response ability

Response ability is the ability to respond. Respond is the keyword, since it is just the response itself, with or without the adjective ability. If you do not have the ability to respond then you are singularly not to blame. However, you still have to respond, regardless of blame. In other words you are the only one in the donut hole even if the blame rests with someone else.

This was first demonstrated by a little known theory inaptly named baby in the well. If a baby is placed irresponsibility, on the edge of a well and falls into the well by a gust of wind, the baby remains in the well. Blame however rests wherever it rests. 

All this was in the law since Roman times as relating to intent. Intent does not enter into guilt or responsibility,  Intent regards only degree of sentence by the court. You are not guiltless because you did not intend commit a crime, you are only subject to a lesser or greater sentence as determined by the degree of your intent. 

Spahn and Sain and pray for rain

There are several instances which struck me as to the accuracy of technically exact language as against the spiritually abstract view of any event. This is highlighted in the Spahn and Sain saying often attributed to Billy Southworth of the Boston Braves when he named his starting pitchers for the next day's doubleheader.

It, if I recall inside my version, was not said by Billy at all but rather by a sports writer in his column. And, it was not worded exactly like that at all. Bottom line however, is that the final wording no matter how it arrived was better than the actual technically correct version.

This happens over and over, one could recount examples all day. So which is the best? The abstract one often seen in the distant past that creates the spiritually correct wording that far exceeds the actual recorded words? The ancient historical writers could capture the most memorable incidents several years after an event, more so than a concretely correct recording. The latter version was often cluttered with minutiae that clouded rather than providing any clear explanation of an event.

Numbers, when quoted by the ancients were not exact either. Forty meant a lot of days, not exactly forty. The spirit is always the more accurate and cutting science off from the spiritual limited the gaining of new knowledge from the previously unknown. In these later day however, there is some evidence that science and religion is coming closer. It was a blow when they separated that may be healed in future days, if there are any.

father and the son together

In the New Testament John 3:16 is often thought of as the central verse in the Bible. However, the most important verse in the Old Testament, and the most significant verse in all the Torah is 
Exodus 3:14. 

It says that God is Existence. Specifically I am that I am means existence. The word Hayah is the first person singular meaning existence. This is the report of Moses, credited with being the first to write anything Biblical down. Moses himself does not give this definition, God is answering Moses about who He is. This is God describing Himself.

Yet if you look it up in your hand held you will not find any definition like this until you dig deeper. God is a supreme being seems to be the consensus. All of the definitions come from other people, not one single one quotes Moses' report that God said He was I Am that I Am, meaning existence.

God did not say He created existence, He said he WAS existence. He did not even say he was a supreme being, probably caused by the obvious fact that, in these definitions by men, even idols could bee supreme beings. 

He did not say He was in control, This definition by men is subconsciously created to shift all responsibility for everything off the shoulder's of men and onto God. This requires no belief on our part, for instance God will heal us if we can only persuade Him to do so. No admission of belief is required from us. This despite Jesus said over and over again, if you believe, be it done to you according to your belief. We are not healed by the belief of Jesus, but by our belief in His power. Many believe in Jesus but not His power. I call this view Christian atheism.

So if the atheist does not believe in God he does not believe in existence. 

Forever is not now

Outside it is dark and rain on the roof takes on a persuasive sound above empty rooms. Alone  one thinks of all the people known personally over time many years long gone. Just the passage of time itself is lonely and it does not seem to matter whether they were good times or bad. Both are melancholy. The passage of time alone just by itself is lonely. So many have lived and died. Lost, all eventually forgotten within their own short space of time even as our own space of time is disappearing. It fools us into thinking there is plenty of time left. We know it is not, but we think what we like.

Maybe an awareness of separation from the past does it. Maybe it is the hint of a separating from existence. Nothing could be sadder than the sense of separation from our existence. We need another if we are to be sensitive to ourselves.  I think it is good to have an intense sense of yourself. We do this while living with another. It is enjoyable and for a brief moment we think it will all last forever. Our near orbits progress slowly hurling us apart changing perspectives into a deeper sweeter sadness.   

tiny

Size print so smell make it more likely typos will go uncorrected. Wrriting fast and furious results in tiny but key words skipped over. Just like reading....

everyone likes a mystery

Why are conspiracies I've heard usually mentioned as vast? Perhaps the prominence of the discoverers is to blame. Conspiracies seem to be largely attempts to provide answers where there are no

certainties. Obviously enough. My impression of their vastness is pure anecdotal, naturally so since any further proof would not be worth the effort. Which brings me to why I am drawn to all this is. It is in the UFO column. I tend to discount such subjects as anything psychic as like a verb in search of a so what subject on the horizon. Everyone likes a mystery.  

confessions of a christian

After perfect attendance in sunday school, graduating from a Christian high school, and attending a Christian college I became an avowed atheist. This decision was based on one of the more common fallacies in logic, misplaced authority.

