Keys Writings 2013, Part 8

This entry is part 8 of 25 in the series 2013

March 20, 2013

Aquaponics 

I came across something new that Blayne and some others may already know about. It’s called aquaponics. Here is a brief definition of it:

“Aquaponics is the combination of a Aquaculture and Hydroponics. In these semi-closed systems, water flows between a fish tank and a plant growing bed. The fish waste in the water is used to supply nutrients to the plants. The plants and micro-organisms clean the water that is returned to the fish tank. This provides a mutual beneficial environment for both the fish and the plants, and results in two crops (the fish and the plants).”

Benefits of aquaponics?

Aquaponics uses less than 5% of the water that traditional farming does.

Aquaponics is energy-efficient: our current systems use one-tenth of the energy conventional farming does!

Aquaponic produce can be grown year-round in almost any climate in an Aquaponic Solar Greenhouse

Aquaponics has eight to ten times more vegetable production in the same area and time.

Aquaponic systems with mosquito fish eradicate mosquitoes in a LARGE surrounding area!

Aquaponics is fully scalable from indoor systems to backyard family systems to full commercial systems.

Aquaponics is pure, clean, and natural: USDA Certified Organic and Food Safety Certified.

Aquaponics is easy to learn and operate: anyone can do this!

I first came across it in an internet infomercial ad that sold it on the idea of being a way to produce food for yourself if society were to have a total breakdown. I did some Googling and found several helpful links. Here is a youtube video that gives a good idea how the system works.

Here is a site that sells various systems.

And here is the infomercial I watched. It is interesting to listen to but fairly long:

They sell instructions to build your own system and supposedly save big bucks.

If anyone in the group has any knowledge or experience with this please share with us.

 

March 22, 2013

More Threats to Freedom Part 2 

This continues my treatise.

(5) The freedom of belief. Ryan Rotela attends a University in Florida and struggles to do well in classes as well as live his religion. Then one day he was put to the test.

His professor, Deandre Poole, who is also a Democrat party official, gave some strange commands to his class.

First, he told the students to take out a blank sheet of paper and write the word JESUS in bold letters. This order seemed strange to Ryan but he complied.

Next his teacher instructed them to place the piece of paper on the floor face up. This also seemed odd but Ryan complied.

Finally he ordered the students to stomp on the word Jesus in front of them.

This was too much for Ryan. He refused and picked up the sheet of paper instead.

He thought the order was outrageous and complained to school officials. Instead of reprimanding the professor they turned on Ryan and suspended him from the class.

Perhaps, even more disturbing than this was that Ryan was the only one who objected to stomping on Jesus.

Read the story here and watch the video.

This is just one of many examples that comes over the media of how the freedom to follow one’s own harmless beliefs are being threatened within our society. Here are a few:

Not only is prayer outlawed in schools but even the mention of God or Christ is largely prohibited. Some schools do not allow religious or even patriotic symbols to be worn. Kids have been sent home or chastised for wearing shirts bearing the American flag or even flag pins.

Nothing of a religious nature is allowed to be held on any public property. This was not the way the Founders interpreted the separation of church and state for in the early days of the Republic the local courthouse was often used for church and spiritual meetings of all kinds. Prayer was common everywhere and there were lots of Bibles in all schools. Even the hated early Mormon missionaries were often allowed to hold meetings in public property.

It ay be true that the State embraced religion a bit too much for the modern tastes of the majority, but now they have gone the other extreme and are acting as an agent to mold belief and suppress that which they deem undesirable.

Big brother decides that its sanctioned beliefs are to be presented and others are not thus restricting the free choice of students.

For instance, there are scientific arguments for and against Intelligent Design, but only one side is allowed, which is the atheist view.

The Powers-That-Be are big believers in orthodox climate change theory and again only seek to have one side presented.

Then the overwhelming majority of teachers and professors are Democrats and openly give their political views in class while the more conservative views are either ridiculed or penalized.

We are supposed to be living in a free society and in a free society there must be tolerance of people expressing their views and both sides presented. We must be allowed to live our spiritual lives without hindrance from the beast of unjust authority.

 

March 22, 2013

Re: The freedom of belief 

The problem here was not that the kid was merely ordered to stomp on a sheet of paper with words on it. Yes it is true that if one sees the paper in that way no harm is done. It wouldn’t be much different than stomping on a picture of Hitler or opening a book.

