Next: It Matters Not What You Think, But How You Think? Pt. 2.
June 09, 2021
In the theory that no virus has ever been isolated, and then made to produce a disease, lies the fact of different causes, to what we, by studying symptoms, call a flu.
A yearly flu has what causes?
Well we look at the debris, and draw conclusions, but never adhere to Koch’s postulates.
There are certainly causes that can increase flu-symptoms, that are not acknowledged, or sufficiently studied.
And on the other side, the tests, PCR or antibody, of which none tells us about the actual facts.
Short, we lack basic cause and effect.
Yes God created, as said in Genesis, and the only comparison with this, as the article ponders, is that sure, an evil entity can have, in certain instances, created a poison, that is ”designed”/created a substance, to boost the yearly influenza.
You really have no scientific right, to say more than that.
Taking a gander at once famous Christian Glen, he’s not one for knocking out theology, discerning and incisive or otherwise eh - nah disrespect. His esoteric views (at the time?) that; ‘some people have not been born like that for a reason. The karma is working from another lifetime’ - I assume where influenced by his pal at the time, Eileen Drewery. There’s a bible verse or two that could be construed to suggest something along these lines but not if quantified/understood, from Gen. to Rev and/or read - I believe - with God’s present dynamic assistance.
I’m not sure Eileen ever claimed/named herself ‘Christian’ and today is said to be a ‘handy healer; Ray Parlour's personal stylist’. Good luck to her. Not that her or Glen’s views on Christ are necessarily invalid for being from another... (I nearly wrote... “lifetime”) - perspective, i.e. outside the camp of church. Nevertheless, the view that sickness and disabilities are from God, is blatantly un-Jesus. That God creates pain on purpose, is maybe a knocked-out implication by his sincere followers without a blink, but mine eyes bulge with frustration at this misread/understanding. Usually it’s buried in the use of ‘mystery’ but I don’t want be caught suggesting there isn’t a - in my mind convoluted and woefully inconsistent - way of somehow maintaining, this doesn’t contradict the ‘God of love’. It’s held by a thankfully declining evangelical number who’d also undoubtedly believe in, eternal conscious punishment, and not just for ‘some’ people but many and most. (Oh language, language, context and unpack the pagan influence, family. Pur-lease...). Contemporary theology at best comes from a - barely arguable - progressive revelation and/or at least, ever-more rigorous grappling with what the Bible honestly aims to communicate. Of course, there are dangers that there can also be a forgetting and letting go. Without sounding like I don’t accept genuine debate and possibly respect others, regardless of what I consider blocks in their thinking: to teach the logical outworking would by necessity expect God to not only be complicit in pain and suffering but have an underlying acceptance and passivity. This has got to be the Gospel upside-down. And those who hold sickness is Job-like activity ongoing, stopped at Malachi and the Law in their ways of reading. It’s a kind of theological claim it’s a divine false-flag.
On the way to get plantaseed.org.uk developed up. God - and Aangirfan - willing, will start logging in here for a link soon as. Then I’d like to keep a bit more shtum in m’always picking-up-on-Jesus in comments and engage, for example here, in the broader question about reincarnation and such, and not in an obvious dialectic. Y’nah, lay off theological conspiracies around Biblical error. More explore and open with other perspectives.
'Michael Owen is a goalscorer - not a natural born one, not yet, that takes time' said Glen. There’s a searcher into the unknowns eh. Currently he’s in Spain running what seems to be a useful, get-them-back in the top-clubs, football school. I’m a-football but if I was interested it would be local and certainly non-Premier. Glen was at least honest enough to speak out his deeper views on life. As though all the hissing-critics of the time have none themselves that would bring namby-pamby PC outrage.
If at all was a problem due to genuine offense, this was never Glen’s intention and anyway how is someone offended, that a previous life, caused damage in ‘this’ one? This is obviously at times a biological fact. He risked ridicule and for sparking questions and debate - hats off to him, and for these kind of posts. Where freedom of public speech ends and crime might begin is a difficult to map issue but as we know, we’re under attack and this website and collaborators, are part-why we’re holding back the darkness. Light up...
No value in shrinking back, when the fight is coming to us?
