OMG, this is the most inspiring story I’ve read in a long time! If you didn’t cry, your heart has turned to solid stone, in my opinion:( THIS is heaven on Earth! I recently was walking past a Greek Orthodox Church and heard their singing through speakers broadcasted through the streets of Columbia SC USA, then decided to stop at the stairs to just listen to the beautiful sounds. I was raised Lutheran at the church across the street but never heard these sounds before. A man with a fistful of $ walked by, looked @ me dressed in jogging clothes & gave me a sour look. I smiled & told him their voices were beautiful. A few minutes later 2 cops showed up, told me to stop begging, get bk on the street and keep walking. I never begged, wasn’t standing there for $ or harassment, I just assumed the church wished to share the msg of God with all who could hear.  I learned a lot that day. My own Grandmommy who raised me in the church across the street stopped going after 50 yrs of being a “member” bc it turned into a bank she couldn’t afford, based on the monetary focus rather than the spiritual wealth it’s suppose to provide. Ebenezer is its name, meaning “stone of help.” These beautiful ppl were members of “CornerStone” church. Maybe their church is the true stone rejected in these end of days lessons we learn from these kind of experiences. No wonder these kinds of beautiful, inspiring, uplifting and ” love-filled-Jesus-messenger-moments ” are so rare these days. The almighty $, fear & ego must be a thing of the past. These souls are made proof it’s possible for EVERYONE to be a true stone of help, rather than a church. God made it possible for all of us to share these stories for a reason. (Thanks youtube:) God is providing the living stones, stones rejected, stones of help…We must make the effort to see what most cannot and be the bridge between heaven & the new Earth. We appreciate the sharing of hope-filled journeys, relationships, bonding of souls through compassion and triumph over material worldly darkness disguising itself as narcissistic, egotistical, greedy sheeple with fists full of $ walking through material worldly churches broadcasting with beautiful voices onto the streets, yet fear reigns in the hearts. Having a prejudice & judgmental view of others who aren’t as wealthy but have beautiful souls and care for others on the streets. Thank you for this opportunity to shift focus from darkness to light. I’m definitely sharing this with all I meet! Happy journeys! May we all be one, in the Universal creation! Namaste!

(Get this, Ebenezer Lutheran Church, where I was raised, is on “RICH-LAND” Street…how’s that for irony?) 

COLUMBIA, SC (Archangels) @ the Capital…Be the example!


So, the poor think thats GREAT news. It is the poor, those focused on treasures in heaven that is balanced with the rich in the END. Acts 2:17-21 that reveals who are the sons & daughters, having dreams, visions & prophesying during these signs of the 4 Blood moon TETRADS 2014,2017! Yes, it is NOW & it is US who see the Universal BIG picture, have focus on the unseen & care for the poor, hungry, abused, exiled & persecuted. It is US who are unafraid & messengers. Those who focus on $ & worldly material wealth are obviously those NOT prayed for, by Jesus himself in JOHN 17 when he spoke of those who would come in the end of days, as messengers NOT OF THIS WORLD, AND HATED by the majority who are. I guess it’s clear as to why the pastors & the wealthy are having a difficult time stressing over worldly treasures being monitored, lost and used to balance the equation. Imagine, a world without narcissistic, egotistical, worldly wealthy judging hypocritical soulless zombie meat suits. What you & these pastors spoken of in Jeremiah 22:22 are experiencing is the passing of greed. As long as men die, the sons & daughters who see things for what they’ve always been, now persecuted by the parents who cant, will rise. Just as slavery, hatred and TRUMP WALLS will be turned into BRIDGES OF LOVE, erasing boundaries, skin color and little boxes the rich put the poor in to judge based on material Earthly wealth & focus, which is the opposite of what these narcissistic hypocritical preachers stand for, IS NOT WHAT THEIR OWN JESUS WAS EVEN ABOUT. When did the “RELIGIOUS” zombies loose focus of the true message, sent by God who could care less about your new worldly church steeples, Cadillacs &  worldly focus? Why do you continue to be willfully ignorant of the ENTIRE meaning the Bible presents. The first step is realizing a true messenger’s focus IS NOT on $, it’s on truth, fairness, honesty, love & balance of ALL things seen & unseen. This is higher consciousness! This is the state of the sons & daughters who are HATED by those who exile, persecute & laugh at our message. But, we don’t worry because WE SEE what others cannot. We are growing from the minority into the majority as the systems collapse, the rich become poorer and  hate becomes history. So we rejoice! Change your focus! Where are YOUR treasures? Walls or Bridges? Heaven on Earth could never be with the dinosaurs ways of thinking! We build the bridge, We Are the Bridge! WAKE UP!



Study of the Kitvei Ha’Ari (writings of Isaac Luria’s disciples) continues mostly today among traditional-form Kabbalistic circles and in sections of the Hasidic movement. Mekubalim mizra’chim (oriental Sephardi Kabbalists), following the tradition of Haim Vital and the mystical legacy of theRashash (1720–1777, considered by Kabbalists to be thereincarnation of the Ari), see themselves as direct heirs to and in continuity with Luria’s teachings and meditative scheme.

Both sides of the Hasidic-Mitnagdic schism from the 18th century, upheld the theological worldview of Lurianic Kabbalah. It is a misconception to see the Rabbinic opposition to Hasidic Judaism, at least in its formative origin, as deriving from adherence to Rationalist MedievalJewish philosophical method.[15] The leader of the RabbinicMitnagdic opposition to the mystical Hasidic revival, theVilna Gaon (1720–1797), was intimately involved in Kabbalah, following Lurianic theory, and produced Kabbalistically focused writing himself, while criticising Medieval Jewish Rationalism. His disciple, Chaim Volozhin, the main theoretician of Mitnagdic Judaism, differed from Hasidism over practical interpretation of the Lurianictzimtzum.[16] For all intents, Mitnagdic Judaism followed a transcendent stress in tzimtzum, while Hasidism stressed the immanence of God. This theoretical difference led Hasidism to popular mystical focus beyond elitist restrictions, while it underpinned the Mitnagdic focus onTalmudic, non-mystical Judaism for all but the elite, with a new theoretical emphasis on Talmudic Torah study in theLithuanian Yeshiva movement.

The largest scale Jewish development based on Lurianic teaching was Hasidism, though it adapted Kabbalah to its own thought. Joseph Dan describes the Hasidic-Mitnagdic schism as a battle between two conceptions of Lurianic Kabbalah. Mitnagdic elite Kabbalah was essentially loyal to Lurianic teaching and practice, while Hasidism introduced new popularised ideas, such as the centrality of Divine immanence and Deveikut to all Jewish activity, and the social mystical role of the Tzadik Hasidic leadership.[17]

Literal and non-literal interpretations of theTzimtzumEdit

In the decades after Luria, and in the early 18th century, different opinions formed among Kabbalists over the meaning of the tzimtzum Divine self-withdrawal, whether it should be taken literally or symbolically. Bacharach’s Emek HaMelekh took tzimtzum literally, while Joseph Ergas(Shomer Emunim, 1736) and Abraham Herrera, held that tzimtzum was to be understood metaphorically.[18]

Hasidic and Mitnagdic views of theTzimtzumEdit

The issue of the tzimtzum underpinned the new, public popularisation of mysticism embodied in 18th centuryHasidism. Its central doctrine of almost-Panentheistic Divine Immanence, shaping daily fervour, emphasised the most non-literal stress of the tzimtzum. The systematic articulation of this Hasidic approach by Shneur Zalman of Liadi in the second section of Tanya, outlines a MonisticIllusionism of Creation from the Upper Divine Unity perspective. To Schneur Zalman, the tzimtzum only affected apparent concealment of the Ohr Ein Sof. The Ein Sof, and the Ohr Ein Sof, actually remain omnipresent, this world nullified into its source. Only, from the Lower, Worldy Divine Unity perspective, the tzimtzum gives the illusion of apparent withdrawal. In truth, “I, the Eternal, I have not changed” (Malachi 3:6), as interpreting the tzimtzum with any literal tendency would be ascribing false corporeality to God.

Norman Lamm describes the alternative HasidicMitnagdicinterpretations of this.[19] To Chaim Volozhin, the main theoretician of the Mitnagdim Rabbinic opposition to Hasidism, the illusionism of Creation, arising from a metaphorical tzimtzum is true, but does not lead to Panentheism, as Mitnagdic theology emphasised Divine transcendence, where Hasidism emphasised immanence. As it is, the initial general impression of Lurianic Kabbalah is one of transcendence, implied by the notion of tzimtzum. Rather, to Hasidic thought, especially in its Chabadsystemisation, the Atzmus ultimate Divine essence is expressed only in finitude, emphasising Hasidic Immanence.[20] Norman Lamm sees both thinkers as subtle and sophisticated. The Mitnagdim disagreed with Panentheism, in the early opposition of the Mitnagdic leader, the Vilna Gaon seeing it as heretical. Chaim Volzhin, the leading pupil of the Vilna Gaon, was at the same time both more moderate, seeking to end the conflict, and most theologically principled in his opposition to the Hasidic interpretation. He opposed panentheism as both theology and practice, as its mystical spiritualisation of Judaism displaced traditional Talmudic learning, as was liable to inspire antinomian blurring of Halachah Jewish observance strictures, in quest of a mysticism for the common folk.

As Norman Lamm summarises, to Schneur Zalman and Hasidism, God relates to the world as a reality, through His Immanence. Divine immanence – the Human perspective, is pluralistic, allowing mystical popularisation in the material world, while safeguarding Halacha. Divine Transcendence – the Divine perspective, is Monistic, nullifying Creation into illusion. To Chaim Volozhin and Mitnagdism, God relates to the world as it is through His transcendence. Divine immanence – the way God looks at physical Creation, is Monistic, nullifying it into illusion. Divine Transcendence – the way Man perceives and relates to Divinity is pluralistic, allowing Creation to exist on its own terms. In this way, both thinkers and spiritual paths affirm a non-literal interpretation of the tzimtzum, but Hasidic spirituality focuses on the nearness of God, while Mitnagdic spirituality focuses on the remoteness of God. They then configure their religious practice around this theological difference, Hasidism placingDeveikut fervour as its central practice, Mitnagdism further emphasising intellectual Talmudic Torah study as its supreme religious activity.

