

In the system of the dominant male chasing the other males away and corralling a harem for himself: although this system is both selected for by generational transfer; and also imparts survival advantages upon the group; it also causes the greatest sexual frustration of the sex drive (-the drive also being an effect of generational transfer). -The males chased away are all sexually frustrated. The harem, assuming an equal libido in the female, is also not well satisfied as many females have to share one male. Only the dominant male is sexually satisfied. Note that the sex drive is the other thing selected for by generational transfer, and that frustrating it is difficult; so that an animal system which may be attempting to lock in a best adapted animal in a stable environment (and thus better the groups survival); may fail to achieve this, as the great sexual frustration which is a byproduct of such an attempt, may cause the inferior frustrated males to breach this system. The inferior frustrated males may be able to breach the system that is preventing them from being sexually satisfied, and thus make a failure out of the group's attempt to better its survival in this way. -This is why in nature, not all animal systems follow this dominant male driving out the inferior males.

Now then. We are different from the animals in that we have greater intelligence. We might be able to come up with a better way to achieve the same goals, without all the sexual frustration. The animals are forced to use the sexual frustration way to achieve this survival goal: we are not.

This, our intelligence, has been expressed in religion and what controls there are on how we mate and reproduce.

In the days of old, are stories of sultans and harems, and of kings with their concubines. This is just like the animal systems where dominant males claim ownership over the females. But great sexual frustration is the disadvantage from that way. So where we are now, is that a compromise has been reached. Sexual frustration has been eased a bit in allowing each person a mate, while still retaining some sexual frustration. And what sexual frustration remains is now more easily enforced (to remain).

Religion has eased the stagnation from sexual frustration some, by eliminating the dominant male/harem concept, and replacing it with the one man one woman way. Yet, religion doesn't want to go too far with this easing sexual frustration, as ownership is still maintained over the sexual area by the spouse.

As an aside note: the idea of God as the biggest, most dominant male, and that he corrals the nuns for himself, is just repulsive to me. God is big because He is good and kind and benevolent and from the power of good: not because he has bred himself up into the heavens.

So, as thinking people, perhaps we could gain the best of both worlds instead of settling for compromise in all areas -that is we put up with some sexual frustration in order to obtain some reduction in the variability of our reproduction (during times of stable environment).

Perhaps we could go back to only the dominant or chosen men siring offspring. But to eliminate the sexual frustration this would cause; free sex would be allowed; yet no offspring from such free sex would be allowed. -when the environment is stable. But when catastrophes occur then free sex plus offspring from that free sex would be the chosen mode.

Now, the idea of dominant males fathering the human population is probably too barbaric (and too much like the animals) for most people, including myself. (I cannot guarantee that these ideas are even the truth -they just seem to fit. -you have a mind too. Think for yourself. Mine is only to suggest and make aware.)

So, we could have monogamy that we have now, except that marriage would now be a contract between one man and one woman concerning the siring of children, and would not cover sex between individuals that didn't involve the conception of children (ie with a condom or between partners where the woman was past child bearing age).

With harems and dominant males, there is maximum sexual frustration. Previously I saw no use or validity for any sexual frustration. But recently I realize that it does have a benefit -that of locking in the best adapted animal for a current stable environment, once the variability of sexual reproduction has generated that best adapted animal. Even so: even though I now realize the benefit and reasoning behind it: I as a thinking intelligent animal, believe that there is a better way to obtain this benefit, without the sexual frustration (and its corresponding stagnation from destruction within our bodies). Animals have no other option but this sexual frustration way. It has taken animals this long to generate capable and intelligent humans: who now can obtain this benefit in better ways, not relying on so much sexual frustration.

I see the white supremacist as a group of people trying to tone down the variability of their reproduction and lock in what they believe to be the superior human; while the inferior but oversexed non whites threatening to destroy all their hard work (of putting up with being sexually frustrated). So they go out and kill non whites. Racism has a root here too. Mustn't let the races intermarry, due to the great variability in the offspring that would generate.

What irks me, is that if this toning down the variability of our reproduction in times of stability, is behind all this -with religion's regulation of sex, to racism, to hate groups; then we as thinking humans, ought to be able to come up with a better way to accomplish this than the animals, that doesn't rely on sexual frustration.

Evolution (or generational transfer) and adapting to an environment; are not very good systems. Due to their stagnation (from the presence of destruction), they never get beyond where they are at in their current environment. They do very well within their current environment though. But when the environment changes, they must start all over and do it all over again, because their experience and skill at coping with anything beyond the current environment; is nil.

The systems in stagnation of adapting to current environments, are not very good systems, but may be all we've got. All we can do is work with what we've got and make the best of it.

God is beyond using stagnant methods. The method of evolution and toning down variability in our reproduction using sexual frustration, are methods based in stagnation and are stagnant methods. God is certainly the most dominant male, but He would not use these methods. The set of genes discarded by evolution in adaptation to the last environment, may very well be selected for in the next environment, as the environment changes. Evolution never gets the big picture, and is forced to forever repeat its mistakes in stagnation. If the sexual frustration of some animal systems (-the ones with the dominant male driving out the other males) if the religion of some animal systems is just as good as our religion, then the intelligence and better skills we have, have not been of any use here: and thus are just things to be fooled and boondoggled and tricked into self eliminating and being discarded. If the purpose of some preaching is to stun the mind and remove our greater mind and skills, then I think we can do better than that. I thought the evolutionists and creationists didn't get along. For the creationists to utilize evolution to

For religion to utilize evolution to accomplish goals, is no better than the animals, and is a stagnant and poor way to do things. The Bible can be interpreted many ways: unfortunately, the present day interpretation by religion, tends to rely on evolutionary adaptation and sexual frustration to decrease variability in our reproduction. Of course, this is just coincidental, and religion I am sure, never consciously used sexual frustration to accomplish these ends. But it does point to an indicator that religion has come from out of the traditions of men through the ages and has been distilled from that -with no outside help strongly evident.

I've spoken incorrectly if I say that God is not within the scriptures. What I mean to say, is that those parts of religious writings including the scriptures which promote and/or cause sexual frustration: are of the traditions of men; -are from men and their past -even from animals; and are not from God nor the glory of God. For whatever other reasons and motivations religions impose sexual frustrations: a major reason and use for sexual frustration still is in the evolutionary, adaptability, genetic system. The evolutionary system is a stagnant system infected of destruction, that we animals experience as a consequence of us living and dying here on this earth generation after generation. God, if He ever came from such a system; now is much beyond it, and now uses evil free methods (which are growing and not stagnant). God does not use the evolutionary method. Man and animals use what situation they find themselves in (the evolutionary method) as they compete against each other for a better spot on this planet. Whatever religion claims as other reasons for its imposed sexual frustrations: there still remains this major benefit from sexual frustration according to the system of evolution/adaptation. Even many animal systems utilize such sexual frustrations for this benefit, even more so than we and our religions do. Yes, it is true that the new testament does not rely heavily on sexual frustration since it does not inflict the maximum frustration as is found in harems and concubines and many wives; but instead settles for the compromise of one man one woman (if one cannot contain). Thus I cannot say and was incorrect in saying that this religion solely is the tradition of men. Yet, this our religion aspires to sexual frustration even beyond that found in the harems and concubines system. -although perhaps with a higher purpose yet that higher purpose is not sexual frustration nor imposed sexual compliance but is instead a personal matter.

The biological fact is that we reproduce sexually (not asexual). (God made them male and female). And the thing about sexual reproduction is that although this method is superior and needed for adapting to changes in the environment; it is an inferior method for reproducing in a stable environment -which is most of the time -so that most of the time, the variability of sexual reproduction will need to be toned down as much as possible: and this is where the sexual frustration comes in. You may say religion has other reasons and higher purposes for imposing sexual frustration; but I say that in this aspect and area the animals do just as good and have just as good a 'religion' if we believe sexual frustration is the key to obeying our God. It would be confused whether the source of this sexual frustration was from God, or from the evolutionary adaptation system. This sexual frustration is well ingrained in many animal systems. (It also has a destructiveness and a stagnation of its own.) I find that its source is from the tradition of men and from the history of men and animals -that history bearing down upon us. I do not see God as using stagnant destruction laden methods like we are forced to, but instead, evil free, growing methods. In my personal experience, I am convinced at least for myself that there are spiritual beings of goodness (angels if you will). There have been so many times I've been saved from destruction by what I feel has been an outside intervention, that I cannot count them. And my personal experience also convinces me of the existence of strongly destructive spiritual forces/beings. So, I believe. But what I don't see, or believe is that these beings of goodness and kindness and benevolence have anything to do with the use of any kind of sexual frustration for any purpose. I just don't buy it and I don't see the connection. Instead, I see the use of sexual frustration by religion or otherwise, as something that has come from men and the traditions of men.

Now then. With that being said and out of the way, I must proclaim that human sexuality is tricky, imperfect and also a stagnant thing; and that unless you know how to do your essentials and quasi essentials in the best way you can; that the other stuff just doesn't matter.

Human sexuality is imperfect and can be frustrating, and often frustrates itself: and that's not religions fault. but instead is solely the fault of the imperfect nature of human sexuality itself. So instead of my cutting down society's attempted solutions; let me propose my own solution. If I do not have anything to replace the ways I criticize, then might as well go back to the old criticized ways, as something is better than no way at all. -feel free to attempt your own solutions if you have ideas.

Now I wish to correct an error in concepts. Previously I had said we want to avoid focused growth, (or that focused growth causes problems that additionally need to be handled), and preferentially do overall growth. I now wish to somewhat reverse that idea.

There are two modes of action we can act with. We can be more reserved and held-back -not snapping up every action that comes along. Or we can be unhindered in our action, doing whatever we like, and being open to every action that comes along. Now if we do all we like and are unhindered, we do many actions, and this represents an overall growth. But the force of destructiveness has its way of being part of many of the possible actions we can do: -so that to avoid it, one has to markedly limit the possible actions they do. But since we're not limiting our actions but are being unhindered, we don't avoid these destructive parts of actions; but include them. Since we have a greater selection of actions we have more options. We have overall growth and enjoy the benefits of interrelatedness. We can get things done faster, and do/produce more this way in the short run/individually. But since the presence of destruction is included, this becomes a stagnant system at some level as what we built up a short time ago, gets knocked down -and we keep building up and getting knocked down over and over. Yes, the presence of destruction is the overriding factor. The interrelatedness and overall growth, provide for greater achievements and higher growth rates, but stagnation still takes hold -just at a higher capability level. There is always the temptation to produce/do a little bit more (individually), by doing a way that achieves this but that also does more destruction (drive the slaves a little harder. crack the whip a little more).