There are two things at play that you are overlooking.

(1) If faced with such an order few would look at the command as merely stomping on a sheet of paper. If ordered to stomp on Jesus, a picture of your kid, your wife or your mother, few would just see the exercise as just stomping on a sheet of paper.

The command would obviously be an affront to what 99% of humanity would consider decent and would be a humiliating thing to be forced to do.

(2) Secondly, even though I could take the viewpoint of the observer and see the thing as a mere piece of paper I would consider it an affront on my free agency and normal human respect. Most likely the teacher sees the representation of Jesus as being more than just ink – as something he wants to diminish. What is his motive here? Why Jesus – why not Mohammed, Obama or anyone else? Perhaps if he, being a Democrat, first demonstrated his open mindedness by stomping on a picture of Obama he would be somewhat justified in his class exercise.

I would consider it an insult to be forced to make the symbol of stomping on a representation of any human which is interpreted by all in the room as making a statement that this particular human has no value. I would refuse a silly command like this just for the principle of the thing.

 

March 23, 2013

Intelligent Design Questions 

—JJ— For instance, there are scientific arguments for and against Intelligent Design, but only one side is allowed, which is the atheist view. ——–

Nathan In order for an idea to be scientific, possibly the most important quality it must have is that it be falsifiable. Intelligent Design is not falsifiable (capable of being tested and proven true or false by experiment or observation). There is no experiment, test, or analysis you can make to reveal evidence that could challenge ID. This is mainly due to the fact that the elements of this “theory” are too vague, which is another reason why ID is not science. It is missing the “How does it work?” component. At most, ID belongs in a philosophy class, but not in science classes.

JJ It sounds like you are talking about the Big Bang which is considered valid scientific theory. It cannot be tested or proven true or false and not all scientists accept the theory. What caused the Big Bang is more vague than the Intelligent Design teaching and it is missing “How does it work?” According to your thinking this should be resigned to a philosophy class.

But it is not. Even though no scientist can demonstrate a Big Bang can happen with no intelligent direction it is still taught in our schools.

That pretty much destroys your reason Intelligent Design should be ignored as a cause.

Isaac Newton, acknowledged by most as the greatest scientist of all time believed that Intelligent Design is proven by observation which means he saw it as falsifiable. He believed that observation alone of the eye or the ear provided overwhelming evidence that an intelligent designer was at play.

Whenever I consider our bodies and how wonderful is their design I marvel at the fact that there can be even one human in existence, possessed with any intelligence at all, that cannot see that some intelligence was behind its creation.

As I said, if you stumble across an iPod in a forest would you assume the elements just came together on their own and created it? Would that be a scientific conclusion? I don’t think so.

There are good scientific arguments for Intelligent Design. A good book to read is “Signature in the Cell” by Stephen C. Meyer. He presents a lot more scientific evidence for intelligent Design than I have ever seen against it.

—JJ— The Powers-That-Be are big believers in orthodox climate change theory and again only seek to have one side presented. ——–

Nathan Remember weeks ago? I posted that article which showed that as far as the scientific community which studies this phenomenon goes, there really is only one side to this argument.

JJ That is an amazing statement concerning a subject with two definite sides. I’d say that 30,000 scientists signing a petition that disagrees with orthodox global warming theory definitely demonstrates there are two sides to the argument. Check this out:

Let’s review our dialog. Note that what the scientists you referenced agreed upon was not even part of the argument posed by skeptics.

You wrote: The Web of Science is a database with articles from a little over 10,000 academic journals. Of that entire database, 13,950 articles can be found on the subject of climate change. Only 23 articles reject global warming or reject global warming as a man-made phenomenon.

JJ I’m surprised they found 23 fitting their criteria which is: “To be classified as rejecting, an article had to clearly and explicitly state that the theory of global warming is false or, as happened in a few cases, that some other process better explains the observed warming.”

Every knowledgeable skeptic including myself would have to side with the majority here. Of course, over the past century there has been warming and man made emissions has been a partial cause. The disagreement isn’t over this technicality but on how much of a cause CO2 is and whether the apocalyptic doctrines they promote are probable. Maybe we should worry more about being hit by an asteroid and concentrate more on preparing for that than global warming. After all, global warming has never destroyed most of the life on earth. (End Quote)

If the religious orthodox global warming political theory is taught in schools then the scientific skeptical side should also be presented. Otherwise, it is like teaching only addition in math class and never teaching the kids how to subtract.