Theodicy (/θˈɒdɪsi/), in its most common form, is an attempt to answer the question of why a good God permits the manifestation of evil. Some theodicies also address theevidential problem of evil by attempting “to make the existence of an all-knowingall-powerful and all-good or omnibenevolent God consistent with the existence of evil” or suffering in the world.[1] Unlike a defense, which tries to demonstrate that God’s existence is logically possible in the light of evil, a theodicy attempts to provide a framework wherein God’s existence is also plausible.[2] The German mathematician and philosopher Gottfried Leibniz coined the term “theodicy” in 1710 in his work Théodicée, though various responses to the problem of evil had been previously proposed. The British philosopher John Hick traced the history of moral theodicy in his 1966 work, Evil and the God of Love, identifying three major traditions:

  1. the Plotinian theodicy, named after Plotinus
  2. the Augustinian theodicy, which Hick based on the writings of Augustine of Hippo
  3. the Irenaean theodicy, which Hick developed, based on the thinking of St. Irenaeus

The problem was also analyzed by pre-modern theologians and philosophers in the Islamic world. German philosopherMax Weber (1864–1920) saw theodicy as a social problem, based on the human need to explain puzzling aspects of the world.[3] Sociologist Peter L. Berger (1929–2017) argued that religion arose out of a need for social order, and an “implicit theodicy of all social order” developed to sustain it.[4] Following the Holocaust, a number of Jewish theologians developed a new response to the problem of evil, sometimes called anti-theodicy, which maintains that God cannot be meaningfully justified. As an alternative to theodicy, a defense has been proposed by the American philosopher Alvin Plantinga, which is limited to showing the logical possibility of God’s existence. Plantinga’s version of the free-will defence argued that the coexistence of God and evil is not logically impossible, and that free will further explains the existence of evil without threatening the existence of God.[not verified in body]

Similar to a theodicy, a cosmodicy attempts to justify the fundamental goodness of the universe, and an anthropodicy attempts to justify the goodness of humanity.

Definition and etymology

Reasons for theodicy



Jewish anti-theodicyEdit

In 1998, Jewish theologian Zachary Braiterman coined the term anti-theodicy in his book (God) After Auschwitz to describe Jews, both in a biblical and post-Holocaust context, whose response to the problem of evil is protest and refusal to investigate the relationship between God and suffering. An anti-theodicy acts in opposition to a theodicy and places full blame for all experience of evil onto God, but must rise from an individual’s belief in and love of God. Anti-theodicy has been likened to Job’s protests in the Book of Job.[56]Braiterman wrote that an anti-theodicy rejects the idea that there is a meaningful relationship between God and evil or that God could be justified for the experience of evil.[57]

The Holocaust prompted a reconsideration of theodicy in some Jewish circles.[58] French Jewish philosopherEmmanuel Levinas, who had himself been a prisoner of warin Nazi Germany, declared theodicy to be “blasphemous”, arguing that it is the “source of all immorality”, and demanded that the project of theodicy be ended. Levinas asked whether the idea of absolutism survived after the Holocaust, which he proposed it did. He argued that humans are not called to justify God in the face of evil, but to attempt to live godly lives; rather than considering whether God was present during the Holocaust, the duty of humans is to build a world where goodness will prevail.[59]

Professor of theology David R. Blumenthal, in his bookFacing the Abusing God, supports the “theology of protest”, which he saw as presented in the play, The Trial of God. He supports the view that survivors of the Holocaust cannot forgive God and so must protest about it. Blumenthal believes that a similar theology is presented in the book of Job, in which Job does not question God’s existence or power, but his morality and justice.[60] Other prominent voices in the Jewish tradition commenting on the justification of God in the presence of the Holocaust have been the Nobel prize winning author Elie Wiesel and Richard L. Rubinstein in his book The Cunning of History.[61]

Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson, the seventh Rebbe ofChabad Lubavitch sought to elucidate how faith (or trust,emunah) in God defines the full, transcendental preconditions of anti-theodicy. Endorsing the attitude of “holy protest” found in Job and Jeremiah, but also in Abraham (Genesis 18) and Moses (Exodus 33), Rabbi Schneerson argued that a phenomenology of protest, when carried through to its logical limits, reveals a profound conviction in cosmic justice such as we first find in Abraham’s question, “Will the Judge of the whole earth not do justice?” (Genesis 18:25). Recalling Kant’s 1791 essay on the failure of all theoretical attempts in theodicy,[62] a viable practical theodicy is identified with messianism. This faithful anti-theodicy is worked out in a long letter of 26 April 1965 to Elie Wiesel.[63]

Christian alternatives to theodicyEdit

A number of Christian writers oppose theodicies. Todd Billings deems constructing theodicies to be a “destructive practice”.[64] In the same vein, Nick Trakakis observes that “theodical discourse can only add to the world’s evils, not remove or illuminate them.”[65] As an alternative to theodicy, some theologians have advocated “reflection on tragedy” as a more befitting reply to evil.[66] For example, Wendy Farley believes that “a desire for justice” and “anger and pity at suffering” should replace “theodicy’s cool justifications of evil”.[67] Sarah K. Pinnock opposes abstract theodicies that would legitimize evil and suffering. However, she endorses theodicy discussions in which people ponder God, evil, and suffering from a practical faith perspective.[68]

Karl Barth viewed the evil of human suffering as ultimately in the “control of divine providence”.[69] Given this view, Barth deemed it impossible for humans to devise a theodicy that establishes “the idea of the goodness of God”.[70] For Barth only the crucifixion could establish the goodness of God. In the crucifixion, God bears and suffers what humanity suffers.[71] This suffering by God Himself makes human theodicies anticlimactic.[72] Barth found a “twofold justification” in the crucifixion:[73] the justification of sinful humanity and “the justification in which God justifies Himself”.[74]

Christian Science offers a rational, though widely unacceptable, solution to the problem by denying that evil ultimately exists.[75][76] Mary Baker Eddy and Mark Twain had some contrasting views on theodicy and suffering, which are well-described by Stephen Gottschalk.[77]

Redemptive suffering based in Pope John Paul II’s theology of the body embraces suffering as having value in and of itself.[78][79] Eleonore Stump in “Wandering in Darkness” uses psychology, narrative and exegesis to demonstrate that redemptive suffering, as found in Thomistic theodicy, can constitute a consistent and cogent defence for the problem of suffering.[80]

Free will defenseEdit

As an alternative to a theodicy, a defense may be offered as a response to the problem of evil. A defense attempts to show that God’s existence is not made logically impossible by the existence of evil; it does not need to be true or plausible, merely logically possible.[according to whom?]American philosopher Alvin Plantinga offers a free will defense which argues that human free will sufficiently explains the existence of evil while maintaining that God’s existence remains logically possible.[81] He argues that, if God’s existence and the existence of evil are to be logically inconsistent, a premise must be provided which, if true, would make them inconsistent; as none has been provided, the existence of God and evil must be consistent. Free will furthers this argument by providing a premise which, in conjunction with the existence of evil, entails that God’s existence remains consistent.[82] Opponents have argued this defense is discredited by the existence of non-human related evil such as droughts, tsunamis and malaria.[83]

Cosmodicy and anthropodicyEdit

A cosmodicy attempts to justify the fundamental goodness of the universe in the face of evil, and an anthropodicy attempts to justify the fundamental goodness of human nature in the face of the evils produced by humans.[84]

Considering the relationship between theodicy and cosmodicy, Johannes van der Ven argued that the choice between theodicy and cosmodicy is a false dilemma.[85]Philip E. Devenish proposed what he described as “a nuanced view in which theodicy and cosmodicy are rendered complementary, rather than alternative concepts”.[86]Theologian J. Matthew Ashley described the relationship between theodicy, cosmodicy and anthropodicy:

In classical terms, this is to broach the problem of theodicy: how to think about God in the face of the presence of suffering in God’s creation. After God’s dethronement as the subject of history, the question rebounds to the new subject of history: the human being. As a consequence, theodicy becomes anthropodicy — justifications of our faith in humanity as the subject of history, in the face of the suffering that is so inextricably woven into the history that humanity makes.[87]

Essential kenosisEdit

Essential kenosis is a form of process theology, (also known as “open theism”) that allows one to affirm that God is almighty, while simultaneously affirming that God cannot prevent genuine evil. Because out of love God necessarily gives freedom, agency, self-organization, natural processes, and law-like regularities to creation, God cannot override, withdraw, or fail to provide such capacities. Consequently, God is not culpable for failing to prevent genuine evil. Thomas Jay Oord’s work explains this view most fully.[88][89]

Gijsbert van den Brink effectively refutes any view which says God has restricted His power because of his love saying it creates a “metaphysical dualism”, and it would not alleviate God’s responsibility for evil because God could have prevented evil by not restricting himself. Van den Brink goes on to elaborate an explanation of power and love within the Trinitarian view which equates power and love, and what he calls “the power of love” as representative of God’s involvement in the struggle against evil.[90

Cortex, Medulla & ZOMBIES?

we must remember the 50s and the intolerance that ran rampant through American forefathers & families. Music, clothes, tatoos, makeup & fingernail polish is a quiet, non violent, peaceful means of protest used by today’s generation to combat the “SHEEPLIZING, ZOMBIFICATION conveyor belts used by the previous, now dying out, much OLDER generations, in order to keep intolerance, hate & separation an ongoing issue among the future generations..  and I emphasize ” PEACEFUL” ways of protest..We have the right to listen to music around the world, yet there are elite older men trying to lock us behind walls where tolerance of worldwide cultures different from Americas would be nonexistent. We have the right to know our ancestral DNA origins, yet to visit our ancestral lands around the world is forbidden? To build walls around our future grandchildren, teaching them to distance themselves from all the world and all that other cultures have to share is INSANE! This is as far from being a part of God’s Universal creation as you can get, yet it is the same enslaving, now dying out elder elite few who claim to be the most valued & chosen by God? One nation UNDER GOD? This is “THE LAND OF DREAMS, yet ALL dreams are to be approved by these wall builders? What about the bridge between heaven & Earth? How can there ever be heaven on Earth if we separate ourselves from ALL that God is? ALL that God has created? Who has the right to judge others based on the music chosen to enjoy? clothes, makeup, nail polish, makeup or lack thereof? Who has the right to say whether or not our grandchildren can or cannot travel to a beautiful land across the ocean where their great grandmother was born and grew up? Where is your DNA origins? Who are your ancestors? What music is shared in your blood? I love country & rock music, but I also found joy & peace in music of the most ancient lands in which Jesus is said to have walked. We already accept the banning of one country’s vid content from viewing in other countries, how much more banning, judgement, intolerance, boxes & walls built for enslavement of consciousness & narcissistic plagues can we take? OMG Sheeple, its not the “American Dream” if you have to be asleep to believe it? WAKE UP!
The closely related Letharia columbiana  (COLUMBIANA?SC?) lacks isidia and soredia, usually bearing instead apothecia.[ (APOTHE-“O”-SIS…C (see?)      I  A. COLUMBIA, SC (C=Central I=intelligence A=Agency) Columbia=Central/Capital/South Carolina=Columbia





The Leprose lichen is a lichen with a powdery or granular surface.[1] Leprose lichens lack an outer “skin,” or cortex.[1] If a crustose lichen starts to disintegrate, it will appear powdery, but crustose lichens have a cortex, and leprose lichens do not.[1][2] Leprose lichens have no inner or outer cortex. They sometimes have a weak kind of medulla, but are composed mainly of the fungal hyphae and an algae.

LEPROSY=Flesh zombies=

“WATER”-boy Medulla Oblongata

Both lampreys and hagfish possess a fully developed medulla oblongata.[3][4] Since these are both very similar to early agnathans, it has been suggested that the medulla evolved in these early fish, approximately 505 million years ago.[5] The status of the medulla as part of the primordial reptilian brain is confirmed by its disproportionate size in modern reptiles such as the crocodilealligator, and monitor lizard.