Now then: alternatively, there is the mode-of-action of being more reserved and held back -of not doing everything you want. If we restrain ourselves from doing some ways because they contain too much destruction as part of them, then we will have limited the number and type of ways available to us. We will do less things. Since we're doing fewer things, we can say we're more focused. We avoid evil/destruction, but have to put up with lower (individual) growth. Since we do fewer things, we are thus unbalanced concerning interrelated needs; so we don't achieve overall growth, But the growth we do achieve is long lasting due to the freedom from destruction.

So now I've presented two modes of action. Both have their advantages and disadvantages. What I propose is we use both, in hopes of gaining the advantages of both.

In the reserved/focused way, fewer good things are produced, and those that are, are of lower quality ›(at least at first)› -due to going it alone where interrelated needs aren't met, and overall growth isn't done.

What I propose is to do things in the unhindered way (which has higher short term growth and can do more individually) until that generates something good and valuable and worth saving: and then before that valuable something gets torn down, as we continue with the unhindered way: that we then lock this valuable something in by being more reserved with it and no longer doing so many ways which contain destruction in them, with it. Now this good and valuable something that we locked in and 'saved', continues to exist and also produce growth of its own. But what it will produce, will be of lesser quality and of a lower growth rate. The reason being, it now no longer has so many options of what it can do, because it's no longer unhindered, but is now more reserved and held back. -Now doing only a few things, it doesn't take advantage of the interrelatedness between things and of overall growth: and thus produces poor quality material compared to what it could do as unhindered. This poor quality material is then thrown back into the melting pot, by setting it at unhindered mode, unlike its parent which is at reserved/held back mode. ›(However, after a long time -many lifetimes; enough material is saved in reserved mode, so it provides some semblance of interrelatedness and overall growth)›.

What I propose, is that out of any production of an action, there is some of it of excellent quality some of average quality; and some of poor quality. -We then throw all but the best back into the melting pot of unhinderedness. -Or; we select the best to pull out of the melting pot of unhinderedness into the reserved mode.

Just remember that most of what is produced by the ›(early›) reserved mode, is of lesser quality and will thus be mostly all set to unhindered mode. -just the opposite of its parent.

Now then. So far it seems like all the lesser quality material will always be unhindered. But this is only a method for doing essentials. This will be so as long as we're satisfying an essential or some need is pulling at us. But when we're satisfied in our essential and we wish to rest; we then no longer do unhindered mode with the lesser quality material, but instead, also do reserved mode with them. You see, unhindered mode includes destruction in many of its ways. Essentials contain destruction/evil in them anyway, so this isn't introducing any new evil, when we're satisfying essentials. But when we're done with essentials for a time and wish to rest, we get out of this method of doing essentials, and put out the flames of evil until our need (from us not yet being overall enough nor interrelated enough in our evilfree (reserved) way), pulls us back into doing essentials again.

Finally, lets not forget that an additional function of the unhindered material, is to preferentially fill the vacuum that destruction creates -that is, both the destruction within essentials; and the destruction of evil attacks (not related to essentials).

Note that as we add to the abstinent parts, -(what abstinent parts we do have, have come from and were once the unhindered mode). As our lesser quality parts are still working the unhindered mode: they are then not chosen to be abstinent parts at the point the previous abstinent parts were, but remain in unhindered mode, to achieve the higher growth that the current existing abstinent parts wish they could. Only when these unhindered parts go beyond the current abstinent parts, are they then chosen. And this repeats until the essential is completed. In other words, do it again. go round the 2nd time. Come back for seconds. (But the abstinent parts are not what go round a second time: only the unhindered parts.

A question comes to mind: can't we achieve the complete essential once in held back, or abstinent mode, and then forever more do it in unhindered mode (according to these rules)? Well, the purpose of the held back mode, was to save out the best from the unhindered mode. It is a production, and the unhindered mode is always producing (as long as we're in it), and so good material is constantly needing to be saved, so no, we can't just achieve the essential once in held back mode. But on the other hand it is the held back mode which has the needs which motivate the choosing from out of the unhindered mode. Thus when one stage of an essential is achieved in the held back mode (as delivered/chosen from the unhindered mode); then the held back mode's need for that stage is satiated, while it then finds need for the next stage. Thus what is chosen next from the unhindered mode, (for the held back mode), is not more of the same stage.

Or: why save only one type of material into the held back mode, and by doing so prevent the unhindered mode from creating the next stage, so that only one stage is saved? No. -Do not limit what the held back mode saves. Instead, once some current stage is saved: if necessary ((to generate the next stage), -allow the best of the current stage now to remain in unhindered mode until it generates the next stage; then save the best of the next stage. Repeat this process until the complete essential is both saved in held back mode, and expressed in unhindered mode (with some material in 'saved', and some in 'expressed').

Lets look at this again from the viewpoint of need.

Remember that whenever we temporarily have no need of an essential, we no longer do any unhindered mode, not even with our lesser quality parts. The unhindered mode generates a more valuable part intermittently and randomly, and not in a consistent or organized way: A piece here, a piece over there. As we save out valuable pieces from the unhindered mode, we get a hodgepodge of distantly connected pieces. Each of these mostly isolated pieces, has interrelated needs for other areas where there's usually not yet another valuable high quality piece (saved from the unhindered mode) to be interrelated with. These lonely, isolated high pieces then feel a lot of need. This is compounded by their new mode - the held back mode; where they're no longer able to use any means available, but are now limited to actions that are destruction free. It's mainly this need of the held back mode that drive us. Any need in the unhindered mode is quickly satisfied by it doing what it wants and the use of its interrelated network to deliver satisfaction.

To satisfy the needs of the held back mode, the held back material does not then re enter the unhindered mode, as then the valuable material would no longer be saved out as it re entered the fray: it would be short lived in the fast paced unhindered mode. Instead, the needs are met by changing the lesser material from its resting stance of a held back mode, to the activity of the unhindered mode; and then selectively saving out valuable material it generates, that the held back mode needs. Once the held back mode's needs are met, then there's no longer a need for the unhindered mode, and the lesser material returns to a held back mode. Now, lesser material in held back mode is even less able to satisfy its needs, mainly due to being limited in what it is allowed to do (as it can no longer do just anything it wants). And so these needs then intermittently pull the lesser materials out of rest and into its unhindered mode. (This is unlike the valuable parts in held back mode which never reenter the unhindered mode -alternating back and forth between unhindered and held back modes). But of course, in the unhindered mode, these needs are quickly met, and the lesser material falls back into rest in a held back mode. The lesser material then cycles between unhindered and held back modes when not serving the needs of the valuable parts of the held back mode.

Oh, and just remember: at the point where material is chosen to be saved out of the unhindered mode: -not all is chosen, only the best.

Also note that just because the unhindered mode hasn't yet generated a needed material for the advanced material in held back mode, doesn't mean that that need doesn't exist. It does, and it motivates us to keep on generating in the unhindered mode (with the lesser material).

And then when the unhindered mode finally does generate that material type, and you then choose the best of it to go to held back mode: the remaining material has the choice of being unhindered or resting as held back. -but at this time of need satisfying, it almost always chooses to be unhindered until the held back mode's needs are satisfied.

Now, when the held back mode's needs are satisfied, as may happen when enough material covering all the different areas makes it to held back mode: then it is conceivable that the needs of the lesser quality materials would then drive any unhindered mode. (Here, the lesser material's needs would be quickly satisfied in unhindered mode and so would go to rest in a held back mode (where their needs would again grow). The lesser material would thus cycle rapidly between unhindered and held back mode. Now, in unhindered mode, when some new material is chosen to be high quality held back mode, that then creates need in the held back mode due to this one thing's interrelated need for other high quality areas, -if the previous high quality completed whole had left this system and no longer received from the unhindered mode due to being self sufficient in itself -and growth would thus continue.

Yet there will be times when no need pulls on us. In these times its important to return all the (lesser quality) material in unhindered mode; to held back mode. In held back mode, this lesser material won't cease to exist, and will still continue to do things: just not so actively -just a little more held back (in what it does).

In general, whenever you allow any unhindered mode: don't forget to also periodically choose the best of that out of there, into the held back mode -as exceptional items periodically appear in this unhindered mode.

Now when there is a destructive force or evil attack nearby; and you in response activate some of your lesser quality material (from their rest in held back mode), into unhindered mode -(in order to have material to preferentially feed to the vacuum created by destruction): also choose out, into held back mode; exceptional items that are generated there, if you can get to them before the evil destroys them. And also remember that when preparing material to feed the vacuums created by destruction: that we share or split the unhindered area between feeding the vacuum from the destruction of an evil attack; and supplying our (interrelated) needs.

I remember the Bible verses in the Gospel where Jesus tells of the Pharirisses saying: they heap up burdens upon men, grievous to be born, yet against them they lift not a finger. And then the following verse Jesus says to obey the Law (of Moses). And Jesus also says to take his yolk upon you for his burden is light.

Previously I hadn't understood this set of verses, but now I make some sense of them: With the harem master; that places heavy burdens of sexual frustration on other men, but he himself experiences no sexual frustration.

With the compromise of one man one woman, the burden is light compared to that of the harem system. With this compromise, enforcement of this light burden of sexual frustration is much more sure; thus some sexual frustration is more sure and is ensured. This keeps us on track for toning down the genetic variability from our sexual reproduction; whereas harem systems are much more unstable, as hoards of extremely sexually frustrated men are always trying to break through that system; and when they do, thus defeating the harem system's ability to tone down variability from sexual reproduction. Once we settle in to accepting that level of sexual frustration from the compromise way, and are able to handle it; then we can progress to further stages of sexual frustration as we are able.