Today I have a page I paid six dollars for, torn from Life magazine of Ted Williams endorsing cigarettes. It is presented in a unique frame under glass. He was an authority of baseball, not of tobacco. I am not aware he ever used cigarettes.

Churches literally do not define God, Luckily God defined Himself. You believe it or you don't. Agreeing is not believing, neither is going along with the pastor, nor even a strong wanting to believe.  

before discussions come definitions

I can see the scene on my way home almost as yesterday. A voice without sound said within me, God is Existence. I cannot recall my age but it happened in those early days before one is conscious of time. I had no idea what the word existence meant nor its' significance. 

Today I am a lot closer to the end of my life than the beginning. I discovered the meaning reading the ancient writers where it was reported by Moses when he asked God who shall he say sent him. 

According to Moses, in very likely the earliest definition of God, that defined Himself as I am that I am. This is an obvious reference to Existence. He did not create existence He is existence. 

Since God is unseen and is universally described as a spirit, in particular a personalized spirit of ourselves, and also since, we were given existence by definition. This we should remind ourselves contributes to a definition, not a theory.

Therefore the earliest spoken definition, God is the personified spirit of existence. This is, as we emphasized earlier is a definition, not a theory. Without a definition how could two individuals discuss it within themselves?

God is, in the popular definition, a or the supreme being, which could easily be confused with idols. Physics  is now quite comfortable discussing the unseen. At one time seeing was believing to many, but it gradually became true to me that believing is seeing. Today this is more universally recognized.

even atheists are faith based

Both the atheist position and all believers in God, with or without a logical definition, cannot anywhere near prove their positions but must base their views on faith for several reasons.

The most obvious reason is lack of anywhere near enough information to make a sensible decision in the matter, Many have little or no respect for their ignorance, since one supposes, they are ignorant of it. Most do not even realize they have a totally inadequate definition of God. When we gain new information and add to our knowledge that alone satisfies quite a few atheists.  

Since there more unknowns than known facts in the matter we cannot escape the necessity of faith to fill the gap. The more answers we gain knowledge of, the more we realize we are learning there are even more questions to gain the answer of. Questions require answers when we are aware of them unlike the seen universe appearing that it is expanding, suggesting a bang starting it all. Many forget they are talking about theories and eventually speak of theories as if they were proven facts. Meanwhile the bang theory is a fallacy in logic begging the question.                                                                                                                                               

living in our head

We all admit to ourselves we are going to die, but not now. It is a good definition of forever. We also sometimes take illustrations as proof. Some of us might remind themselves that illustrations do not prove anything or even make a good case for themselves. Illustrations merely illustrate. Also, theories are theories,  Theories are unproven. Yet when we refer to a theory often enough, especially popular ones, they are merely fill ins for that we do not know scientifically. Our expectations of new information is most often not what we expected at all.  The so-called big bang is a theory. It even suggests a beginning which sounds much like begging the question, which to put it more baldly is a fallacy featured in logic. It pushes the theory up against another theory, so that we are more stacking up theories than anything else. 

proving the proven in real time

While there are plenty factors interfering with the ability to prove something true, time alone is enough by itself to place all proof in question. When you prove something to your satisfaction you are doing it in the present that is soon the past. Most proof soon settles into assumptions very likely true, but which you believe in those moments that are piling up additives placing everything in a different time zone and a different perspective. Things may still appear to be true but it is an operative true for yourself. It is not technically true for all time and for anyone else. In short, time itself and itself by itself is reason enough to rendered absolute truth questionable, meaning nothing can be proved for a certainty. This is only one reason why there are so many lies from even the past which are flourishing factually in the most current present. There are other reasons but ultimately nothing can be proved scientifically.                                                                         

time always enters the pciture in the end

Charles Dickens talked to himself. Time (still we cannot define it) was a problem for him. He begged off meeting with a particular person because knowledge of even a short moment sacrificed for someone else's benefit interfered with all his other ostensibly free moments leading up to the meeting. Men have rifle like focus whereas women often seem to favor shotguns. Point for me is that time maybe hard to define but it is more important when we order it for our personal schedules. Time itself alone may be an illusion since it only exists in a comparative state. So if I use my time to solve problems, I may think it is well spent but one has to figure out what my serious problems are first, which forces me to arrange my time backwards. The trap here presenting itself is spending a questionable amount of singular time observing. The title for this post comes from the film Beat the Devil (1953)  first production by Bogart free of the star system.