Many authors have indicated an integral link between a person’s will to live, personality, and the functions of the prefrontal cortex.[2] This brain region has been implicated in planning complex cognitive behavior, personality expression, decision making, and moderating social behavior.[3] The basic activity of this brain region is considered to be orchestration of thoughts and actions in accordance with internal goals.[4]

The most typical psychological term for functions carried out by the prefrontal cortex area is executive function. Executive function relates to abilities to differentiate among conflicting thoughts, determine good and bad, better and best, same and different, future consequences of current activities, working toward a defined goal, prediction of outcomes, expectation based on actions, and social “control” (the ability to suppress urges that, if not suppressed, could lead to socially unacceptable outcomes).

Frontal cortex supports concrete rule learning. More anterior regions along the rostro-caudal axis of frontal cortex support rule learning at higher levels of abstraction.[5]



Clinical significance


Perhaps the seminal case in prefrontal cortex function is that of Phineas Gage, whose left frontal lobe was destroyed when a large iron rod was driven through his head in an 1848 accident. The standard presentation (e.g.[46]) is that, although Gage retained normal memory, speech and motor skills, his personality changed radically: He became irritable, quick-tempered, and impatient—characteristics he did not previously display — so that friends described him as “no longer Gage”; and, whereas he had previously been a capable and efficient worker, afterward he was unable to complete tasks. However, careful analysis of primary evidence shows that descriptions of Gage’s psychological changes are usually exaggerated when held against the description given by Gage’s doctor, the most striking feature being that changes described years after Gage’s death are far more dramatic than anything reported while he was alive.[47][48]

Subsequent studies on patients with prefrontal injuries have shown that the patients verbalized what the most appropriate social responses would be under certain circumstances. Yet, when actually performing, they instead pursued behavior aimed at immediate gratification, despite knowing the longer-term results would be self-defeating.

The interpretation of this data indicates that not only are skills of comparison and understanding of eventual outcomes harbored in the prefrontal cortex but the prefrontal cortex (when functioning correctly) controls the mental option to delay immediate gratification for a better or more rewarding longer-term gratification result. This ability to wait for a reward is one of the key pieces that define optimal executive function of the human brain.

There is much current research devoted to understanding the role of the prefrontal cortex in neurological disorders. Many disorders, such as schizophreniabipolar disorder, and ADHD, have been related to dysfunction of the prefrontal cortex, and thus this area of the brain offers the potential for new treatments of these conditions.[citation needed] Clinical trials have begun on certain drugs that have been shown to improve prefrontal cortex function, including guanfacine, which acts through the alpha-2A adrenergic receptor. A downstream target of this drug, the HCN channel, is one of the most recent areas of exploration in prefrontal cortex pharmacology.[49]


The term “prefrontal” as describing a part of the brain appears to have been introduced by Richard Owen in 1868.[6] For him, the prefrontal area was restricted to the anterior-most part of the frontal lobe (approximately corresponding to the frontal pole). It has been hypothesized that his choice of the term was based on the prefrontal bone present in most amphibians and reptiles.[6]

The Minor Prophets? A MSG in REALITY!

I just happened to stumble upon this video this morning and read the few “faved” comments, which were EXTREMELY negative and downright scary! The fave comment was about the dancing, energy-filled dancers in the services today and about how they were “going to hell” for NOT being walking zombies, like “the old ways of services.” I found this EXTREMELY disturbing so I had to comment. It went like this….


Be sure to read the FEAR MONGERING comments…

it’s a shift into HIGHER energy. That’s the simple way of putting it. EVERYTHING is ENERGY! We are made of starstuff! Why is this a prob to understand? When I was growing up in a quiet Lutheran Church in Columbia SC, I knew a sneeze would cause all members to stare at me with sour faces. These ppl are happier, full of joyful energy and dancing. Dang, it looks like the “growing up” needs to begin with the negative, sleeping, unaware commenting lovers of very low light. Allow me to remind you…Light=knowldege vs darkness=low-no light=lack of knowledge. Energy=LIGHT! How brightly do YOU shine? Jesus, read your Bibles!

Wow, this isn’t a sour face! I’ve read more negative comments about this Pope compared to previous Popes and he sure is taking a lot of negativity from commenters. This is unnacceptible for those who realize he is doing a magnificent job in his position of fulfilling prophecy. It isn’t easy to walk in his shoes, why not think about this before making such nasty comments? So many sleepers! Its time to wake up! The DIVINE calendar demands it!

Amos Amos means “burden-bearer”. 

Probably around 755 BC.

Messenger: Amos was a herdsman and a dresser of sycamore trees, a strong rural character (7:14-15).Message: A message of doom for both Israel and Judah. Each were given some rest from the threats of Assyrian invasion. In this state of comfort, moral and political corruption began to flourish. They began to adopt the worship of the gods of the Assyrians, and thus of apostasy from the One True Jehovah. In short, luxury and wealth had bred moral decay and spiritual disinterest.

22 Amos Outline: Introduction of the Prophet (1:1-2)
Coming of divine judgment upon sinful nationsDamascus – for cruelty in war and greed (1:3-5)Gaza (Philistia) – for their slave trade (1:6-8)Tyre (Phoenicia) – remembered not the covenant (1:9-10)Edom – for their hatred and mistreatment of Israel (1:11-12)Ammon – intense and uncalled-for cruelty (1:13-15)Moab – vengeance even on a king’s carcass (2:1-3)Judah – for her apostasy (2:4-5)Israel – for all their sins (2:6-16)

23 Amos Outline (continued) Israel’s crimes (3-4)
Upon wealthy ruling classes for social sins and injustices (3:1- 4:5)Chastisement upon the nation had gone unheeded (4:4-13)Israel’s inevitable condemnation (5-6)Five Visions explained (7:1–9:10)The vision of the locust (grasshoppers) in which the mercy of God averts catastrophe (7:1-3)The vision of devouring fire – an even more severe judgment again averted by God’s mercy (7:4-6)

24 Amos Outline (continued) Five Visions Explained (continued)
The vision of the plumb-line – the destruction of the nation of Israel for its idolatry (7:7-9)Interlude – Amaziah’s complaint against Amos (7:10-17)The vision of the basket of summer fruit – the ripeness of Israel for judgment (8)The vision of the smitten sanctuary – destruction for the sinful kingdom (9:1-10)The promise of a bright future in the hope of the Messiah (9:11-15) – Acts 15:14-18


And this is the meaning of the teaching of our Sages, of blessed memory:1 “[In the World to Come — here meaning Gan Eden —there is no eating and drinking…, but the righteous sit] with their crowns on their heads, and they take delight [in the radiance of the Divine Presence].”2

עטרה היא בחינת מקיף וסובב

A crown (atarah) is something that encompasses and encircles,

This refers to an illumination that neither contracts nor adapts itself so that it can be vested in varying degrees within created beings; rather, it descends to the worlds3 and encompasses them all equally.

ונקרא כתר, מלשון כותרת

and is called keter, as related to koteretthe capital which crowns a column,4 as in the Beit HaMikdash built by King Solomon (I Kings, ch. 7).

Atarah is thus a crown worn on the head,5while keter means (as well) the crown atop a column.

Since the illumination of light from the Sefirah of Keter that will be revealed in the World to Come results from the performance of the mitzvot that are likened to 620 תר״ך columns of light (corresponding to the 613 Torah commandments and seven Rabbinic commandments, numerically equal to the word כתר),6 the Alter Rebbe also explains the term “crown” as it applies to a column.

והוא בחינת ממוצע המחבר הארת המאציל, אין סוף ברוך הוא, להנאצלים

[The Sefirah of Keter] is an intermediary which joins the radiation and revelation of the Emanator, the blessed Ein Sof, to the emanated beings in the World of Atzilut,

The Emanator is infinite, while the emanated beings — which are within a world, and even the loftiest of worlds is bound by limitation — are finite. There must therefore be an intermediary between the two. It is the Sefirah of Keter that serves as this intermediary, for its internal dimension is related to the Emanator and its external dimension is related to the emanated beings. It is thus through the Sefirah of Keter that the [infinite] Ein Sof-light is drawn into the World of Atzilut and to the emanated beings which populate it.

ולעתיד יאיר ויתגלה בעולם הזה, לכל הצדיקים שיקומו בתחייה

and in the future it will radiate and become revealed in this world to all the righteous who will rise with the Resurrection,

ועמך כולם צדיקים כו׳

(7“And Your people are all righteous8…”).9

This transcendent degree of Divine light will thus be revealed to the entire Jewish people.

Accordingly, the illumination that presently is received only by those beings that inhabit the World of Atzilut will radiate in the World to Come to this physical world as well. For unlike the indwelling illumination of Gan Eden that is dependent upon the level and comprehension of each recipient, this revelation is an encompassing light from the Sefirah of Keter, which does not undergo contraction, but radiates to all equally.

This results in a state of total revelation, whereby the very Essence of Divinity is visually perceived (re’iyat hamahut), as it is written,10 “The glory of G‑d shall be revealed, and together all flesh shall see…”

וזהו שאמרו רז״ל: עתידים צדיקים שיאמרו לפניהם קדוש

And this is the meaning of the teaching of our Sages, of blessed memory:11 “In the future the righteous will be lauded as holy,” as G‑d is praised now.

כי קדוש הוא בחינת מובדל

For “holy” signifies [lofty] separation;

שאינו בגדר השגה ודעת

it is not subject to apprehension and knowledge,

כי הוא למעלה מעלה מבחינת החכמה ודעת שבגן עדן

because it transcends by far the wisdom and knowledge which are attainable in Gan Eden.

כי החכמה מאין תמצא, כתיב

For Scripture states,12 “Chochmah shall be found from ayin (‘naught’).”

הוא בחינת כתר עליון, הנקרא אין בזהור הקדוש

This refers to the Supreme Keter which, in the sacred Zohar,13 is called ayin;

והשפעתו והארתו בבחינת גילוי, הוא דוקא כשהנשמה תתלבש בגוף זך וצח אחר התחיה

and the bestowal of its radiance is manifest, i.e., its essence is apprehended, only when, after the Resurrection, the soul is vested in a pure and clear body.

The Alter Rebbe now goes on to explain why in Gan Eden, when the soul is not encumbered by a body, the light of Keter cannot be manifest, whereas — paradoxically — this revelation becomes possible only in the World to Come at the time of the Resurrection, when the soul is once again invested within a body.

(For, as is well known,14 the determining opinion is that of the Ramban,15 who states that the ultimate reward will be specifically at the time of the Resurrection, when the soul will again be found within a body.)

כי נעוץ תחלתן בסופן דוקא

For16 “Their beginning (i.e., the loftiest initial level) is wedged in their end.”

This is explained in the teachings of Chassidut17as follows: “Beginning” refers to a level of Divinity that utterly transcends the evolvement of any created worlds. This level of Divinity is wedged in the last level preceding the creation of the evolving worlds, the Sefirah of Keter. Keter is revealed only in the “end” of all worlds — i.e., within this physical world — during the time of the Resurrection. Gan Eden, by contrast, is incapable of receiving this transcendent level of revelation in an internalized manner.