And then there is the Bible verse 'no man comes to the Father but by me (or this compromise way). This seems to be the message of Christianity and what Jesus wants as I see things now. Well, if we adopt a new interpretation of the Bible to consider marriage as a vow concerning the siring of children only, but not concerning relief of sexual drive (not involving children): then I would agree that it is a very light burden, and I will sign on with it and do my part. But the compromise way we have now; which preserves some degree of sexual frustration: I don't know. If I can find a better way, I mean if we're to save ourselves, then this is just me saving myself. You see, the way this looks, is that we find our way to God (as a society), on our own strength -that we do the work to increase our power until we find God (using the two edged sword of genetic variability when we need it, but much toned down variability when there is a stable environment -ie using evolution and adaptation to keep our society improving in power till we 'find God' -as opposed to eternally stagnating). Quite frankly, if we are doing it on our own, and I see a better way that avoids the stagnation (produced within my body from sexual frustration); that also achieves the goals that the sexual frustration was intended to achieve; then I'm going to take it. Oh I respect what Christianity is trying to do with its sexual frustration -in order to improve the quality of we life forms as we change and adapt and compete against the other life forms, from generation to generation. I also have those same goals for the improvement of life out of stagnation. But this use of sexual frustration and evolution and adaptation: this way is not a pure or evil free way. It's not a pure way of a high capability God coming and helping us out, but is a way we do ourselves with what we already have at our low capability. (Jesus said 'only God is good'.) It does save society from an eternal stagnation: causing it instead to grow and eventually find God. But just as Christ convinces us to abandon a grievous burden for a light one, and also fights stagnation: I convince to abandon more of that burden for a very light burden, and I also fight the same stagnation. Because I am up front as to what is going on here and why it is sought that our sexuality be regulated: I can find the way with the least needed sexual frustration. The scriptures give laws and commandments which regulate our sexuality and bring sexual frustration, but do not explain why. -So how can we evaluate their effectiveness or know their purpose? -unless we discover their purpose in our mind, we as thinking beings, cannot. But I have explained why. If you knew that you were going to have to do it from your own strength; you probably would have said who needs church and wouldn't have gotten together in groups in kindness. But now that you have formed groups and gotten together, its time to be free -in your individual selves -to improve the position of the individual against stagnation,..

You may say that this isn't the purpose of the Biblical laws concerning our sexuality.. But I say, for whatever purpose, they have the effect of de

Oops, this train of thought was lost. Sorry.

The Bible says we must purify OURSELVES (even as He is pure). And since we can't be saved unless we're pure: doesn't it follow that our purifying ourselves is part of salvation? Well, perhaps God will exert effort to purify the stragglers who weren't able to purify themselves. Actually, though these are condemned to Hell.

Religion wants and needs something that passes through you and me. Do you think God would ever need something we must produce? Well, religion does. Religion wants control of the genetic variability of our reproduction (of our sexual reproduction). It doesn't come out and say this explicitly; yet this is one of the major effects of religion's commandments over our sexual area. Well, I wish religion the best of luck in obtaining this; yet unfortunately; some of us do not have the control of the sexual reproduction that religion wants -that is within them, that was born into them -which they are attached to, but do not control. But when religion seeks to destroy those who do not have what religion wants, in an attempt to gain the control it wants -by only allowing the breeding of individuals that posses that control; by eliminating from the breeding pool those who have not (that control)? -then a system using destruction is invoked by such religion -and where destruction is, -is stagnation. The stagnation religion seeks to escape through controlling genetics of reproduction; It finds through its use of destruction to achieve this goal. Instead, lets try to achieve this goal (of genetic control) without the heavy use of destruction -ie without damning and condemning to Hell those who lack such control. (Lets not redo Hitler). I am reminded of the Bible story of Jacob and Essau. Jacob was written in a favorable light for tricking and taking away Essau's birthright. The message from this story, I feel, is to be hard on the hairy man. They did kind of mention about Essau's hairiness. Trick him and kick him out. Yea. Be ware of the hairy man. Hair means excess testosterone. And excess testosterone means excessive sex drive. Yea, we want to keep the hairy guys out of the breeding pool. Remember to shave now. It's important!

Now damning and condemning to Hell in the afterlife, those who are marked as 'heathens'; has no effect on these people in the present life directly. But it does have an effect on these people in the present life. It marks them out to the faithful, as people to be preyed upon, taken from, enslaved, and finally disposed of in the present life. The frustration that religion builds up in the faithful can be relieved by them taking it out on those marked as heathen or infidel. This use of destruction by religion, dooms it from ever escaping stagnation. It has the good of the genetic control it achieves to feed its system of destruction for ever and ever and ever -ever in stagnation. God exists. God is love. God is beyond religion -the condemnations of hellfire and brimstone of wailing and gnashing of teeth, of being excommunicated from God's kingdom (of love).

Jesus claims that we are not servants, but friends, because servants don't know what the master is doing. He claims to be up front with His friends. I claim that this religion has not been up front concerning the purpose for its commands over our sexuality, but has just passed onto us a tradition developed by some religious animals. Raised by wolves? Yea you bet. more than we could ever know.

Torture and hellfire may exist but it is from we ourselves. May God deliver us from ourselves and our predicament -from our impurity (from which religion requires we purify ourselves). If not, then nature will deliver (save) a few (statistically speaking), in a long drawn out process where eventually a good God is created, if one doesn't now exist.

Let us now worship a God of love, and a savior sent by such God; a God who does not ultimately proclaim methods that are of stagnation nor that depend on destruction, or stagnant methods like evolution and adaptation that have always been part of our predicament in the first place. If it's up to us, then it's up to us, but whatever the case, this is the goal to be proclaimed and set forth in stone -that is, use of methods above stagnant methods that we find ourselves in. Meanness will not prevail. Meanness is inferior. Even a religion with writings of meanness will be replaced with a religion with writings of only kindness and love. -in time. I hope Jesus can come through for us and me. I hope in Jesus for this. I will not condemn nor hate Jesus (as the Bible claims the world does)) whatever my case: it will be Jesus who condemns me if any condemning is to be done. But if Jesus condemns me, then that's His loss not mine, as far as I'm concerned. And for no one will I settle for a stagnant system that depends on destruction (of life) as part of it. Because I know that that's not of the most powerful God -A God who is a God of LOVE and kindness.

Now I want to get back into my newest method to do essentials. Note that material (even high quality material)), when placed in held back mode; doesn't cease to exist (completely). Although it isn't able to do as much, and its options are more limited (as it can no longer use ways containing destruction); -it is still able to act in evil free ways; and even helps in satisfying needs as best it can (when there are needs needing to be satisfied). End note.

Now then, let me give you the overview.

This thing is mainly driven by need. Only when there's needs needing to be satisfied, do we ever go into unhindered mode with anything. As we've discussed: need can exist in either the lesser material and/or the higher quality material. We've also discussed that: need mainly exists in the higher quality material -due to it being generated in isolated pieces by the unhindered mode; and because it is limited in its options by its eternal held back mode stance. And then I went through an explanation of how the lesser material in the unhindered mode eventually generates all the interrelated high quality material-areas so that that one group of high quality material is complete and no longer needs and no longer receives high quality material generated from the unhindered mode (butt generates its own material, self sufficiently). At this point, that leaves only the lesser material (which cycles between unhindered, and held back mode) to have any need at all. It is this period of no need in the high quality material -need only in the cycling low quality material, that I wish to now expand on. From it generates a new set of isolated high quality material, which then has need; so the high quality material needs, again. But how does it do this? When the lesser material is in held back mode, it begins to generate need. It then returns to unhindered mode, where it then (quickly) satisfies its need. No longer needy, it returns again to held back mode -cycling like this over and over again. How does this generate high quality material (that eternally remains in held back mode)/ Well, when the lesser material is in unhindered mode, it generates a spread of material -some of lesser quality, some of higher quality, as it satisfies its needs.

(When a material is acting in unhindered mode, it either generates more of itself, or more of something else. If a need for a particular material is trying to be satisfied by that very material in unhindered mode, yet this material doesn't produce itself (but produces something else); then one must instead, throw the lesser parts of a precursor material, into unhindered mode -of a different material (one that produces the current material for which there is now a need for). -instead of trying to get the material which satisfies the need, to produce more of itself.)

When a material is generating in unhindered mode to satisfy its need, it generates lesser quality material, and also higher quality material, randomly, (beyond its control). Its only purpose in generating is to satisfy need.

But we can arbitrarily decide what is higher quality material vs lesser material, and save some of the higher material out. But if we save too much out (on a regular basis), we may interfere with the material-in-unhindered-mode's ability to satisfy its/other's need. And if we always save out too much, then the material will never satisfy its need and will always remain in unhindered mode (and won't cycle). And what is the purpose of saving out a percentage all the time? The purpose is to save out higher quality material to overcome its transient nature in the unhindered mode -making it long lasting in a held back mode. But if the material isn't of any higher quality, then why save it out?, just to be saving out a percentage? No, we don't save out quantity but only save out when we positively recognize quality. And since the unhindered mode doesn't generate quality on a regular basis, but instead does so randomly: we thus do not hinder the unhindered mode from satisfying its needs, too much: so that a lot of the time, we save out nothing; and the material cycles (between unhindered and held back mode). So how do we recognize quality? At what high quality; at what exact point is the trigger to save out, vs, letting it remain in unhindered mode? Well here is where the self sufficient high quality whole (that has removed itself from this process) comes in. We use it as a comparison. -as a standard. Whenever a material is as high a quality as that of the self sufficient material (when it was first generated); then at this exact point do we then save it out eternally into held back mode (never to cycle to unhindered mode again). These occasional saving-out actions do slightly hinder the unhindered mode from satisfying its need; (making material spend a little longer in unhindered mode in one of the cycles); but it is not to anybody's detriment and is of no real consequence.

Now, I forgot to mention that there can be a specific point in the cycle where we choose to save out high quality material. Since this material already frequents the held back mode, (as it cycles); in order to keep this mental regulation simple; and also not to disturb the unhindered mode's satisfying its needs; we can just let any newly generated high quality material remain in held back mode, while only returning the lesser material to unhindered mode (as we cycle). But remember; the test determining how high quality a material is, was in the previous unhindered part of the cycle; and not in the present held back part of the cycle, -(as nothing produces well in held back mode).

This is unlike the situation where the needs of the high-quality-permanently-held-back-mode are driving things. There, we plucked high quality material right from the unhindered mode. But here we wait till the needs of the unhindered mode are satisfied and all the material has cycled to held back mode anyway.

Referring back: I caution not to re activate the permanently saved out high quality material to the unhindered mode (thinking it is low quality material), just because it is producing like low quality material. Remember, the division of what is permanently held back mode vs material to be cycled, is determined only in the unhindered mode (by comparing the generated unhindered material to self sufficient high quality held back material)

We don't use a standard to determine how long we accumulate need, remaining in held back mode. -We do not accumulate need. This is a misnomer. Our need itself is what determines whether we do unhindered mode or not. There is an exact point at which if we do not act to prevent it; our internal destruction will destroy parts of us: hence our need. As we act in the held back mode, we're able to do less; and we depend on the material we achieved previously in the unhindered mode. As that is used up/wears out, we (as non self sufficient material) slowly approach that exact point of need where destruction will occur to us. When we reach that exact point, we are in need, and are then allowed to go into an unhindered mode again with our lower material. This has nothing to do with the standard supplied by the self sufficient high material.