Sax, m'misses and I, are semi-shaking up. The set-up and toward begins this month. Her vocations and visions require the Old Normal.
Glorious six-months and honeymoon, although, we are honeymooners for life goers. Gotta get-off, and get on, the-alone with God, call, think-am-hearing(?).
Prayin'/ Worship/ Word-ing in love, and Warfare.
Truthscoop, or Plant a Seed, get a mornin' earlyish, quick-as slot. Certain, it's the To Be Done Times: Nout-else but the Unction: All day, get aside, scream, seek, silence, and 'Bethel *Moments', wailing, waiting, and...
'The Beast, beaten back', is God's intent. We are potential vehicles, and, co-collaborating.
Because of my personal calling and history, it's my Know-What-Ya-Do time.
A reading to encourage us to find our own part:
If Aangirfan-like conversation was outlawed? The world will be sour, bitter and,...mad. To say, see, if/ when, happens?
Fine, there's a resistance movement that isn't going to roll over. No crits. or condemn, if y'decided/'need'(?) to go naive and numb-up the mind and heart?
(WE shouldn't shoot) the wounded, and an NPC.
A non-player character (NPC) is a video game character that is controlled by the game's artificial intelligence (AI) rather than by a gamer. Non-player characters serve a number of purposes in video games.
Make... and not, be-made, into.
Make, history, rise-up to the challenge our forebears' faced. They're respective, beast, and, Anti-Christ.
I seriously would like to know what it was to be a woman — Hitch-22
This statement, in the final pages of Christopher Hitchens’ memoir, was confounding. In the previous 340 pages Hichens had shown zero interest or effort in empathising with the women who crossed his path, or in imagining life without his unacknowledged (but painfully conspicuous) privilege. By the time I’d reached these words, I’d followed Hitchens from boarding school to Cambridge, Oxford and eventually New York, struggling to reconcile his shallow approach to women with that rigorous self-reflective critique he’s so famous for. It hurt my brain and my feelings.
I now know (after rants to various friends) that this is old news, and that I should really save my outrage for something more culturally relevant (but Lindy West already did Love Actually). I guess I’d been living under a bit of a rock. The glimpses of Christopher Hitchens that had made it to my little corner of Melbourne were generally anti-religion, pro-Iraq war, with a sprinkling of distaste for Winston Churchill. I didn’t always agree with them, but I thought they were smart. Hitchens out-logicked and out-argued almost everyone he came up against. I’d watched his opponents shake with rage and frustration as he rallied and smirked. And as I started Hitch-22 I found the same smarts, the same hypnotic energy, as he knitted abstract ideas into something solid and comprehensible.
What Orwell illustrates, by his commitment to language as the partner of truth, is that "views" do not really count; that it matters not what you think, but how you think; and that politics are relatively unimportant, while principles have a way of enduring, as do the few irreducible individuals who maintain allegiance to them.
By themselves these passages suggest that Hitchens has abandoned any defense of Orwell's ideas. Yet crediting Orwell with developing cultural studies avant la lettre demonstrates that Hitchens is still very much invested in the matter, as well as the measure, of Orwell's writing. There are, then, two distinct strains to Why Orwell Matters, which do not synthesize as nicely as Hitchens would like. On the one hand, there is an abstract or contentless celebration of Orwell's struggle for independence; on the other, a defense of Orwell as "uncommonly prescient not just about the 'isms'--imperialism, fascism, Stalinism--but about many of the themes and subjects that preoccupy us today"
Christopher Hitchens says that, if his wife or married women in general want to work, this is fine and dandy, but, if they don’t, then he believes in supporting his wife, so that she does not have to work.
How and why such an obviously reasonable statement causes this feminist to act as if Hitchens has called for genocide is beyond me.
Just think about what this feminist is implying: she’s implying that women should go out and work, even if they don’t want to, and that their husbands shouldn’t have a moral responsibility to support them.
And how and why women wish to spend their lives thrown involuntarily into a capitalist labour market and increasingly deprived of the opportunities to have children and be mothers is, once again, beyond me.
All this is strongly related to the paradox of middle class post-1960s feminism.