Thus, while the lesser radiance that is muted to match the respective limitations of the evolving worlds can be absorbed by the soul (in Gan Eden) in its disembodied state, the transcendent radiance issuing from Keter is revealed to the soul only when it is clothed within a body.

וסוף מעשה במחשבה תחלה כו׳, כנודע

Likewise, as is known,18 “The final deed — i.e., the last stage of creation: this physical world —was first in thought….”

Thought and creation both have aspects that are “first” and “last”; the “last” (i.e., lowest) level of creation, which is this world, is rooted in the “beginning” (i.e., in the highest level) of the Divine thought.

This is why specifically the deeds performed in this “last” world of creation, while the soul is clothed in a physical body, are able to elicit and drawn down the radiance of Keter. As explained here by the Alter Rebbe, this refers to the mitzvah of tzedakah, as well as to mitzvot in general, all of which are termed “tzedakah”.19 For it is the performance of physical mitzvot in this material world that arose first in G‑d’s thought and will, at the level of the Divine Keter, for the physical mitzvot are the ultimate purpose of creation.

Returning to the earlier discussion: It is now clear why in future time the righteous (and “Your people are all righteous”) will be lauded as holy: they will all have revealed to them that Divine radiance that is “holy” in the sense that it transcends apprehension. Moreover, they will become so unified with this revelation that the term “holy” will apply to them as well.

אך אי אפשר להגיע למדרגה זו, עד שיהא בגן עדן תחלה

But it is impossible to attain this level of being able to absorb the transcendent light of Sovev Kol Almin, until one has first been in Gan Eden,

להשיג בחינת חכמה עילאה כו׳ אפשר צריך להיות: כל חד כפום שיעורא דיליה

to apprehend a degree of the Supernal Chochmah,20 each21 according to his measure.

For, as explained earlier, the lesser Divine light that radiates in Gan Eden is received by each soul according to its own particular degree.

וטל תורה מחייהו

(The Rebbe adds here that the soul will then rise at the time of the Resurrection of the Dead through the “dew of the Torah,” for, as our Sages teach,22“[Whoever engages in the study of the Torah,]) the dew of Torah revives him [at the time of the Resurrection].”

The verse upon which our Sages base this teaching reads:23 “Your dead shall be resurrected…; those who lie in the dust shall awaken and sing joyful praises; for the Dew of Lights shall be your dew….” It is thus clear that the revival effected by “the dew of the Torah” refers to the Resurrection of the Dead.

והקיצות, היא תשיחך גו׳, ודי למבין

(The Rebbe adds: Thereafter,)24 “When you will awaken, it (i.e., the Torah) will cause you to speak…,” and this promise, as expounded inAvot,25 refers to the time of the World to Come.This will suffice for the discerning.

In order to attain the level of Sovev Kol Almin at the time of the Resurrection, the soul must first be in Gan Eden and apprehend Supernal Chochmah according to is particular degree and level. For though in Gan Eden the soul apprehends no higher than the lesser, permeating Divine light called Memaleh Kol Almin, its perception is nevertheless augmented by the light of Keter which also illumines it. The soul indeed apprehends the latter enlightenment only to the extent of yediat hametziut (lit., “a knowledge of its existence”; i.e., by the “encompassing” perception known as makkif), rather than with the penetrating revelation of hassagat hamahut (lit., “an understanding of its essence”).26 Nevertheless, this added illumination enables the soul at the time of the Resurrection to comprehend the essence of the revelation of Sovev Kol Almin.

Since, as stated above, the soul in Gan Eden apprehends indwelling lights, its experience of Gan Eden consists of the revelation of the Torah within the soul, so to speak, for the Torah is likened to “food” (as in the verse,27 “for Your Torah is within my inward parts”) — i.e., something that affects one from within, as explained at length above, in Part I, ch. 5. However, Gan Eden is also illumined by a glimmering of the radiation that results from the performance of mitzvot, and these act as “garments” and “encompassing lights” for the soul in Gan Eden, as mentioned in the above letter.

At the time of the World to Come, at the time of the Resurrection, the superior light of Sovev Kol Almin will be revealed chiefly as a result of one’s present performance of mitzvot. This comes about through and together with the “dew of Torah” that “revives him” and “causes [him] to speak.”

The Alter Rebbe now returns to the above-quoted verse, “Your commandment is very wide.” Having earlier explained that “Your commandment” (in the singular) refers to G‑d’s own commandment, viz., tzedakah, he now goes on to explain the words, “is very wide”: the mitzvah of tzedakah is a vessel so capacious that it can contain the revelation of G‑d’s infinite light at the time of the Resurrection.

1. Berachot 17a.
2. Note of the Rebbe: “The former phrase (`with their crowns on their heads’) alludes to makkif, the encompassing light; adding to this, the latter phrase (`and they take delight [in the Divine Presence]’) alludes to pnimi, the indwelling light.”
3. At this point the Rebbe noted that although this illumination is present even in the lower worlds, it cannot be said that it illumines them with the same degree of luminosity as in its own inherent state. For while it is true that the light of “Sovev Kol Almin illumines all worlds equally, there yet remains an entirely separate question — whether it is revealed [to the worlds to quite the same degree] as it exists in itself [which indeed it does not do]. [By way of analogy:] Though a king’s august majesty transcends all of his subjects equally, their perception of it does not at all resemble its own intrinsic state. (Indeed, this is true not only with regard to the king’s objective essence, but even insofar as he is revealed to — and is aware of — himself.)”
4. Note of the Rebbe: “I.e., this is the etymology that is relevant here, rather than that of katar li [Iyov 36:2; lit., `wait for me’], which implies silence and abnegation. (See Likkutei Torah, Bamidbar 69a; beginning of Hemshech 5672.)”
5. Cf. Tehillim 21:4.
6. Cf. the prayer of R. Nechuniah ben Hakanah, cited and expounded in Epistle 29, below.
7. Parentheses are in the original text.
8. Yeshayahu 60:21.

Note of the Rebbe: “This verse is cited here, for this is one of the differences between the time of the Resurrection and Gan Eden. As to the former, `Your people are all righteous,’ whereas Gan Eden is not merited by all (see Torah Or, Parshat Yitro 73b; Likkutei Torah; and elsewhere).”

Although the Alter Rebbe says below that “it is impossible to attain this level until one has first been in Gan Eden,” which would seem to presuppose that all Jews will merit Gan Eden as well, the Rebbe notes that when the Alter Rebbe writes above that “Your people are all righteous” he means only that “they will all rise at the Resurrection, which will embrace everyone from Moshe Rabbeinu and the Patriarchs and so on, to the water-drawers. And it is self-evident that there will be enormous distinctions between their respective revelations at that time, each according to his measure (in Gan Eden), and so on.”

10. Yeshayahu 40:5.
11. Bava Batra 75b.
12. Iyov 28:12. Note of the Rebbe: “In the place where Chochmah is to be found (Gan Eden), [the level of] Keter is in a state of concealment — ayin.”
13. Note of the Rebbe: “See Mishpatim 121a: ‘And Chochmah…,’ and elsewhere.”
14. See Sefer HaMitzvot of the Tzemach Tzedek (Derech Mitzvo-techa), Mitzvat Tzitzit. See also Likkutei Torah, Parshat Tzav, p. 15c.
15. Shaar HaGemul.
16. Sefer Yetzirah 1:7.
17. Hemshech 5666, p. 346.
18. From the Friday night hymn entitled Lechah Dodi (Siddur Tehillat HaShem, p. 132).
19. See Tanya, Part I, ch. 37; see also below, Epistle 32.
20. The parentheses and brackets are in the original Hebrew text.
21. The parenthetical text means “etc.”, and the bracketed text that follows it suggests instead “each one.” The Rebbe notes that the anomalous “etc.” grew out of a copyist’s error in which its Hebrew abbreviation כו׳ was substituted for כ״ח, an abbreviation for כל חד (“each one”).
22. Note of the Rebbe: “Cf. Ketubbot 111b, and see above, conclusion of ch. 36.” See also Likkutei Sichot, Vol. XI, p. 193 (footnote).
23. Yeshayahu 26:19.
24. Mishlei 6:22.
25. 6:9.
26. Likkutei Torah, Parshat Tazria, in the maamar that begins, Ka Mifligei biMetivta deRakia.
27. Tehillim 40:9.



John 4:34King James Version (KJV)

34 Jesus saith unto them, My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work.

DAVINCI CODE (the mind sees what it chooses to see) 

Scotomisation” is the psychological tendency in people to see what they want to see and not see what they don’t want to see – in situations, in themselves, in anything, even in a painting – due to the psychological impact that seeing (or not seeing) would inflict.

In this case, it is one of the most famous paintings of all time and an icon in the faith of millions of Christians. The emotional power of this is considerable. It is no wonder then that The Da Vinci Code book and film have been so controversial throughout the world.

Perception involves seeing and processing information through the filter of our intellect and our emotions. That’s why people often see the same thing differently. Scotomisation can be a false denial but also a false affirmation of our perceptions.

The term used in behavioral science is borrowed from the science of optics and ophthalmology. “Scotoma” is from the Greek word skotos (to darken) and means a spot on the visual field in which vision is absent or deficient.

The French psychiatrist Rene Laforgue (1894-1962) is thought to be the first to have used the term in a psychiatric sense. In a 1925 letter to Sigmund Freud, Laforgue wrote that “scotomisation corresponds to the wish that is infantile…not to acknowledge the external world but to put the ego itself into its place…”

At the time, Laforgue was talking about denial and repression in schizophrenics, but the term can have a more general application.

Psychiatrist R.D. Laing (1927-1989) describes scotomisation as a process of an individual psychologically denying the existence of anything they see with their own eyes that they really don’t want to see and hence don’t want to believe.

He writes in Interpersonal Perception (1966) that scotomisation is “our ability to develop selective blind spots regarding certain kinds of emotional or anxiety-producing events”. So it may be a matter of faith with the evidence of The Da Vinci Code.

Seeing is believing, but not always.


Mark 4:34-41King James Version (KJV)

34 But without a parable spake he not unto them: and when they were alone, he expounded all things to his disciples.

35 And the same day, when the even was come, he saith unto them, Let us pass over unto the other side.

36 And when they had sent away the multitude, they took him even as he was in the ship. And there were also with him other little ships.

37 And there arose a great storm of wind, and the waves beat into the ship, so that it was now full.

38 And he was in the hinder part of the ship, asleep on a pillow: and they awake him, and say unto him, Master, carest thou not that we perish?

39 And he arose, and rebuked the wind, and said unto the sea, Peace, be still. And the wind ceased, and there was a great calm.

40 And he said unto them, Why are ye so fearful? how is it that ye have no faith?

41 And they feared exceedingly, and said one to another, What manner of man is this, that even the wind and the sea obey him?