We first began as children. (As children, we did what we wanted, but had little power.) Then we grew into adults. (As adults, we have more power, but no longer do what we want, but are bound more firmly by rules.) Then we became parents, and the cycle begins again. Some of these adults have become self sufficient -no longer needing to periodically return to childish mode. They then become standards. You see, we need a standard to determine where the exact cutoff point between what we treat as childish material, and what we treat as adult material. We need a standard to determine if a material makes the grade to be saved out permanently as high quality material vs if we let it continue to cycle and do not save it out. We need a standard to determine the exact cutoff point. It is the self sufficient high quality material that, for one of its purposes, serves as this standard (which we compare the material in question to).

Now then; from the point of view of this self sufficient standard material: it no longer has needs it can't itself satisfy: neither does it itself return to unhindered mode, nor does it motivate any other material to return to unhindered mode. But is this self sufficient standard material static, or is it growing? If it's not growing, then it's no better than the stagnation of the unhindered mode. But since it's free of the evil and the needs of essentials, then it is growing. Yet the new material that it grows isn't (at first) self sufficient or even high material, like it is. That new material must also go through a period of improvement and cycling and unhindered modes. Thus that the self sufficient standard material isn't completely out of touch with unhinderedness and its existence does (indirectly) result in increased unhinderedness (due to its growth). So our unhindered mode really hasn't lost touch with these self sufficient standards in any way.

Now then; lets go through an example of this method for doing essentials, to show the workings of this method. Say there's an essential item or action or material we need. There is the action to produce that material, (usually involving other materials (in addition to the needed material itself)); and there is the action to consume and enjoy the needed material (usually only involving the material itself). When we start out to satisfy this essential, we have very little of the needed material; and we are into producing it. Thus when we apply an unhindered mode to all lesser quality materials, then we apply it to what all lesser quality material now exists. Thus the essential material yet to be created (that thus doesn't yet exist), is not included here. When it is created, it is in held back mode; -because, being just created, it hasn't yet been activated to help out the other areas, and thus is (so far) innocent of any unhinderedness. If we leave it in held back mode, then it is less effective in satisfying our need, so that we can produce more of it: so that when the need is eventually satisfied, and we switch everything to held back mode: we will be able to stay in held back mode and not immediately be thrown into need again -(which would immediately force us to return to unhindered mode again). So we leave the newly produced material (in this unhindered mode part of the cycle), in the held back mode. Now once we produce enough of the needed material and satisfy our need, we go with everything to the held back mode. Since we had let the new material in held back mode (in the previous unhindered mode), we don't suffer a loss in need-satisfying as a result of that changeover to held back mode, and we can thus stay in held back mode for a reasonable time and are not forced to eternally be trapped in an unhindered mode.

Now then. Just remember to unhinder the lesser parts of the material that produces the essential material, as well as eventually (in the next cycle), the newly created essential material itself.

Note that as the newly created material (which we leave in held back mode) satisfies our need; all the remaining lesser material in unhindered mode then joins it in held back mode, as we change over to held back mode -due to our need being satisfied. This is the rest that makes us no longer wicked. (Recall: 'no rest for the wicked'.) Once we're done resting, and are at the point of need again; we again go to the unhindered mode with all lesser material, including, this time, the material that we produced new in the last unhindered part of the cycle. But of course, as always, the new material (of all types) that we produce in this unhindered part of the cycle; we leave in held back mode (until the next cycle).

I want to be specific on just exactly what our point-of-need is. If our situation forces evil to be done no matter what (whether we be held back or unhindered) then just because our unhindered state allows ways containing evil; doesn't necessarily mean more evil will be done. If we can do an unhindered mode whereby the evil is just shifted around by such a mode, (resulting in the same amount of evil being done) then our act to be unhindered won't have caused any increase in evil. Thus depending on the size of the evil that our situation forces upon us, we can then employ similar quantities of unhindered mode, which only shifts that evil around (within us) but does not increase evil. So, we can be in need a little, or a lot; and respond accordingly with a little or a lot of unhinderedness.

But usually when we have reached the point of need; if we proceed correctly, we remain in unhindered mode until the essential is satiated. As we act (in unhindered mode) to satiate our essential; our need becomes less: then in response, we decrease the percentage of the lesser material that we have in unhindered mode (by switching some of it to held back mode). Thus the satisfaction of our essential need continues until it is completely satisfied, and the lesser material is then all in held back mode -until the next time we become in need and must again return to unhindered mode with this lesser material -now including the lesser material from the previous satisfaction of essential, that before we had let remain 'innocent' in held back mode.

When we first go to held back mode, we have satisfied our need. As we continue, that material generates new material -with much low quality (due to the limiting nature of the held back mode). That newer material keeps accumulating and overwhelming the satisfied material, and may cause the whole to need again.

Sometimes the action to satisfy need, is itself a whole, made up of sequential precursor stages, that must be redone all over the next time need is to be satisfied.

And there are further specifics about our needs concerning our essentials, as expounded upon (much) earlier. These all play into how and what we do when (if) we again become needy.

Now, when we first reach the point of need, our need may be small. And it may not be worth it to go through all the processes of satisfying such a small need. There's nothing requiring us to satisfy a small need immediately as it appears, with a small unhinderedness; as we would be constantly bothered with switching back and forth between held back mode and a small unhindered mode. (We would have no rest.) The evil that destroys within us due to our need of essentials/quasi essentials isn't our fault and we didn't cause it and we aren't required to satisfy the first little bit of it right away. Of course if we wait too long, its destruction will grow too large and will destroy us. But the time we put up with it before we satisfy it, is up to us. So we choose a time to suit us, -usually which doesn't require us to be attending every little need the moment it appears (which would require us to be constantly switching between held back and a small unhindered mode) -although we can do this if need be. -But a time which isn't too long either -where the need of the essential would do irreversible destruction to us. (Recall that the need is continually destroying, and that an act to satisfy isn't destructive in itself, but just enjoins new material into the arena where the evil in the need has access to it.)

Now I wish to say a (another) word about betrayal: and not just betrayal, but also about the everyday pain and suffering of missing someone, that that someone cannot help and isn't the cause of.

What if someone were to pretend to like you and showed an undue, too good to be true interest in you; and then when they got what they wanted, they turned around and stabbed you in the back and left you to twist in the wind -throwing you away like a banana peeling?

What if someone liked you at first and was your friend, but then got tired of you or found someone/(something) else, and left you?

What if someone who still liked you, had to go away on a long trip (due to business or national duty or death/abduction or others interfering to prevent togetherness), and left you all alone (for awhile)? All of these things cause us pain and suffering. How do we deal with this pain and suffering?

Not everybody who shows an interest in you is out to betray you: but neither is everybody who shows this interest in you; sincere. And when we don't know who is sincere and who is not; what do we do? Well I would say to respond positively to all interests for the sake of those who are sincere -those who are insincere will eventually work themselves out.

What do we do against this hurt of being left alone?

Recall that wherever there is a destructiveness, it creates a vacuum; and that we unhinder our lesser materials and let them be sucked into that vacuum, while holding back our more valuable materials and even moving them away from that vacuum.

In this case we value our memories of friendship with the missing person; and even our own words to them telling them how and that we love them, before or as they left, are part of this valuable material.

We then move this valuable material away from the area of destruction. In the case of a betrayer/insincere person, we'd move the valuable material away from this present person themselves, as they are the source of destructiveness in this case.

Then we unhinder some of our low quality material and let it be sucked into the vacuum (In other words, piss on it.) Now this low unhindered material, since we removed the high material, is on its own: and its needs are solely based on the unhindered mode. It thus cycles rapidly between unhindered and held back mode (We also remove the occasional high material generated in this unhindered mode -which is a random generation, -which may by chance generate some more of the missing person in all manner of forms, -if not destroyed: as this low unhindered material awaits destruction.)

Now of course, away from the vacuum and the area of destructiveness, we have all our valuable high material, which we continue to grow with and work with in love. -And the satisfaction of needs here, have a large base in the held back mode (and are satisfied as discussed previously).

In reference back to doing essentials: note at some stages (nearing the completion of an essential); that much of our lesser material can be in held back mode, while we intricately work with a small portion (of lesser material) in unhindered mode -as we satisfy the last of our essential need. But when an evil attack simultaneously besets us at this point in our essential; we don't respond against it with just that small portion of lesser material in unhindered mode: -no, we unhinder all the lesser material in a full blown unhinderedness to be fed to the vacuum of their evil attack. -The intricacies of small portions of the lesser material in unhinderedness (with the rest in held back), is reserved solely for our end satisfaction of our essential needs. End reference.

It is good for me to repeat my advice concerning the frequency we respond to our need in order to satisfy it. For optimal gain, we do not respond all the time we have any little need (unless of course, there's something new to be added); as that would require much effort in switching back and fourth between unhindered and held back modes at such a high frequency. -no different than the need-drive of just lesser material in unhindered mode.

But neither do we wait too long to satisfy our need (in a really low frequency), as the destruction in our need would take too much of a toll, and lower us too low.

Profoundly speaking: should we or should we not be concerned with the destruction of (our) life? If we are not to care about the destruction of any form of capability (or life), then why should we care about saving anything? -about being 'saved' or preserving anything? -if it is all valueless -if our consciousness is valueless. -So if it all doesn't matter no matter what we do, then you won't mind if I value life and try to go with that (since that's what I find myself being in this situation -I'm alive)). Since my actions at life are supposedly futile anyway and cannot succeed; there's no need for you to resist them in any way; -if you believe I should not value my life. Why change what is? I'm alive. Let's leave it at that. Lets go with that. But if you take away from my life here on earth because you say that I shouldn't value what I am here on earth, then you yourself are interfering with life here on earth. -And if you value what happens to life here on earth, then so do I, and will be against destructions of life and stagnant systems here on earth. end profundity.

As a human being, you may find yourself attracted to the opposite sex. You may then in response to that, marry one person. Now, you're allowed to respond to your spouse but to every other member of the opposite sex, you may not respond. In this area (of responding to attraction to the opposite sex) growth is cut short at 1. There is no growth in this area allowed. Evil and destruction are concepts and areas -it is best if we cause for no growth in these areas (the evil area) to occur. But our attraction and response are not totally evil, and in fact contain much good. Just like many things here on earth are not totally good nor totally evil, so is this thing (and in fact this thing has much good in it) -But most other earthly things don't have their growth cut to one like this thing does. What is the purpose for such singling out and limiting? Religion has already done it; but has not revealed its purpose for doing so. Even so, I bet there still is a purpose behind it, even though not revealed. What are they hiding? Lets speculate. (You've read my speculations).

In order to obey these religious rules, we then need to satisfy our needs concerning others of the opposite sex, in small bits as soon as they appear, so that they do not grow into the action of the forbidden act of sexual response. But this is inconvenient and requires us to do much switching between unhindered and held back modes.

Religion interferes with and takes away from our life here on earth, in this area. Religion also preaches the futility of trying to save our earthly life. "if you try to save your life you will loose it". To loose life is destructive. (But will you loose your earthly life because religion takes it away from you; or because of other destructive effects of earthly life itself?) Yes, earthly life does contain destruction, on its own, even without religious interference. But so does this religious interference in this area: thus this religious interference is no better, and no worse, than earthly life itself -and is thus an extension of earthly life. If it is part of earthly life; then its command to loose it for Jesus' sake, applies to itself also. So, give up this religious interference in the sexual area, as well as the sexual area itself as well as all the rest of earthly life, for Jesus' sake; and occasionally you will be sexually satisfied in ways outside the religious rules, but still for Jesus' sake anyway. And this is the best and optimal position, as I have already mentioned. Moderation in all things, including religious prohibitions on our sexuality. You see, if this religious interference does not help us out of our predicament in ways above our earthly ways -in ways free from destruction of our earthly life; then those religious ways are no better than our other earthly ways. (are not above our other earthly ways and are thus subject to the rules applied to earthly ways) Now, if you refuse to give up your religious rules (which are a part of your earthly life) for Jesus' sake, then you will not gain eternal life (according to the Bible promise).

A thing is that the religious rules over sexuality; and our earthly life in this area, are mutually exclusive. You cannot have both. So that if you give up one, you cannot give up the other, at any particular point in time. Thus do the best you can, by alternating; and by giving up one at one time, and another at another time. There is no compromise for any instantaneous point in time. This is concerning the obeying of Jesus' saying to give up your (earthly) life for Jesus' sake. The frequency at which you switch isn't determined internally and is therefore up to you. May I suggest a switching frequency that is optimal -as expounded upon previously in my advice on optimal switching.

The Gospel reveals: If you try to save your (earthly) life, you'll loose it. If you loose your (earthly) life for Jesus, you'll gain eternal life. Either way, you loose your earthly life. But if you voluntarily give up your earthly life for Jesus, will God then reward you with eternal life:

Well, both ways involve the loss of (earthly) life -loss being a destructive thing; the concept of loss being applied to the loss of eternal life, as something to be avoided. But would God really wish to reward us any different either way? Since both ways involve loss, both ways are earthly -the next verse defines eternal life as being free from loss -where moth and rust do not corrupt -where thieves do not break through nor steal. But since (voluntary) loss of earthly life for Jesus, also involves loss; this way is not any different from other earthly ways. God's ways are free from loss and destruction. He would not find much pleasure in one way of loss over another, just because it was done in His honor and name; -since eternal life is free from loss, while these ways are all full of loss.

Who can say what way God will use or advocate to save us. But in any case; this way of voluntary loss of earthly life for Jesus, is an earthly way and not an eternal way due to its use of loss; and is therefore also to be given up, if we are to actually give up our earthly life for Jesus.

Now, one might say that because one voluntarily sacrifices their earthly life, that this sacrificial act exonerates them of any wrongdoing and thus makes this a heavenly way -and part of our eternal life -something not to be given up. Yet loss and destruction are present in both ways just the same. Why would it make a difference to God whether we voluntarily gave up our earthly life (including our earthly essentials and quasi essentials -the lusts of the flesh); or these were taken away from us by the destruction within earthly life? In order to obtain the pearl of great price (eternal life); we must sell all that we have (our earthly life) and buy it. Why are we required to voluntarily give up our earthly life in order to obtain eternal life from God?

In my plan to defeat evil as described at the beginning of this book; one fogoHC came to earth to confront the force of evil/destruction. This force then did separation of the forces with his/her HC (high capability); according to my plan anyway. Concerning our flesh and desires of the flesh pertaining to our quasi essentials: we must take on new material so that the destruction within us -within our quasi essentials, destroys that new material, otherwise, it would do destruction to us. But Jesus is against this love of self. He wants us to stop sparing our self, and to allow the evil to destroy in our self, and for us to voluntarily give up our self (our earthly life); and NOT to find other material for the destruction to eat instead thus sparing (temporarily) ourself. When we stop bringing in other material for the destruction within our quasi essential to destroy instead of us; then it destroys parts of us. In the sexual area, since we are allowed one mate; that destruction in us is not unto death. When we stop bringing in other material for the destruction within our quasi essential to destroy instead of us; then it destroys parts of us. We thus voluntarily give up or sacrifice our earthly life for Jesus. What is occurring here is separation of the forces. When the evil is not fed, that is a separation of the forces. But in my proposed plan, it is the confronting fogoHC who does the separation of the forces. If all that were needed were for us to give permission for Jesus to come into us and separate the forces in our quasi essentials, I would do it. But according to the Bible, we are required to purify ourselves (even as he is pure). We are required to separate the forces in our own area- concerning our own flesh and quasi essentials. And this is the clincher: since we are only of earthly power: for us to perform this (within ourselves), is therefore an earthly act and an earthly way -a part of earthly life: I therefore also sacrifice and give this up as well, in my voluntary giving up of my earthly life. Now, if after I had invited Jesus in to take over and had given Jesus permission to separate the forces within my flesh, he then came and did this for me; then it would be an act of God and of eternal life. But then I would no longer have a problem. Why does the Bible want me to purify myself -to make myself pure (even as he is pure), instead of letting Jesus do it? I mean, if we could free ourselves from the destruction in our flesh in our own earthly life; wouldn't we have done it already by our own natural death? What is so great about impaling ourselves upon the destruction within our flesh in a sacrificial mode? Sure, it causes separation of the forces, but we are dead (or parts of us are dead) -awaiting resurrection by God the father. Why should we tell God when to resurrect us/parts of us (by performing separation of the forces): why not let God determine when He is ready to resurrect us/parts of us by allowing the one He sent to us to confront evil, to separate the forces, instead of us doing it? I mean, I've asked Jesus in and given permission to release me from my flesh: yet I still get horny with members of the opposite sex and feel sexual pain if not relieved. If I am to obey the Bible law concerning sexuality, then I still find myself having to suffer loss and find myself having to perform separation of the forces myself in this my fleshly area. Perhaps this all has to do with getting us as individuals to control the variability of our sexual reproduction so that we can remain the dominant species -and as a society, advance, instead of stagnate -unfortunately the attempt to do this, being according to the way of evolution, which itself is prone to stagnation, -being an earthly way not free from evil. But since I must suffer and sacrifice my earthly life and I must perform separation of the forces in this area(and since I am only of earthly power): then this act is an earthly act and a part of earthly life --to also be given up, according to Jesus' own words.

When God is ready to free us from evil, he will send us a Jesus who will separate the forces within us including within our flesh (without requiring us to do it) as the time God frees us from evil is up to God, not us. We may try to free ourselves from evil but God's attempt to free us from evil is more sure than our attempts -since we haven't completely succeeded as of yet even after many tries. If we could do this ourselves, then we'd have done it already. But since we need God's help, let us not try to force that help out of Him, but instead allow Him to act when He is ready. In the mean time, we continue to try: but let us now try in ways not limited to orthodox prescribed ways. Let me reiterate, that in my prescribed method, that we do do some abstinence and suffer some destruction of the self, as responding to every little need we get the moment we get it, would consume (destroy) more resources than the destruction in the essential would have. We wait awhile, but we don't wait forever; and when the optimal point arrives, we then act to satisfy our essential.

Oops. I wish to correct some errors. Previously I had mentioned that we don't accumulate need. But my current stance is that we do accumulate need, since satisfying every little bit of need as it appears would be too costly; and is the reason behind my use of the term 'optimum'.

A more serious correction is that of feeding an evil attack, our lesser material, and unhindering it. The first question is, why do we unhinder it? Well, since it is not going to be saved, but instead destroyed; and since the purpose of held back mode is to save out and preserve: we thus unhinder it so it won't feel any need (which is the cost of the held back mode). Now, previously I had indicated that unhindered material that is alone, cycles rapidly between held back and unhindered modes (due to the quick satisfaction of its need when in unhindered mode). But this use of unhindered mode against evil attack, isn't need driven. It isn't being used to satisfy a regular essential, but to fill the vacuum from an irregular evil attack: so that we don't cycle it back and forth between unhindered and held back modes according to its internal need, but instead leave it in constant unhindered mode to respond to the external evil attack's vacuum. Since it is always in unhindered mode, and that we involve all of the lesser material; our usual method for saving out any high quality material this lesser material IN UNHINDERED MODE generates, (the saving out, being done in a held back part of a cycle): doesn't work (because there is no held back part of the cycle because there is no cycle). We must therefore act specially and pick out high material that is occasionally generated, and do so directly from this (constant) unhindered mode. (Usually, when the lesser material cycles between held back and unhindered mode; we wait till a held back mode part of the cycle to save out any generated high material.)

Now, perhaps we needn't involve ALL the lesser material for an extended period. The purpose is to fill the vacuum created by the destruction of the evil attack. Once whatever lesser material is sucked in and fills the vacuum, then the remaining lesser material can revert to need-drive-and-cycling; until the destruction destroys sucked material, and the vacuum pulls again. end corrections.

Getting back to religion: so far I've made kind of a mess of it. But after looking at it in a different light, I'm not so sure we're so far apart. The centerpiece of it, is to give up your earthly life and receive eternal life. This isn't so far from what I recommend. Earthly life contains loss or destruction (as we've expounded upon) and eternal life is free from destruction. Earthly life then is like the unhindered mode, while eternal life is like the held back mode. I was under the mistakened idea that we could not experience eternal life while we were here on earth, but had to wait till we died and were in heaven. -that we gave up our earthly life and were left with nothing -a vacuum (while here on earth). But now I see that as long as we act in (loving) ways free from any destructiveness; that is eternal life, even here on earth: while ways containing destruction -includes essential doings, involving our flesh; are earthly ways. And in our method, we do earthly ways or unhindered mode, when we need it; but give it up as we no longer need it. So that we do give up our earthly life (unhindered mode), and replace it with eternal life (held back mode); as a large part of our method. So maybe the truly living God and Christ alive, who I cannot deny; and I myself; aren't so far apart and are even in tune. But as for these (religious) traditions of men: I've had it up to the nth degree over my head, with them.

So now we don't give up our earthly religious restrictions in a regular cycle, but now do so only as we have need (equal or above the cost of switching). So when I need something, I give up my giving up of that earthly life; and when I am full, I then give up that earthly life itself. Works for me. Note: if doing an essential, and then after being filled; switch to held back mode: that material still exists, and acts, but acts with no more evil, including no further essential . But my point is that we find similar material in both unhindered and held back modes, its just that they act differently.