John 4:34King James Version (KJV)

34 Jesus saith unto them, My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work.

WOMAN” Jesus called his own mother 


In metaphysics, the noumenon (/ˈnɒmɪnɒn/, from Greek: [εν]νοούμενον) is a posited object or event that exists without sense or perception.[1][2] The term noumenon is generally used in contrast with or in relation to phenomenon, which refers to anything that can be apprehended by or is an object of the senses. Modern philosophy has generally been skeptical of the possibility of knowledge independent of the senses, and Immanuel Kant gave this point of view its canonical expression: that the noumenal world may exist, but it is completely unknowable through human sensation.[3] In Kantian philosophy, the unknowable noumenon is often linked to the unknowable “thing-in-itself” (in Kant’s German, Ding an sich), although how to characterize the nature of the relationship is a question yet open to some controversy.


The Greek word νοούμενoν nooúmenon, plural νοούμενα nooúmena, is the neuter middle-passive present participle of νοεῖν noeîn “to think, to mean”, which in turn originates from the word νοῦς noûs, an Attic contracted form of νόος nóos “perception, understanding, mind”.[4][5] A rough equivalent in English would be “something that is thought”, or “the object of an act of thought”.

Concept in pre-Kantian philosophyEdit

The Oxford Companion to Philosophy proclaims “Platonic Ideas and Forms are noumena, and phenomena are things displaying themselves to the senses. […] that noumena and the noumenal world are objects of the highest knowledge, truths, and values is Plato’s principal legacy to philosophy.”[6] However, that noumena and the noumenal world were objects of the highest knowledge, truths, and values were disputed from the start, beginning with Democritus, his follower Pyrrho, founder of Pyrrhonism, and even in the Academy starting with Arcesilaus and the introduction of Academic Skepticism. In these traditions of philosophical skepticism, noumena are suspected of being delusions. Plato’s allegory of the cave may be interpreted as an illustration of the noumenal/phenomenal distinction.

Classical Taoist philosophy was well aware of a similar concept, as expressed by its proverb “[phenomenal] Tao which can be spoken is not true [nomenal] Tao”.

Kant’s usageEdit


As expressed in Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason, human understanding is structured by “concepts of the understanding”, or pure categories of understanding found prior to experience in the mind, and which make outer experiences possible as counterpart to the rational faculties of the mind.[7][8]

By Kant’s account, when one employs a concept to describe or categorize noumena (the objects of inquiry, investigation or analysis of the workings of the world), one is employing a way of describing or categorizing phenomena (the observable manifestations of those objects of inquiry, investigation or analysis). Kant posited methods by which human understanding makes sense of and thus intuits phenomena that appear to the mind: the concepts of the transcendental aesthetic, as well as that of the transcendental analytictranscendental logic and transcendental deduction.[9][10][11] Taken together, Kant’s “categories of understanding” are the principles of the human mind which necessarily are brought to bear in attempting to understand the world in which we exist (that is, to understand, or attempt to understand, “things in themselves”). In each instance the word “transcendental” refers to the process that the human mind must exercise to understand or grasp the form of, and order among, phenomena. Kant asserts that to “transcend” a direct observation or experience is to use reason and classifications to strive to correlate with the phenomena that are observed.[citation needed]Humans can make sense out of phenomena in these various ways, but in doing so can never know the “things-in-themselves”, the actual objects and dynamics of the natural world in their noumenal dimension – this being the negative correlate to phenomena and that which escapes the limits of human understanding. By Kant’s Critique, our minds may attempt to correlate in useful ways, perhaps even closely accurate ways, with the structure and order of the various aspects of the universe, but cannot know these “things-in-themselves” (noumena) directly. Rather, we must infer the extent to which the human rational faculties can reach the object of “things-in-themselves” by our observations of the manifestations of those things that can be perceived via the physical senses, that is, of phenomena, and by ordering these perceptions in the mind infer the validity of our perceptions to the rational categories used to understand them in a rational system, this rational system (transcendental analytic), being the categories of the understanding as free from empirical contingency.[12][13]

According to Kant, objects of which we are cognizant via the physical senses are merely representations of unknown somethings—what Kant refers to as the transcendental object—as interpreted through the a priori or categories of the understanding. These unknown somethings are manifested within the noumenon—although we can never know how or why as our perceptions of these unknown somethings via our physical senses are bound by the limitations of the categories of the understanding and we are therefore never able to fully know the “thing-in-itself”.[14]

Noumenon and the thing-in-itselfEdit

Many accounts of Kant’s philosophy treat “noumenon” and “thing-in-itself” as synonymous, and there is textual evidence for this relationship.[15] However, Stephen Palmquist holds that “noumenon” and “thing-in-itself” are only loosely synonymous, inasmuch as they represent the same concept viewed from two different perspectives,[16][17] and other scholars also argue that they are not identical.[18] Schopenhauer criticised Kant for changing the meaning of “noumenon”. Opinion is far from unanimous.[19]Kant’s writings show points of difference between noumena and things-in-themselves. For instance, he regards things-in-themselves as existing:

…though we cannot know these objects as things in themselves, we must yet be in a position at least to think them as things in themselves; otherwise we should be landed in the absurd conclusion that there can be appearance without anything that appears.[20]

..but is much more doubtful about noumena:

But in that case a noumenon is not for our understanding a special [kind of] object, namely, an intelligible object; the [sort of] understanding to which it might belong is itself a problem. For we cannot in the least represent to ourselves the possibility of an understanding which should know its object, not discursively through categories, but intuitively in a non-sensible intuition.[21]

A crucial difference between the noumenon and the thing-in-itself is that to call something a noumenon is to claim a kind of knowledge, whereas Kant insisted that the thing-in-itself is unknowable. Interpreters have debated whether the latter claim makes sense: it seems to imply that we know at least one thing about the thing-in-itself (i.e., that it is unknowable). But Stephen Palmquist explains that this is part of Kant’s definition of the term, to the extent that anyone who claims to have found a way of making the thing-in-itself knowable must be adopting a non-Kantian position.[22]

Positive and negative noumenaEdit

Kant also makes a distinction between positive and negative noumena:[23][24]

If by ‘noumenon’ we mean a thing so far as it is not an object of our sensible intuition, and so abstract from our mode of intuiting it, this is a noumenon in the negative sense of the term.[25]

But if we understand by it an object of a non-sensible intuition, we thereby presuppose a special mode of intuition, namely, the intellectual, which is not that which we possess, and of which we cannot comprehend even the possibility. This would be ‘noumenon’ in the positive sense of the term.[26]

The positive noumena, if they existed, would be immaterial entities that can only be apprehended by a special, non-sensory faculty: “intellectual intuition”. Kant doubts that we have such a faculty, because for him intellectual intuition would mean that thinking of an entity, and its being represented, would be the same. He argues that humans have no way to apprehend positive noumena:

Since, however, such a type of intuition, intellectual intuition, forms no part whatsoever of our faculty of knowledge, it follows that the employment of the categories can never extend further than to the objects of experience. Doubtless, indeed, there are intelligible entities corresponding to the sensible entities; there may also be intelligible entities to which our sensible faculty of intuition has no relation whatsoever; but our concepts of understanding, being mere forms of thought for our sensible intuition, could not in the least apply to them. That, therefore, which we entitle ‘noumenon’ must be understood as being such only in a negative sense.[27]

The noumenon as a limiting conceptEdit

Even if noumena are unknowable, they are still needed as a limiting concept,[28] Kant tells us. Without them, there would be only phenomena, and since potentially we have complete knowledge of our phenomena, we would in a sense know everything. In his own words:

Further, the concept of a noumenon is necessary, to prevent sensible intuition from being extended to things in themselves, and thus to limit the objective validity of sensible knowledge.[29]

What our understanding acquires through this concept of a noumenon, is a negative extension; that is to say, understanding is not limited through sensibility; on the contrary, it itself limits sensibility by applying the term noumena to things in themselves (things not regarded as appearances). But in so doing it at the same time sets limits to itself, recognising that it cannot know these noumena through any of the categories, and that it must therefore think them only under the title of an unknown something.[30]

Furthermore, for Kant, the existence of a noumenal world limits reason to what he perceives to be its proper bounds, making many questions of traditional metaphysics, such as the existence of God, the soul, and free will unanswerable by reason. Kant derives this from his definition of knowledge as “the determination of given representations to an object”.[31] As there are no appearances of these entities in the phenomenal, Kant is able to make the claim that they cannot be known to a mind that works upon “such knowledge that has to do only with appearances”.[32] These questions are ultimately the “proper object of faith, but not of reason”.[33]

The dual-object and dual-aspect interpretationsEdit

Kantian scholars have long debated two contrasting interpretations of the thing-in-itself. One is the dual object view, according to which the thing-in-itself is an entity distinct from the phenomena to which it gives rise. The other is the dual aspect view, according to which the thing-in-itself and the thing-as-it-appears are two “sides” of the same thing. This view is supported by the textual fact that “Most occurrences of the phrase ‘things-in-themselves’ are shorthand for the phrase, ‘things considered in themselves’ (Dinge an sich selbst betrachten).”[34] Although we cannot see things apart from the way we do in fact perceive them via the physical senses, we can think them apart from our mode of sensibility (physical perception); thus making the thing-in-itself a kind of noumenon or object of thought.

Criticisms of Kant’s noumenonEdit

Pre-Kantian critiqueEdit

Though the term noumenon did not come into common usage until Kant, the idea that undergirds it, that matter has an absolute existence which causes it to emanate certain phenomena, had historically been subjected to criticism. George Berkeley, who pre-dated Kant, asserted that matter, independent of an observant mind, is metaphysically impossible. Qualities associated with matter, such as shape, color, smell, texture, weight, temperature, and sound are all dependent on minds, which allow only for relative perception, not absolute perception. The complete absence of such minds (and more importantly an omnipotent mind) would render those same qualities unobservable and even unimaginable. Berkeley called this philosophy immaterialism. Essentially there could be no such thing as matter without a mind.[

GENERAL MATTIS (Saviour of America? THE WORLD?..Archangels think, NOT!!!)

Private: MASTER #22 in the Bible –

This book simply changed everything for me… It opened me to the world of chaos theory and made me understand that every biological system (in essence every ‘open system’ in a classical physics sense) is a chaotic system… Wow, to be able to see and analyze everything as a chaotic system…gives very much insight…




Amoris laetitia (By Pope Francis) wikipedia definition

Amoris laetitia

Amoris laetitia (LatinThe Joy of Love) is a post-synodal apostolic exhortation by Pope Francis.[1]Dated 19 March 2016, it was released on 8 April 2016. It follows the Synods on the Family held in 2014 and 2015.[a]

The document focuses on several of the issues of contemporary morality and church practice that had proved contentious during the third extraordinary and the fourteenth ordinary synods’ presentations and discussions, surrounding access to communion, divorce, sexual mores, and pastoral practice.