Lets be honest: God may act to save us and make us eternal but He wouldn't do it by using rewards, or having us SELL things to BUY pearls (of great price) (Why would Christ be upset and cast money changers from the temple, if He does the same?) While God tarries to set us all free from evil; we humans, in the interim, can also act to try to be free from evil. Let us call this human act to give up things and our life, for an eternal reward, for what it is: an attempt by MAN to be free from evil. A powerful God (one who could save us) would not need anything that we could supply Him (other than our permission). If we wish for God to notice us and attempt to gain His favor, we should keep trying to get free from evil and not give up here. Unfortunately, religion can cause us to give up here. If evil(destruction) is right in front of our face, then obviously, God has not yet freed us from it: so while it is yet upon us: and while we wait for God to free us: continue to act to try to get free of it.

Let me make it clear; the new logic remains: One may say you just can't give up your earthly life, you must give it up for Jesus' sake, in order for God to reward you with eternal life. And Jesus spells out how he wants us to live life and what we are to give up. But in the area of giving up our giving up of earthly life, no instructions are given. Thus if we say a 'for Jesus' sake' at the end; this area should be OK, even though other areas go against being given up. If you don't think this will fly, then you may find me at the judgment, where God would say 'how can you expect me to reward you with eternal life when you have not given up all (earthly life) that you have (like in the sexual area, where my method doesn't comply exactly with the compromise reached with it by Jesus). But I'd have to say "how can you reward anybody with eternal life using this, since these other people who gave up everything else, did not even try to give up the part of their earthly life whereby they gave up the other parts of their earthly life; let alone try to do this for Jesus' sake? Note that if you don't try to give up your earthly life (including the earthly giving up of earthly life, itself), then essentially you are saving it: -recall that if you try to save your earthly life, you will loose it --without obtaining the promise of the reward of eternal life. One may say that this is only one aspect of earthly life and that they had given up every other aspect: well I can say that the sexual area is only one aspect of earthly life and that I had given up every other area; or that riches were only one aspect, and that I had given up every other area. One may say that using my definition of eternal life -as anything containing no destruction; that the act of giving up earthly life is thus part of eternal life, thus not to be given up. But this sacrificial act of giving up earthly life, IS associated with destruction. It may not be the direct cause of the destruction. The destructive agent exists in us prior to this act. Yet an act that requires us to place a destructive agent upon a certain area, whence that area then has some destruction done to it by the agent: I would say that act has been the cause of some specific destruction, even if it has not increased (and may have even decreased) the overall destruction. Like, a shooting gun is a destructive agent. If I require that it be pointed at person A, then even though I may have had nothing to do with creating the shooting gun: but I would still consider myself guilty of murder -as king David was considered guilty of murder for sending bathsheba's husband to the front lines. So even here, this sacrificial act cannot be considered as eternal life; as sacrifice, although noble, still contains destruction.

On a scale of capability, we're at our lowly earthly life. Above us is an all powerful God, free from evil. Below us is death and nothingness. We with our lowly earthly life can try to achieve greater heights and try to become up with the all powerful God. But that's such a long shot that most likely we won't be one who succeeds. But if there already exists an all powerful God, we can ally with Him, and go to death -it is much easier to go to death; then depend on Him to resurrect us.

What I'm talking about here, is separation of the forces. Within our essentials -within our flesh, are destructive forces, whereby we must take in outside material so the destruction destroys it, instead of us. But when the forces (destruction and growth) are separated; the destruction within our essentials and flesh is no longer provided with outside material and is forced to consume us; and parts of us die and we die; as the force of evil dies. Then God the Father resurrects us. This plan works. Like the people of the heaven's gate cult: that would work if there was someone out there to pick up the pieces and catch us. Yes that would be the way to deal with the force of evil that lives within us, so we could be purified and join God. But this only works if there is a God the father out there to pick up the pieces and resurrect us afterwards. If there is even the remote chance that there does not yet exist a God the Father out there to resurrect us; then we will need our earthly lives to try our slim chance to go in the upward direction -of escaping the evil without dying -without giving up our life, so as to create a God the Father. With our situation now: we have a God who is hidden -who has not absolutely proved His existence to us. So concerning these sacrificial acts on our part whereby we give up our earthly life according to Jesus' directions: I say it should be up to Jesus to perform the separation of the forces thus causing the removal of (parts of) our earthly life (after we give Him permission to do so): and not for us to give up our earthly life (in a sacrificial act). -because our sacrificially giving up such life, detrimentally effects the long term overall attempt(s) to create a God the Father. Of course if there already exists a God the Father, then there is no need to try and create one in the long drawn out way --(which is the only way we as lowly earthly life, have). But if there is even the remote chance that there doesn't yet exist a God the Father, then the plan will not work, as there won't be any one out there to resurrect us after we are dead. So that a God who hasn't absolutely proved His existence, must understand that it is then up to Him -through the one He sends -his son Jesus Christ, to perform the separation of the forces (which causes us to loose (parts of) our earthly life).-: and not up to us. -A reason being that we know our lack of all-knowingness -we know that we are easily fooled. And that we now realize that in the possible situation where God-the-Father is in the process of being created: that it would be detrimental to that creation, for us to give up our earthly life in a sacrificial act. And since God has not yet ruled out this possibility by showing absolutely that He exists, then this remains a possibility. So, to love God, in all possibilities, we should wait on Him (through Jesus Christ) to perform separation of the forces, resulting in the death of (parts of) our earthly life; and not do this ourselves, in a sacrificial act of giving up our earthly lives, thus thrusting upon God, a need to resurrect us (parts of us). -which He may or may not be ready to perform at this present time.

But what if it were not a question of God's power needed to separate the forces; but instead was the dirtiness of the job? The very abhorrence of allying with an agent of destruction, directing it (to be done to yourself), thus associating you with destruction; is the thing that requires each of us to do his/her fair (individual) share; so that no one person should shoulder the burden and blame of doing it for everybody. So then, now we are back to doing this to ourselves. Plus, we can't put a quick end to our suffering by causing our own death. In order to make a quick end and put us out of our suffering, would require us to become an agent of destruction -as opposed to just refusing to feed the already existing agents of destruction (which causes them to slowly consume us). By becoming an agent of destruction ourselves, we choose before God, for destruction. So that it would seem we are stuck suffering.

But there is a time to die; and a time to live. There is no suffering. The confusion comes between confusing two different doings that we do: when we die (to our earthly life and flesh); and when we live. You see, when it is time to separate the forces (within us) and for us to die (as God is ready to resurrect us and free us from evil); then we will no longer have any use for doing anything else. There will be no need to go to work; no need to eat; no need to satisfy our sexual needs, because it is now time to die. So that we clear our agenda and do absolutely nothing, but await death. The suffering comes when we try to do the actions of life while at the same time, preparing to die. And of course, we must have a signal from God when it is time to do this: and that will be when Christ comes in his power and glory (his 2nd coming). But we are instructed to prepare ourselves for Christ's 2nd coming; and are threatened with being cut asunder to hell and given our part with the unbelievers if we do not. This requires us to suffer -when we don't have to. God would not require this. This once again brings up the issue of trying to create God the Father if he doesn't yet exist; vs acting with God the Father if he does exist. Because if God were visible, it would be time to die, thus cleansing ourselves from evil; and joining Him. But since God is not visible; our living (and not preparing to die (in suffering)), has a purpose of covering the possibility that God the Father is not yet created (and also other purposes of life). For what purpose would we carry on the actions of earthly life, if God were ready to resurrect us? But if God were not ready to receive us; requiring us to prepare for when He was ready (prior to when he was ready), would cause us to suffer as we would be forced to do both the actions of life, and the actions of death, together; which would cause the forces of destruction and the forces of growth to be done together over our lifetime: -the very thing we are trying to eliminate (we're trying to separate the forces) here in this. So do not prepare for when God is ready to take you (2nd coming), before He is ready to take you, by now performing the actions of death: but instead do the actions of earthly life now, until that time. (then when it is time , then do the actions of death unto joining God.) -and thereby show God that you are against the togetherness of the forces of growth and the forces of destruction.

Where if you prepare for this time (when God is ready to take you) by doing the actions of death -of sacrificially directing the agents of destruction within you, upon yourself, in a giving up of your earthly life: you show to God that you choose the forces of destruction and good together. -that that is what you want (for Him to provide you). God has no cause to make you suffer prior to His readiness to resurrect you. In fact He abhors the suffering caused by togetherness of the forces; as He himself lives completely separate from the forces of destruction, and desires this for you. Choose life, not eternal death.

When it is time to live, go with life, and do the actions of life. When it is time to die, put away the actions of life, and do the actions of death; that is, separate the forces -that is, do not take in outside material to feed the destruction within your flesh; whence that destruction then consumes you. You thus choose for separation of the forces.

To prepare for when God is ready to take you, before He is ready to take you, causes the mixing of the actions of death and the actions of life, causing the togetherness of the forces of good and evil by your hand (with its corresponding suffering). It is the choice of torment and suffering. -the wrong choice as far as I'm concerned.

Nature has hijacked our ability to be attracted to others and feel good -really good about others; to be directed at the opposite sex. And religion and nature then limit that: so that we don't feel really good with very many people.

Because of this limiting and hijacking; we form family units, but beyond the family units; everyone else is an outsider. It is this being divided up as little bands of family units while everyone else is pretty much an outsider; that makes life cold and impersonal. Being cold and impersonal and treating as outsiders, everyone outside the family unit; isn't a good way to be -a stagnant way. (and of course there are even those who find themselves unable to be loving even within their family unit). But if the attraction we feel which nature has hijacked to be towards the opposite sex, were instead spread to everyone and neither limited; this would cause people to stick together more and be more of a community. Such a force would make us kinder and gentler and not so stagnant. As we recall from the Biblical account, that Jesus wasn't too interested in persecuting people for sexual offenses, like everybody else was, including his followers.

(Hell requires one to be alive in some sense otherwise one couldn't experience suffering, and thus is not the lowest point -on a scale of capability.)

On a scale of capability, we as earthly life, are in the middle: with an almighty evil-free God above us; with death and nothingness below us. In order to try and reach the higher plane of oneness with God, we could struggle upwards in our earthly life, in an attempt to free ourselves from evil and reach God; or we could go in the opposite direction, go to death, and depend on God to resurrect us. Apparently, another compromise has been made between these two ways. We are to sacrifice and give up some of our life (according to Jesus' instruction on how to live our life and bear our cross -ie for Jesus' sake); but not all of our life. -Because Jesus doesn't require we give up all our life (at least not right away), with his instructions on how we are to live our life. So we sacrifice parts of our life; but not all of our life -so that we do have some life, but it is a life in suffering (we are to hate our life). This compromise between life and death directions, partially answers my concern about not thrusting upon God, our life, needing to be resurrected, but waiting for God to give us a signal when He wants us to deliver our life (through death) to Him for resurrection. It says all time is a good time to include at least some of this: and that this compromise has been reached here where God isn't indicating one way or the other due to His being hidden. With all of these compromises; it kind of reminds you of politics and politicians. The purpose of compromise is to cover all the bases so that you're not taken totally lacking in any of the possibilities. But in this compromise, that FAILS, and this compromise is the cause of the worst possible situation. Because God is hidden, and has not shown himself -absolutely proving His existence; we cannot be absolutely sure He exists at this time -(or is yet to be created). We are instructed to have faith; to believe and hope for that which we do not yet have. We require a sign -a signal from God, before we sacrifice even parts of our life: not because we don't believe in God; but to choose against the possibility of doing evil. Now, just because we allow for the possibility that God doesn't exist yet: we also allow for the possibility that He does exist now, and is just hiding from us -so we don't kill ourselves so He will resurrect us -He must have a purpose for us to be alive here. The fact that He is hiding and hasn't shown himself absolutely, is a sign that He wants us to live life and go in the upward direction; and that he doesn't want us to sacrifice that life to him (yet) -that he has a purpose for us living. We are of low power and are not all knowing, and are easily fooled. That is one thing we can be certain of in this time. We know that we aren't all knowing. We are certain that we are uncertain. Because we are certain that we don't absolutely know that God exists (because God is hidden); we must cover the possibility that maybe God doesn't exist yet; as well as the possibility that He does exist now. If our situation happens to be the possibility that God doesn't exist yet; then for us to sacrifice all or any part of our life, would represent a destruction of life from this time until a time in the distant future when God was created and did resurrect that life. If you wish to choose the force of destruction, then go and do that. But we wish to choose against destruction, by not doing that. So that if God wishes for us to go the way of death and then resurrection, then we require that He give us an absolute sign -because with this requirement, we choose against evil/destruction in the possibility where God doesn't exist yet, in our situation of being lowly and not all knowing (we, being certain of the lowliness of our own position).

And of this compromise: -to mix the ways of struggling upwards to God, vs, going to death and awaiting resurrection: note that the ways of life and the ways of death are of opposing directions: and that to mix them together, causes the togetherness of the forces of good and evil -of growth and destruction. If you wish to choose the togetherness of the forces, then you go and do so. But we wish to choose against the togetherness of these forces; as such togetherness is a choice for the force of evil, because the force of evil requires the togetherness of these two forces for its existence; while the force of good does not. So that to choose for the togetherness of the forces here, is a choice for the force of evil. And you will know it too, by the suffering it causes you, if you try it. Now then: where to from here?

So far I've shown only the down side of preparing for Christ's second coming by sacrificing parts of our earthly life according to religion. There is a small up side (not of actually preparing for the 2nd coming, but to religion in general including talking about preparing for the 2nd coming).

The requirements to sacrifice for God, and the sexual restrictions resulting in isolated family units (where it is each family for themselves); causes, or can cause a situation of reduced capability. I would like to step out here to say that ultimately we are 'responsible' for our own actions, and that if we value the force of good, and life, that we should do what we can to avoid destruction and be free from it as much as possible, irregardless of religious rules. This is the true religion, and the true pleasing of God. The idea to love God and your neighbor, fits in nicely here. Jesus has hit the nail right on the head. What is all this other stuff over regulating human sexuality so closely. That is off track. The problem is with the statements about loosing your earthly life for God, in order to gain the reward of eternal life. OK, stepping back in:. The idea is to spoil the goods before anybody else can get to them. But this logic only works unto reduced capability; as if you completely destroy someone just to prevent a killer from doing it; then you are just doing the killer's (evil's) work for them (it).

Since we don't know who is going to rule us -it could be a good, kind ruler; or an evil, cruel one: then this setup of reduced capability in the material that rulers rule over; causes for only good rulers to be able to make much use of this material; while evil rulers are held back by it. So we have a good reason (a political reason) for preserving the family unit. -to prevent totalitarian and ideological regimes (like communism) from extracting absolute power and spreading their cruelties around. So when evil governments step in and try to control who you mate with -trying to breed humans for their evil purposes: then is the time to revolt and die against your government. (Recall Hitler's breeding program). So we need to preserve the family unit. To do so requires some enforcement (or incentive program) of the religious restrictions on sexuality in place today. However, here in America, we've gone too far with this. Here in present day America, there is little chance of a totalitarian government taking over. But there is excessive emphasis against any form of sexual deviation from what religion determines to be appropriate. The sex police are out in force. Recall that in an atmosphere of reduced capability the good can still bridge barriers and get together but the evil cannot. -but that in an atmosphere of desolation; neither the good nor the evil can bridge barriers or get out. The excessive enforcement of sexuality we do here in America has created an environment of sexual desolation where near absolute compliance is achieved and no one breaks the religious restrictions. (The compromise Jesus makes in the sexual area also helps this). Thus no government (or organization larger than the family unit) -good nor evil, is able to be sustained. This creates a vacuum in government, leaving the good unable to escape the evil, left behind with the evil -resulting in togetherness of good and evil. (This is no better than no family unit at all). Some discouragement of breaking the sexual restrictions is needed yes; but not to the extent of absolute or near absolute compliance (as if that is done, then it is the same result as if a totalitarian regime was allowed to reign with no family unit, as under Hitler. What we now need to realize is that we don't take these religious restrictions over sexuality so seriously. As I have shown, they have no serious basis in truth or path to eternal life. -except that of political truth-life-and goodness. What they should become, is as Santa Clause is for children. We know Santa Clause isn't real, but that we allow and maintain it to a degree, as a tradition; as it has its purpose. So should religious sexual restrictions be.

So now that the cat is out of the bag, repressive totalitarian regimes may use my logic to break up the family unit (against religious objections) and institute their own human breeding programs. That's no good. I debated with myself whether to release this information. But it is already too late since I've already released earlier material, before I realized this. And ultimately I think it is better to be informed. I think we can handle it. The idea is that now we know how to die (against repressive regimes). Acting (and even dying) against bad authorities, is different than dying for God (when God visibly appears). When God visibly appears we stop taking in material for feeding the destruction in our flesh; but neither do we any of the actions of life -we clear our agenda and do nothing; awaiting the separation of the forces within us.

But when going against evil authorities, we take all our lower quality material and unhinder it. After a short time, that lower material not involved or sucked into this, reverts back to what it was before; and continues our (adult) earthly life -if all is sucked in, then we die. The material that is involved or sucked in, remains eternally in unhindered mode (with the occasional escape of any high quality material generated). Being in unhindered mode, it never feels any need and is never need driven (until the destruction present, destroys it). -It is the eternal child --never feeling any adolescent need or need of essentials/quasi essentials.

This, I hope, allows us to preserve some semblance of a family unit; although I never want such preservation to be absolute: but one that allows for some wandering (by both partners of course).

So, one can call Him the king of compromise, but king of kings is much better -(kings and lords (as leaders) being masters of compromise themselves).

So; I'm impressed. Almost single handedly, this man, with no heavy use of divine power (except as a healer and such), has almost single handedly caused so much good. By tricking people into sacrificing for God, he causes them to help each other and form a community of togetherness and love (the Christian church). Not only that: by inciting people to sacrifice for God, this causes them to be at reduced capability. Because if left to their own devices, they would build up high earthly capability, and evil leaders would feed on this and would be sustained; and the end state (of being ruled by a tyrant) would be much worse than the light burden Jesus lays upon us. The reduced capability favors the emergence of only good leaders and good governments. -All because of Jesus and his church. Fitting is the tittle King of Kings and lord of lords -as He has thereby made the rulers to be good. Wow. What an accomplishment. How can one man provide so much? Jesus may say that only God is good, but by men's standards: Jesus was a good man. With what he had to work with; he did wonders. It may be true that we have been tricked into sacrificing for God, and that His compromise with sexual frustration -resulting in greater certainty of enforcement; has caused us some discomfort and has been a slight burden (which now at the end, threatens to stagnate what He has accomplished). He was just playing it safe- ensuring that His Church would pull through and reap some genetic benefits, some political benefits, some togetherness of the group benefits -even if not the maximum possible -the most certain instead. Recall the roman empire was ruling people with an iron hand in Jesus' time, and was quite a force to be overcome. It took awhile, but it got done. But now that we have accomplished what He set out for us to accomplish; this excessive enforcement threatens to stagnate these gains, as the people of today focus in on the letter of God's law; oblivious to the spirit of God's law. Now see! I have shown how loosely Jesus played you with His requirement for you to sacrifice for God: and all for your benefit. -You ought therefore not to take the letter of His laws so seriously, but instead emphasize the Spirit -Love. Love remains. Love and helping each other is what remains important through all this. I certainly have not disproved that: in fact have even strengthened it. As the story of the Good Samaritan points out: if your religion gets in the way of loving and caring for each other; it is of little use.

This enforcement of religious sexual restrictions, is a part of earthly life: what are you saving this for? Don't give up your chance at the reward of eternal life by holding onto this and not giving this up.

Give this part of earthly life up for God. Give it up for love.

The Bible says those who won't believe on Christ, do this because their deeds are evil and they don't want them brought into the light where they will be reproved. And the Bible is full of exhortations to obey the laws of God with our earthly deeds. So, what we do in our earthly deeds, seems to be quite important to God. It is important to obey a set of rules (that we are told, are from God). What we do in our earthly deeds seems to be quite important -here on earth where we don't act out of complete free will but are coerced by our needs. It would be nice if the rules had a common theme behind them, and were not just the whims of evolution. Because if the rules were just the whims of some elders of old, passed down over the generations; and had no solid theme: then to say obeying them pleased God and gave you eternal life, would be one statement. (Since God isn't limited by the whims of a group of elders of old or the earthly process of evolution.) 'what profiteth a man to gain the whole world (including worldly deeds) but loose your soul-your relationship with God.

Well, what about a set of rules based on destruction vs growth of life? Wouldn't God care about them? -since He is quite great in the area of (evil free) life?

We show God that we are against sin, by not sinning. We should also show God that we're against destructiveness the same way. -As our earthly deeds are said to be of importance to God in determining His response to us.

I want to reiterate that the act to sacrifice and suffer while also trying to live -a way of suffering through life (which by the way, is allowed by the scriptural promises favoring receiving the reward of eternal life); is a choice by us FOR the very destructiveness that makes our deeds evil, -shouldn't God care about the statement this deed makes? (This even causes Christ of the Bible to reject us due to our continuing to sin.) And that this way of suffering through life may have even been what drove us to desperation and caused us to ask Christ to save us in the first place -what we were seeking God to save us from in the first place).