Controversy erupted after the document was published, and in July 2016, a group of Catholic scholars, prelates and clergy sent an appeal to the College of Cardinals asking that they petition Pope Francis to “repudiate” what they see as “erroneous propositions” contained in Amoris Laetitia,[2] and several confraternities representing thousands of priests asked for a formal clarification.[3] At the end of 2016 it was revealed that four Cardinals had formally asked Pope Francis for clarifications, particularly on the issue of admittance to Holy Communion to divorced and civilly remarried Catholics. As of 2017, different national bishops conferences and individual bishops had taken different positions on the meaning of the text, leading to ongoing debate within the Catholic Church.[4]


The text was released initially in EnglishFrenchGermanItalianPortuguese and Spanish.[5] The English text runs about 250 small-format pages with nearly 400 footnotes. Its introduction and 9 chapters comprise 325 numbered paragraphs. Quotations are drawn from the writings of earlier popes, documents of the Second Vatican Council and regional episcopal conferencesSt. Thomas Aquinas, and Martin Luther King, Jr.[6] It includes what is thought to be the first reference to a film in a papal document, namely Babette’s Feast (1987),[7] along with references to works by Jorge Luis BorgesOctavio PazAntonin SertillangesGabriel Marcel, and Mario Benedetti.[8][b]

Philosopher Michael Pakaluk affirms that Archbishop Victor Manuel “Tucho” Fernandez is one of the ghostwriters of the most controversial chapter of the exhortation. According to Pakaluk, a key passage “is lifted almost verbatim from a 1995 essay in theology by Archbishop Victor Fernandez — raising troubling questions about Fernandez’s role as ghostwriter, and the magisterial force of his ideas.”[9]


Francis begins by noting a division of opinion during the synods:

“The debates carried on in the media, in certain publications and even among the Church’s ministers, range from an immoderate desire for total change without sufficient reflection or grounding, to an attitude that would solve everything by applying general rules or deriving undue conclusions from particular theological considerations.” He did not propose to resolve those differences by imposing unity: “Unity of teaching and practice is certainly necessary in the Church, but this does not preclude various ways of interpreting some aspects of that teaching or drawing certain consequences from it. This will always be the case as the Spirit guides us towards the entire truth…” (paragraph 3)

He warns the reader that the document addresses many issues in many different ways and therefore says: “I do not recommend a rushed reading of the text.” He asks the reader to consider the text “patiently and carefully”. (paragraph 7)[10] One reviewer called it a rich reflection and a response to criticism of the 2015 synod’s report, which opened with sociological concerns rather than Scripture.[11]

1. In the Light of the Word

This chapter is “a biblical meditation on key themes related to the topic of marriage and family life” and includes a section on the importance of work.[12] In one view “it comes off as a collection of Scripture references that don’t really hang together well” with “some good passages” like a discussion of Eve as helpmate to Adam.[7]

2. The Experiences and Challenges of Families

Here the Pope considers the contemporary realities of family life, acknowledging the unique challenges faced the present time, including phenomena like migration, lack of housing, inattention to persons with disabilities, lack of respect for the elderly, and “the ideological denial of differences between the sexes.”[13] He concludes that only by adopting a point of view of realism can we avoid an abstract and artificial notion of marriage which has little to do with the experiences of families in the world.

3. Looking to Jesus, The Vocation of the Family

Chapter three deals with the vocation of the family according to the Catholic tradition and the Gospels. It stresses the sacramental nature of marriage, its indissolubility, and its role in the transmission of life. This chapter touches on “imperfect situations” and “wounded families” and calls pastors “to exercise careful discernment of situations.” (Familiaris Consortio, 84)

4. Love in Marriage

Francis examines each phrase of St. Paul’s passage on love in 1 Corinthians 13:4–13:7 in detail.[7][11] The progressive “transformation of love” that takes place throughout the marriage is a point of focus, stressing that the ideal represented by the union cannot happen at once, and it is observed that longer lifespans necessitate a renewal of commitment.

5. Love Made Fruitful

In this chapter the focus shifts entirely to the procreative aspect of marriage. Francis discusses the spiritual and psychological issues that come into play when welcoming new life into the world, and touches on subject such as adoption and the role of the extended family. It is notable that Amoris Laetitia does not speak only of the “nuclear family,” insisting that the family must be understood as operating within a much wider network of relationships. (paragraph 187)

6. Some Pastoral Perspectives

Chapter six is aimed at ministers who will have to accompany couples in the early years of marriage, when in contemporary culture risk of crisis is at its highest. This discussion transitions naturally into the need to minister to abandoned, separated, or divorced persons, stressing the importance of the recently reformed annulment process. The Pope also speaks to families with members who have homosexual tendencies. The section concludes with a discussion of death and widowhood.

7. Towards a Better Education of Children

As suggested by the title, chapter 7 speaks to pedagogy. The Pope encourages ethical formation, discipline, prudent punishment, realism, and sex education, warning against the tendencies to want to control every experience of children which results in a desire to dominate. Instead, Francis asks parents to lovingly help children grow in freedom in order to achieve real autonomy through development and discipline.

8. Accompanying, Discerning and Integrating Weakness

Chapter 8 focuses on the pastoral care of church members who have been divorced and remarried, or are affected by these “irregular unions” in some way. Most of the controversy surrounding Amoris laetitia is focused on this chapter. While the document does not explicitly state that pastors should give communion to divorced and remarried persons, critics believe that the text is so ambiguous as to lead to the conclusion that such an act would be permissible. Others insist that Francis is simply shifting emphasis, urging pastors “to become aware of the need to integrate the divorced and remarried into the life of the Church, and this is more important to him than legal clarity.”[14]

9. The Spirituality of Marriage and the Family

The closing chapter is devoted to marital and family spirituality. Persons called to family life are reassured that this context does not detract from their spiritual growth or potential, and says that this vocation should be seen as their own path to mystical union. He closes by emphasizing the necessity of mercy within the family, explaining that all are called to grow, develop, and mature, helping one another in spite of weaknesses and limitations.



At a press conference sponsored by the Vatican Press Office, Cardinal Christoph Schönborn, O.P., Archbishop of Vienna, and Cardinal Lorenzo Baldisseri, Secretary General of the Synod of Bishops, along with Franco Miano and Giuseppina De Simone, a married couple, both academics who had participated in the synods, discussed the document.[15] Schönborn joked when reporters asked him about footnote 351, which discusses the controversial question of access to communion for those who have divorced and remarried: “I am surprised that everyone has read this footnote! But Pope Francis wishes to present an overall picture, not focus on this unique point”. He said that “many expected a rule” to clarify which of the positions outlined at the synod the Pope supported, and that “they will be disappointed.”[16]

Schönborn also said that when the synod participants formed small discussion groups some of them began by sharing their own family histories and discovered that many of them had direct experience in their own families of marriages that fail to conform to the ideal, which he termed “patchwork families”. He said his own experience–his parents divorced when he was about 14 years old–made him thankful that the text “goes beyond the artificial, superficial, clear division between ‘regular’ and ‘irregular’, placing everyone under the common lens of the Gospel, in accordance with the words of St. Paul: ‘God has consigned all to disobedience, that He may have mercy on all.'”[16]

The summary provided by the Vatican Press Office did not include any contribution by the three other attendees.[15]

Initial reactionsEdit

Initial reactions highlighted several of the issues of contemporary morality and church practice that had proved contentious during the synods’ presentations and discussions, surrounding access to communion, divorce, sexual mores, and pastoral practice.

Since the release of Amoris laetitia, various media outlets reported what many were calling a potential change in Church teaching on the ability of remarried and civilly divorced to receive the Eucharist, to which they said Francis alluded in footnote no. 351,[17] which reads (with footnoted body text in italics):

Because forms of conditioning and mitigating factors, it is possible that in an objective situation of sin – which may not be subjectively culpable, or fully such – a person can be living in God’s grace, can love and can also grow in the life of grace and charity, while receiving the Church’s help to this end.

351. In certain cases, this can include the help of the sacraments. Hence, “I want to remind priests that the confessional must not be a torture chamber, but rather an encounter with the Lord’s mercy” (Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium [24 November 2013], 44: AAS 105 [2013], 1038). I would also point out that the Eucharist “is not a prize for the perfect, but a powerful medicine and nourishment for the weak” (ibid., 47: 1039).[18]

Reports addressed the apparent contradictions between this footnote and Pope John Paul II’s apostolic exhortations Familiaris consortio and Reconciliatio et paenitentiae. When asked in a press conference how Francis’ work related to Familiaris consortio, which states that remarried divorcees must live “as brother and sister” in order to take communion, Cardinal Schönborn said that the former builds on the earlier work: “there is no change, but there is development”.[16] Some traditionalists, notably Kazhakstani Bishop Athanasius Schneider and British advocacy group Voice of the Family, have criticized Francis’ exhortation. Voice of the Family has called on him to “recognise the grave errors in the recently published Apostolic Exhortation, Amoris Laetitia, in particular those sections which will lead to the desecration of the Holy Eucharist and to the harming of our children, and to withdraw the Apostolic Exhortation with immediate effect.”[17]Edward N. Peters, a referendary of the Apostolic Signatura, wrote that Amoris laetitia “is not a legislative document, it contains no legislative or authentic interpretative language, and it does not discuss Canon 915.” So, the canon was not changed: Catholics in irregular marriages should not receive Eucharist.[19][20]


In June 2016, a group of 45 Catholic scholars sent a letter to all the cardinals, asking Pope Francis to repudiate a “number of statements that can be understood in a sense that is contrary to Catholic faith and morals”.[21]

In the last months of 2016, the debate over Amoris laetitia continued. Four cardinals (Raymond BurkeCarlo CaffarraWalter BrandmüllerJoachim Meisner) formally and privately asked Pope Francis for clarifications. They submitted five “dubia” (doubts), and requested a yes or no answer. Pope Francis declined to answer and the cardinals went public. Their questions focus on chapter 8 of the apostolic exhortation, “whether there are now circumstances under which divorced and remarried persons can receive communion, whether there are still ‘absolute moral norms’ that prohibit Catholics from taking certain acts, and how the pope understands Catholic teaching on the role of conscience in making moral decisions.”[22]

Some Catholic prelates and scholars, including cardinals Paul Josef Cordes and Renato Martino, bishops Athanasius Schneider and James Conley, and German philosopher Robert Spaemann, have expressed support for their initiative.[23][24][25]Cardinal George Pell asked: “How can you disagree with a question?”[26] In December 2016, the head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, cardinal Gerhard Müller, while declaring that it was not the role of the Congregation to engage in the controversy, indicated that he does not believe that the doctrine on communion can change.[27]

Oxford philosopher John Finnis and theologian Germain Grisez also expressed their concern in a detailed letter, requesting the pope to condemn eight positions against the Catholic faith “that are being supported, or likely will be, by the misuse” of Amoris laetitia.[28]

However, according to close Pope Francis adviser, Antonio Spadaro, the controversial questions on communion were already answered.[29] Archbishop of Brisbane Mark Coleridge declared that prelates supporting the dubia are pursuing a “false clarity that comes because you don’t address reality”.[30]In line with this view, it has been suggested that Pope Francis declined to answer the “dubia” because he wants to emphasize a more humane, pastoral approach and de-emphasize the demand for legal clarity.[31]