Since I respect what Christianity has done and the good it has caused, I choose to work within its system. And people who don't like evil, who choose against evil (destructiveness); but who are trapped by it and are seeking help in getting free of it: find an appeal in Christianity. It is these people I wish to help and represent as I myself am one.

There are 3 promises of eternal life I am aware of in the Gospels. One is the one we've just discussed about giving up your earthly life for Christ's sake and you will gain eternal life. The next is that you need to do everything that Jesus says (ie whatever He commands). (Note that the saying to give up your earthly life for the reward of eternal life, isn't a command, but is a choice offered us). And finally is the promise that if we believe on Christ, we will have eternal life.

Obeying Christ's commandments is important and will give us eternal life, is one of the promises. But so is disobeying Christ's commands important and will give us eternal life in the second promise. Yes, since we obey in our earthly life; obedience is part of our earthly life and we have that as part of our earthly life. We are then told that if we give up our earthly life and all that we have, for Christ, and hate our earthly life, then we will gain eternal life. So here, we give up our obedience (a part of our earthly life) for Christ and the Gospel. To give up obedience in any specific incidence, means disobedience. So, both obedience and disobedience are given eternal life according to the Bible. Any moral direction or moral compass is shot. What remains out of all this, is to love one another -to love our neighbor as ourselves and to love God (excluding any sacrificial acts). Why? Because love (EXcluding sacrificial acts of love), contains no destructiveness. And things which are free of destruction are not earthly life but are eternal life -and we are not asked to give up our eternal life -only our earthly life.

What I don't get, is why would God, who is so much more powerful than us puny and needy individuals; why would He want us to sacrifice for Him? He has no needs and is self sufficient unto himself. He would not need any sacrifices from us. (in fact, one would think it would be upon Him to help us.) Now, our government, our church, and all organizations which are made of individuals and which rely on their individuals for their power; would need their individuals to give up some of their individual pursuits in order to act in unison -as a group. -But the benefits from that group action should outweigh anything the individual could do as an individual. -unless the group is misusing its power and is not a growing group, but is a stagnant group.

One may say that obedience to God is eternal and part of eternal life, and rightly so in some situations. But since our obedience to God here on earth (in some commands -especially governing sexuality), involves destruction done to us in order to obey (although not destruction unto death); it is therefore an earthly act. One may say, just consider as separate parts, the destructive aspect, and the eternal obedient aspect. But here on earth, we are unable to separate the destructive part from the obedient part, and since God doesn't do it for us; these parts remain together as an inseparable unit, to us puny earthlings. Therefore, to us, we must consider this whole unit, as an earthly act. -Recall: heavenly treasure does not suffer loss from rust or moth or thievery. -So that this earthly obedience is not heavenly (eternal) material, as it is associated with loss. (even though it is a light burden, it is still a burden, and therefore earthly life.) So that in order to obtain eternal life through this promise, we must give it up (as we must give up all (earthly material/life) we have). But 1 John says that transgression of the law is sin; and if we sin we don't have Christ. The Gospel of John chapter 3 says that if we don't have Christ (if we don't believe on Christ) then we are condemned already -and relates this to evil deeds. Thus we must find a way to give up our earthly obedience without disobeying. If we do nothing (or die) we are still obeying. If we wait till we die to give it up; then we haven't purchased the reward of eternal life. It is impossible. It is thus impossible for us to obtain eternal life through both of these promises. To give up our earthly life (for God) we must disobey -(to give up our earthly obedience); and that disobeying prevents us from gaining eternal life via obeying Christ. Now, if we obey Christ, then we haven't given up our earthly obedience, (a part of our earthly life), and thus we haven't purchased that pearl of great price (eternal life) by giving up all we have (all our earthly life) and following Christ.

Perhaps what is being referred to by obeying God's law, is only that obedience which does not cause us to suffer any loss in obeying. In such case, this obedience would no longer be earthly, but eternal life; which we are not required to give up. In the sexual area then, to obey the command not to commit adultery, we can just marry everybody we have sex with. Our organization utilizes a mental marriage license where we mentally (in silent prayer) defer to God just prior to sex. We secede from the American govt and each individual becomes a government of their own. Since we are so much less powerful than the American govt, we wish to cooperate with them and go along with all their laws, except the one governing polygamy.

This interpretation of Biblical law over our sexuality is no burden at all -concerning the destructiveness evolution has placed in our sex drive when we don't fulfill it. It does require us to share our material possessions with those we share our sexuality with. But that doesn't require we suffer any destruction. Thus, this interpretation of God's command over sexuality, is the only one that fits and allows all the promises of the Gospel for eternal life to be fulfilled. Cool huh? Now, although obedience to 'do not commit adultery' would allow we all the free sex we want; obtaining eternal life by giving up our earthly life, does not. Giving up our earthly life still includes giving up the giving up our earthly life, -since the giving up of our earthly life inescapably involves sacrifice and loss on our part, thus making it an earthly act -with no interpretation allowing it to be eternal life. (ie without loss). Giving up our earthly life causes a moderation in all things (including the religious sacrificing of giving up our earthly life): one man one woman is Paul's way. My way of abstinence for a time, and then limiting the unhindered mode; is just as valid and obedient, and additionally allows us to be closer and develop our friendships more deeply with all our friends of the opposite sex or the attractive sex. Let's love one another. Let's moderate the sexual restrictiveness of religion; because it is the righteous thing to do!

Realize that obeying God's commandments cannot be a burden to us -not even a light burden (as in my burden is light). -because if we suffer any loss from obeying these commands, that loss makes this an earthly act and not an eternal act. And only when God's command is part of eternal life are we allowed to not give it up, (by Jesus' promise of eternal life) whereby we give up all our EARTHLY life for Jesus sake to purchase the pearl of great price -eternal life. Otherwise the promises of eternal life in the Gospel and new testament, crash in their logic and do not make a lick of sense (if obeying Gods commands cause any destruction to us thereby making it an earthly act).

(The light burden Christ refers to comes not from obeying any of God's commandments, but from purchasing eternal life by giving up our earthly life -(this isn't a command); and even here, the burden is light, because we also give up this giving up of earthly life -resulting in a moderation in all things -a burden yes but a light one.

Ask yourself this: Given an all powerful all knowing God, -and I've also shown that such a God is benevolent: What purpose would He have in placing burdens upon us? (We're already in sorry shape without any additional burdens.) God would not place burdens upon us, but would instead FREE US FROM THE EVILS FORCED UPON US. If He wanted us changed, He would change us in our insides, and would not use commandments to cause our change. Commandments would only be to inform what God was like. If a person was obeying a commandment already because that's how they were on the inside, then the commandment would cause them no destruction and would thus be part of eternal life. But if a person were disobeying a commandment (because that's how they were on the inside) then for them to obey the commandment would cause them destruction as they threw out what they were before to conform to the commandment. For them, obeying would be an earthly act due to this destruction. (being part of earthly life we are asked to give up this earthly obedience (for God) in order to purchase eternal life -yet how do we give up obedience other than with disobedience; and disobedience to God's commandment condemns us to loose our eternal life -system crash; logic crash- The Gospel promises for eternal life don't work here.) The Bible says His commandments are not grievous -in fact, they are no burden at all nor can be.

It seems commandments are something man needs, and God just includes them for man's sake, but are not the main thrust of God. Love and kindness are God's main thrust. (There is no destruction involved in loving Love, and loving your neighbor (excluding sacrificial acts of love), so that this is eternal and part of eternal life.) (Sacrificial acts of love are part of earthly life.) Commands over eating only Kosher food and other such commands, place burdens upon us puny mortals, and are obviously the traditions of men, and are man's use of religion to get things done. As it stands now, no commandment that causes us (or others) any destruction by obeying it, fits in with the Gospel promises of eternal life. -it actually causes them to crash. Just think: there is no conceivable reason for a benevolent God to lay burdens upon us. --(our situation is already pretty crummy as it is). Instead, a benevolent God would act to save and rescue us from being trapped by destruction and destructiveness.

One might say God gives commandments to give us a choice -to preserve free will. But this is inaccurate - we here on earth do not have free will. -not when we are slaves to and coerced by all our essentials and quasi essentials.

It is when man has an agenda or evolution has an agenda (to increase sexual frustration), that man can use religion (through commandments) to get what they want done (whereby commandments become burdensome). But none of this fits in with the Gospel's promises of eternal life.

Love God and love your neighbor REMAINS -wholly separate and pure.

I just had a thought (in favor of religion, for a second): Since God has not yet shown Himself, he thus wishes for us to live. When we and Jesus sacrifice our life for God (in sacrificial love) we are thus disobeying God, for God's sake. (and have thus given up obedience to God for God's sake -according to the promise -loose your life for Christ's sake and gain eternal life. And since the law of God is one unit, not divisible into component parts ie, if you break any one aspect of the law, you've broken the whole law -where all other combinations (of obeying or disobeying the commandments) are disobedience, and only one combination (obedience in all the commandments) is obedience and keeping God's law. -since the law of God is one unit not divisible; then Christ's way of sacrifice is a valid way to give up obedience to the law, for God's sake.

However, this line of reasoning doesn't hold water. True, obedience to the whole law of God is given up here; but the requirement is for to give up all you have -all your earthly life. The obedience to the individual commandments, although not the whole law of God, are still earthly actions and part of earthly life. If these earthly actions of obeying individual commandments (earthly because they cause you suffering to do them) are not given up, then you are saving your earthly life (a part of), and thus have invalidated your claim to eternal life through the promise -loose your life for Christ's sake and gain eternal life. (ie: giving up obedience in one aspect/area, doesn't absolve failing to give up obedience in other aspects; as all earthly life is to be given up.) Obedience to individual commandments may be considered as one whole for the purpose of obeying God's law; but for the purpose of their identity as earthly life, they cause us suffering in individual separate areas; we do them separately; and are thus individual separate earthly actions -(if we suppose they are allowed to cause us suffering in obeying them). Thus my insistence that obeying the commandments and the law of God cannot cause you suffering (otherwise the promises of eternal life in the gospel disagree): remains. . . . that suffering in individual areas not being given up until death, thereby eliminating the idea of prolonged suffering while alive.

Recently I've discovered that there is a place for this choosing to suffer while we live. This choice for evil (for evil and good together), can be used against an external evil attack. The method used here, turns -the fact that we're bound by our essentials-, to our advantage by using the evil in our essentials, within us, to bring us to reduced capability for separation of the forces. (This method replaces the method if inc. fragmentation). The idea is that when there is an external evil attack whereby an external evil is feeding upon you: you're already in suffering, so that if you instead allow your own internal evil from your essentials to bring you to suffering, this spoils the food before the external evil can get to it, and thus starves the external evil and causes the forces to separate in the external world.