In a private letter hand-delivered on May 6, 2017 to Francis, Carlo Caffarra, on behalf of the four cardinals, asked for a papal audience. Caffarra stated that “interpretations of some objectively ambiguous passages” of Amoris Laetitia have been given that are “not divergent from, but contrary to, the permanent Magisterium of the Church.” In June, having not yet received a response from Francis, the cardinals went public.[32][33]

According to Ross Douthat, with the “dubia”, the Roman Catholic Church has “entered terra incognita.”[34]


On a practical level, divergences of interpretation appear among bishops. Some bishops issued guidelines for their diocese insisting that divorced and civilly remarried Catholics remain ineligible for the sacraments of Reconciliation and the Eucharist unless they live in continence, while other bishops opened up the possibility of access to these sacraments.[35] In a private letter to the bishops of Buenos Aires, Pope Francis wrote that he agrees with the latter interpretation.[36]

On 8 January 2017, the two bishops of Malta released guidelines for the Application of Chapter VIII of Amoris Laetitia.[37] The guidelines were published by the Vatican semi-official newspaper L’Osservatore Romano six days later.[38] The Maltese bishops stipulate that, after a serious process of discernment, divorced and civilly remarried couples may receive the Holy Communion if they feel “at peace with God.” These guidelines were immediately criticized by conservatives as a “meltdown” or a “disaster.”[39][40]At the same time, bishop Steven Lopes issued a pastoral letter going in the opposite direction, admitting divorced and civilly remarried couples to Absolution and Communion only if they are “committed to complete continence.”[41] According to bishop Lopes, “conscience” cannot justify access to Communion for the remarried.[42]

In reaction to pastoral guidelines allowing Communion, three Kazakhstan bishops issued a joint statement imploring prayer that Pope Francis will “confirm the unchanging praxis of the Church with regard to the truth of the indissolubility of marriage.” In this appeal to prayer, they affirm that some of the recent “pastoral guidelines contradict the universal tradition of the Catholic Church.”[43]

Cardinal Caffarra, one of the authors of the dubia, sustains that after Amoris laetitia “only a blind man could deny there’s great confusion, uncertainty and insecurity in the Church.”[44]

On 1 February 2017, the majority of the German Bishops’ Conference published guidelines which were considered to be the broadest interpretation of Amoris Laetitia and stated that it allowed communion for the divorced and remarried in only certain cases which involved difficult situations.[45]

On 14 February 2017, Cardinal Francesco Coccopalmerio, head of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts which interprets Church law, sought to further quell tensions by publishing a 30-page booklet stating that Chapter 8 of Amoris laetitia only allows Communion for the divorced to civilly remarry so long as the situation is “non-legitimate” and outside of traditional boundaries of the Church’s marriage.[46][47] Coccopalmerio stated that while the divorced and remarried can receive Communion as long as they want to change their situation, they cannot receive it if they act on their desire.[46] The contradictions on his statements received criticism even from the EWTN‘s famous Catholic TV show The World Over.[48]

Cardinal Gerhard Müller, the prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, maintained that Amoris Laetitia should only be interpreted in line with doctrine, and that it has not changed the Church’s discipline. Therefore, according to Cardinal Müller, divorced and civilly remarried can have access to the sacraments of Reconciliation and Communion only if they refrain from sexual relations.[45][49]

Selected quotations by topicEdit

Access to communion
  • “Hence it can no longer simply be said that all those in any ‘irregular’ situation are living in a state of mortal sin and are deprived of sanctifying grace. More is involved here than mere ignorance of the rule. A subject may know full well the rule, yet have great difficulty in understanding ‘its inherent values’, or be in a concrete situation which does not allow him or her to act differently and decide otherwise without further sin.” (paragraph 301)[6]
  • “…it is possible that in an objective situation of sin – which may not be subjectively culpable, or fully such – a person can be living in God’s grace, can love and can also grow in the life of grace and charity, while receiving the Church’s help to this end.” (paragraph 305)
  • “I would also point out that the Eucharist ‘is not a prize for the perfect, but a powerful medicine and nourishment for the weak’.” (footnote 351, quoting Evangelii Gaudium)[50]
Rules and uniformity
  • “We have long thought that simply by stressing doctrinal, bioethical and moral issues, without encouraging openness to grace, we were providing sufficient support to families, strengthening the marriage bond and giving meaning to marital life. We find it difficult to present marriage more as a dynamic path to personal development and fulfilment than as a lifelong burden. We also find it hard to make room for the consciences of the faithful, who very often respond as best they can to the Gospel amid their limitations, and are capable of carrying out their own discernment in complex situations. We have been called to form consciences, not to replace them.” (paragraph 37)
  • “…neither the Synod nor this Exhortation could be expected to provide a new set of general rules, canonical in nature and applicable to all cases. What is possible is simply a renewed encouragement to undertake a responsible personal and pastoral discernment of particular cases, one which would recognize that, since ‘the degree of responsibility is not equal in all cases,’ the consequences or effects of a rule need not necessarily always be the same.” (paragraph 300)
  • “From the outset, love refuses every impulse to close in on itself; it is open to a fruitfulness that draws it beyond itself. Hence no genital act of husband and wife can refuse this meaning, even when for various reasons it may not always in fact beget a new life.” (paragraph 80)
  • “Decisions involving responsible parenthood presuppose the formation of conscience, which is ‘the most secret core and sanctuary of a person. There each one is alone with God, whose voice echoes in the depths of the heart.'” (paragraph 222)[6]
  • “I feel it urgent to state that, if the family is the sanctuary of life, the place where life is conceived and cared for, it is a horrendous contradiction when it becomes a place where life is rejected and destroyed. So great is the value of a human life, and so inalienable the right to life of an innocent child growing in its mother’s womb, that no alleged right to one’s own body can justify a decision to terminate that life, which is an end in itself and which can never be considered the ‘property’ of another human being.” (paragraph 83)[11]
  • “I certainly value feminism, but one that does not demand uniformity or negate motherhood. For the grandeur of women includes all the rights derived from their inalienable human dignity but also from their feminine genius, which is essential to society.” (paragraph 173)[7]
  • “…I would like to stress the fact that, even though significant advances have been made in the recognition of women’s rights and their participation in public life, in some countries much remains to be done to promote these rights….There are those who believe that many of today’s problems have arisen because of feminine emancipation.This argument, however, is not valid, “it is false, untrue, a form of male chauvinism”. The equal dignity of men and women makes us rejoice to see old forms of discrimination disappear, and within families there is a growing reciprocity. If certain forms of feminism have arisen which we must consider inadequate, we must nonetheless see in the women’s movement the working of the Spirit for a clearer recognition of the dignity and rights of women.” (paragraph 54)
Gender roles
  • “There can be a certain flexibility of roles and responsibilities [of a mother and a father], depending on the concrete circumstances of each particular family. But the clear and well-defined presence of both figures, female and male, creates the environment best suited to the growth of the child.” (paragraph 175)
  • “But it is also true that masculinity and femininity are not rigid categories. It is possible, for example, that a husband’s way of being masculine can be flexibly adapted to the wife’s work schedule. Taking on domestic chores or some aspects of raising children does not make him any less masculine or imply failure, irresponsibility or cause for shame,” Children have to be helped to accept as normal such healthy ‘exchanges’ which do not diminish the dignity of the father figure. A rigid approach turns into an overaccentuation of the masculine or feminine, and does not help children and young people to appreciate the genuine reciprocity incarnate in the real conditions of matrimony. Such rigidity, in turn, can hinder the development of an individual’s abilities, to the point of leading him or her to think, for example, that it is not really masculine to cultivate art or dance, or not very feminine to exercise leadership.” (paragraph 286)[7]
Sexual orientation
  • “…we discussed the situation of families whose members include persons who experience same-sex attraction, a situation not easy either for parents or for children. We would like before all else to reaffirm that every person, regardless of sexual orientation, ought to be respected in his or her dignity and treated with consideration, while ‘every sign of unjust discrimination’ is to be carefully avoided, particularly any form of aggression and violence. Such families should be given respectful pastoral guidance, so that those who manifest a homosexual orientation can receive the assistance they need to understand and fully carry out God’s will in their lives.” (paragraph 250)
Same-sex marriage
  • Francis insists that society requires families based on “a stable commitment that bears fruit in new life”, a requirement not met by homosexual unions or heterosexual unions that are not lifelong: “We need to acknowledge the great variety of family situations that can offer a certain stability, but de facto or same-sex unions, for example, may not simply be equated with marriage. No union that is temporary or closed to the transmission of life can ensure the future of society.” (paragraph 52)
  • Addressing same-sex unions alone, Pope Francis quotes passages the 2015 synod’s final report and a statement issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in 2003: “In discussing the dignity and mission of the family, the Synod Fathers observed that, ‘as for proposals to place unions between homosexual persons on the same level as marriage, there are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God’s plan for marriage and family’. It is unacceptable ‘that local Churches should be subjected to pressure in this matter and that international bodies should make financial aid to poor countries dependent on the introduction of laws to establish “marriage” between persons of the same sex’.” (paragraph 251)
Gender identity
  • “It is one thing to be understanding of human weakness and the complexities of life, and another to accept ideologies that attempt to sunder what are inseparable aspects of reality. Let us not fall into the sin of trying to replace the Creator. We are creatures, and not omnipotent. Creation is prior to us and must be received as a gift.” (paragraph 56)[12]

Pastoral careEdit

Francis states an overriding principle of pastoral care: “A pastor cannot feel that it is enough simply to apply moral laws to those living in ‘irregular’ situations, as if they were stones to throw at people’s lives. This would bespeak the closed heart of one used to hiding behind the Church’s teachings, ‘sitting on the chair of Moses and judging at times with superiority and superficiality difficult cases and wounded families'”. (paragraph 305)[6]

Criticism of current practice

“…we often present marriage in such a way that its unitive meaning, its call to grow in love and its ideal of mutual assistance are overshadowed by an almost exclusive insistence on the duty of procreation. Nor have we always provided solid guidance to young married couples, understanding their timetables, their way of thinking and their concrete concerns. At times we have also proposed a far too abstract and almost artificial theological ideal of marriage, far removed from the concrete situations and practical possibilities of real families. This excessive idealization, especially when we have failed to inspire trust in God’s grace, has not helped to make marriage more desirable and attractive, but quite the opposite.” (paragraph 36)[10]

  • “At times we find it hard to make room for God’s unconditional love in our pastoral activity. We put so many conditions on mercy that we empty it of its concrete meaning and real significance,” he states. “That is the worst way of watering down the Gospel. It is true, for example, that mercy does not exclude justice and truth, but first and foremost we have to say that mercy is the fullness of justice and the most radiant manifestation of God’s truth.” (paragraph 311)


  1. ^ The two synods are known formally as the Third Extraordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops and the Fourteenth Ordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops.
  2. ^ Regional bishops’ conferences cited include those of Spain, Korea, Argentina, Mexico, Columbia, Chile, Australia, Italy and Kenya


PEOPLE OF EARTH (Season 1 Preview) 

Read Spacequeenkea comments to aliearia:44433

All are born with our origins within us. We have the ability to access & communicate with the unseen. The entire fabric of time, space & beyond is the more powerful when measured against this 3D realm of duality, lower conscious perception of the material world. Many of us tap into the astral 4D- by having dreams & visions (as the Bible speaks of in Acts 2:17-21) Meditation leads to the stillness necessary for quieting the noise produced by the chaos of the 3rd dimension. Astral, dream dimensional 4D realm does not incorporate time/space illusion into the equation. It is here, within the balanced, silent, awakened state (yet physically sleeping) that we find what we all seek. The universe isn’t outside of us. We’re the universe expressing itself as both spirit & flesh. The difference between the zombie flesh sheeple perception vs our more conscious universal perception is..we know we are spiritually ancient beings having a human experience vs a sheeple who perceives themselves as humans having a spiritual experience. The 1st step is to remember who you are, before you were flesh (Jeremiah 1:5) You were created with purpose & most humans depend on some outside force to live their lives & make up the reality for them. This is called dogma. Once ego & fear is released, the 2 most powerful weapons the darkness (lack of knowledge) uses to control the minds of the masses, the next step is to move away from the negative influences that want to control your focus. Where your heart is, you’ll find your treasures. You obviously are aware you are waking up to all of this or you wouldn’t be surfing for these vids & people who are making comments, providing support & being the wayshowers to seekers. The rest will come naturally. You’re on the right track so keep shining starseed. You are needed & appreciated. The path less travelled isn’t always easy, but its worth taking! Remember, true starseeds are here for all who’s our purpose. You’re not alone, never have been, never will be. Happy journeys and Welcome Home!




Pilgrim’s Progress from This World, to That Which Is to Come is a 1678 Christian allegory written by John Bunyan. It is regarded as one of the most significant works of religiousEnglish literature,[1][2][3][4] has been translated into more than 200 languages, and has never been out of print.[5][6] It has also been cited as the first novel written in English.[7]

The Pilgrim’s Progress
Pilgrim's Progress first edition 1678.jpg

First edition cover

Author John Bunyan
Country England
Language English
Genre Religious allegory

Publication date


Bunyan began his work while in the Bedfordshire countyprison for violations of the Conventicle Act, which prohibited the holding of religious services outside the auspices of the established Church of England. Early Bunyan scholars such as John Brown believed The Pilgrim’s Progress was begun in Bunyan’s second, shorter imprisonment for six months in 1675,[8] but more recent scholars such as Roger Sharrock believe that it was begun during Bunyan’s initial, more lengthy imprisonment from 1660 to 1672 right after he had written his spiritual autobiography, Grace Abounding to the Chief of Sinners.[9]

The English text comprises 108,260 words and is divided into two parts, each reading as a continuous narrative with no chapter divisions. The first part was completed in 1677 and entered into the Stationers’ Register on 22 December 1677. It was licensed and entered in the “Term Catalogue” on 18 February 1678, which is looked upon as the date of first publication.[10] After the first edition of the first part in 1678, an expanded edition, with additions written after Bunyan was freed, appeared in 1679. The Second Part appeared in 1684. There were eleven editions of the first part in John Bunyan’s lifetime, published in successive years from 1678 to 1685 and in 1688, and there were two editions of the second part, published in 1684 and 1686.

Plot summary


Places in The Pilgrim’s Progress

Geographical and topographical features behind the fictional places

Cultural influence

Dramatizations, music, and film


  • Bunyan, John The Pilgrim’s Progress. Edited by Roger Sharrock and J. B. Wharey. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1975) ISBN 0198118023. The standard critical edition, originally published in 1928 and revised in 1960 by Sharrock.[65]
  • Bunyan, John The Pilgrim’s Progress. Edited with an introduction and notes by Roger Sharrrock. (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1987) ISBN 0140430040. The text is based on the 1975 Clarendon edition (see above), but with modernised spelling and punctuation ‘to meet the needs of the general reader’.[65]
  • Bunyan, John The Pilgrim’s Progress. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003) ISBN 978-0-19-280361-0.

Abridged editionsEdit

  • The Children’s Pilgrim’s Progress. The story taken from the work by John Bunyan. New York: Sheldon and Company, 1866.


  • ” Passport to Life City ” by Sherwood Eliot Wirt, Ph.D., (1911–2008), published Harper Row, New York 1969, with the story set in a 20th-century America, concerned about the threat of World War Three, where the hero turns to Christ as there is a crisis involving China, and the places he goes to are more futuristic.
  • “The Aussie Pilgrim’s Progress” by Kel Richards. Ballarat: Strand Publishing, 2005.
  • John Bunyan’s Dream Story: the Pilgrim’s Progress retold for children and adapted to school reading by James Baldwin. New York: American Book Co., 1913.
  • John Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress as retold by Gary D. Schmidt & illustrated by Barry Moser Published by William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, Michigan. Copyright 1994.
  • The Evergreen Wood: An Adaptation of the “Pilgrim’s Progress” for Children written by Linda Perry, illustrated by Alan Perry. Published by Hunt & Thorpe, 1997.
  • The Land of Far-Beyond by Enid Blyton. Methuen, 1942.
  • Little Pilgrim’s Progress – Helen L. Taylor simplifies the vocabulary and concepts for younger readers, while keeping the story line intact. Published by Moody Press, a ministry of Moody Bible Institute, Chicago, Illinois, 1992, 1993.
  • Pilgrim’s Progress (graphic novel by Marvel Comics). Thomas Nelson, 1993.
  • Pilgrim’s Progress, from This World to That Which Is to Come. Rev., 2nd ed., in modern English – Christian Literature Crusade, Fort Washington, Penn., 1981. Without ISBN
  • The Pilgrim’s Progress – A 21st Century Re-telling of the John Bunyan Classic – Dry Ice Publishing, 2008 directed by Danny Carrales[66]
  • The Pilgrim’s Progress by John Bunyan Every Child Can Read. Edited by Jesse Lyman Hurlbut. Philadelphia: The John C. Winston Co., 1909.
  • Pilgrim’s Progress in Today’s English – as retold by James H. Thomas. Moody Publishers. 1971. LCCN 64-25255.
  • The Pilgrim’s Progress in Words of One Syllable by Mary Godolphin. London: George Routledge and Sons, 1869.
  • Pilgrim’s Progress retold and shortened for modern readersby Mary Godolphin (1884). Drawings by Robert Lawson. Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott Co., 1939. [a newly illustrated edition of the retelling by Mary Godolphin]
  • The New Amplified Pilgrim’s Progress (both book anddramatized audio) – as retold by James Pappas. Published by Orion’s Gate (1999). A slightly expanded and highly dramatized version of John Bunyan’s original. Large samples of the text are available[57]
  • “Quest for Celestia: A Reimagining of The Pilgrim’s Progress” by Steven James, 2006
  • Stephen T. Moore (2011). “The Pilgrim’s Progress” A very graphic novel. 150. ISBN 978-1-4610-3271-7.

DAUGHTER OF ZION (Stone Rejected)GEORGIA GUIDESTONES (Consciousness Cube)


Georgia guide stones a mysterious musical note decoded “sacred harp” harmony’s treble, alto, tenor,bass!

Georgia guidestones align with sacred harp

Fa triangled, sol oval like circle, mi diamond, la rectangle. Since there is a circle like hole drilled in center pillar that would be where sol would begin on either side of the drilled hole?

Who’s who?

R.C Christian would most likely mean Christian Rhythm chords (chorus)? The georgia guide stones are in code tone with the sacred harp each pillar represents treble alto tenor bass.

The Stone Words
maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature. There were already 4.5 billion people on the planet, meaning eight out of nine had to go (today it would be closer to 12 out of 13). This instruction was echoed and expanded by tenet number two: guide reproduction wisely—improving fitness and diversity. It didn’t take a great deal of imagination to draw an analogy to the practices of, among others, the Nazis. Guide number three instructed readers to unite humanity with a living new language. This sent a shiver up the spine of local ministers who knew that the Book of Revelations warned of a common tongue and a one-world government as the accomplishments of the Antichrist. Guide number four—rule passion—faith—tradition—and all things with tempered reason—was similarly threatening to Christians committed to the primacy of faith over all. The last six guides were homiletic by comparison. protect people and nations with fair laws and just courts. let all nations rule internally resolving external disputes in a world court. avoid petty laws and useless officials. balance personal rights with social duties. prize truth—beauty—love—seeking harmony with the infinite. be not a cancer on the earth—leave room for nature—leave room for nature.

Keith Ranville says the guidestone are place to be in harmony to our world in one man’s opinion in who set them in place?

Cree Code Breaker
Keith Ranville

In 1979, an unidentified man using the pseudonym R. C. Christian hired Elberton Granite Finishing Company to build a strange set of enormous granite monuments with inscriptions in many languages as if giving instructions to future survivors of the end of our civilization.  Placed well above sea level on a rural mountain farm an hour outside of Atlanta, the inscriptions are as Wikipedia describes them here:

“A message consisting of a set of ten guidelines or principles is engraved on the Georgia Guidestones in eight different languages, one language on each face of the four large upright stones. Moving clockwise around the structure from due north, these languages are: English, Spanish, Swahili, Sanskrit , Hebrew, Arabic, Chinese, and Russian.

Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature.

Guide reproduction wisely — improving fitness and diversity.

Unite humanity with a living new language.

Rule passion — faith — tradition — and all things with tempered reason.

Protect people and nations with fair laws and just courts.

Let all nations rule internally resolving external disputes in a world court.

Avoid petty laws and useless officials.

Balance personal rights with social duties.

Prize truth — beauty — love — seeking harmony with the infinite.

Be not a cancer on the earth — Leave room for nature — Leave room for nature.”

The guidestones also have messages on the top stones in four “dead” languages: Babylonian, Classical Greek, Sanskrit, and Egyptian hieroglyphs.  The stones are astronomically aligned and weigh well over 100 tons in total.  We must assume that some NOW type organization felt it was very important to leave this message in a way that ANY survivors could eventually translate it.

But THIS article is focused on the stone cube that appeared in a notch seemingly designed to eventually be filled – A notch that was filled temporarily in 2014 with a stone cube that had numbers and letters carved into it.  Was it just an elaborate prank, as some people think?

This article (The Stone The Builders Rejected) explains why the numbers should be viewed in the following right to left order: 8-14-20-16 – and why the monument’s additional block with these numbers might be warning of an event which just so happens to fall on a Jewish holiday commemorating the destruction of the Jewish Temple.

To quote it briefly here: “I suspect that the message on the stone cube is not a hoax.  The man in the video who was purposefully filmed so that we would know what was on the cube’s hidden sides even says (when someone else is concerned about him destroying the cube) “We have the original piece.”  This knocking down the cube on film which is now a Youtube phenomenon was a staged event to make certain we have the previously hidden details.  Expect major problems in 2016.”

Of course, I am biased towards interpretations like the one quoted above because it could easily fall in line with my expectation for collapse and dictatorship in 2016, as described in Antichrist 2016-2019