As far as ideology affecting teaching, yes it happens on both sides but the Left has by far the majority of control here. I refer to a previous article on the subject.

 

One point to make is that Intelligent Design is different from what is called Creation Science. The latter usually assumes that the earth was created in six days and is less than 10,000 years old. This is not scientifically supportable. Intelligent Design merely states that there is strong evidence that life was created by a higher intelligence. This is in harmony with esoteric thought.

 

March 23, 2013

Re: The Freedom of Belief

Dan: Your point number (1) is answered in my original reply (and again above). I said that in the absence of additional information, _I_ PERSONALLY would look at it that way and didn’t find it all that disturbing _BUT_ (essentially) that others might and I could understand that.

JJ Let me put it this way. Actions are communication symbols just as words are. To stomp on a picture or name is to issue a statement that this person is despised and hated.

Now let us say that the paper contained a picture of your mother and you were ordered at one time to stomp on it and at another time to state before the class that you despise and hate your mother.

What is the difference?

Nothing.

If you love your mother this means you are being asked to lie or make an untrue statement a thing which goes against the code of any disciple.

If it were the name of Jesus, Mohammed or even Obama I would not do it because I do not hate any of them.

If there was some greater purpose involved I could see the image as just a piece of paper or the words as just vibrations but that would be a rare circumstance.

On the other hand, many in the Middle East burn the American flag in disrespect and are being honest because they really do hate us.

Dan: Well, then I must hate/despise not only my mother but most of the rest of my family to include myself 🙂

There are a bunch of framed photographs on my livingroom wall of me, my mother, brothers and several other family members.

I regularly shoot these pictures between the eyes with my handgun/laser for trigger control practice, maintaining a proper sight picture, practicing stance, draw and etc.

I’m sure a psychiatrist would have a field day!

JJ I’m sure you do not see shooting a harmless laser at family photos in the same light as an ex wife burning or stomping on her husband’s photos as far as communication goes. On the other hand, it would be different if a beastly authority ordered you to shoot with either a laser or a bullet a picture of Marcie between the eyes as an acknowledgement of what you or he you think of her. I think the guy in the class felt that stomping on Jesus was an acknowledgement that Jesus was a worthless dude.

 

March 24, 2013

Thinking Makes It So

Dan’s comments on Jesus and shooting pictures reminds me of a scene from Hamlet by Shakespeare:

Hamlet: What have you, my good friends, deserv’d at the hands of Fortune, that she sends you to prison hither?

Guildenstern: Prison, my lord?

Hamlet: Denmark’s a prison.

Rosencrantz: Then is the world one.

Hamlet: A goodly one, in which there are many confines, wards, and dungeons, Denmark being one o’ th’ worst.

Rosencrantz: We think not so, my lord.

Hamlet: Why then ’tis none to you; for there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so. To me it is a prison.

Is it true that thinking determines whether a thing is good or bad?

In what context would it be true and when would it be false?

 

March 25, 2013

Was Jesus Wrong?

Tom writes: How can Jesus Christ be wrong about the mustard seed? If he was really a 6th degree initiative then why did he not know there was seeds smaller then a mustard seed that can be sown?

JJ This is certainly not something I would lose sleep over no matter who said it for the purpose of the conversation was not to find the smallest seed on the earth but to illustrate how the Kingdom of God will begin as a small thing and grow into something great.

A problem with analyzing this is we do not know the exact words that Jesus used when referring to the mustard seed. The Gospels were written down from memory decades after Jesus spoke the words and who knows how accurate they are.

Your post quoted from Mark as follows:

Mark 4:30 And he said, Whereunto shall we liken the kingdom of God? or with what comparison shall we compare it? Mark 4:31 It is like a grain of mustard seed, which, when it is sown in the earth, is less than all the seeds that be in the earth: Mark 4:32 But when it is sown, it groweth up, and becometh greater than all herbs, and shooteth out great branches; so that the fowls of the air may lodge under the shadow of it.

On the other hand, Luke words the account quite differently: Luke 13:18 Then said he, Unto what is the kingdom of God like? and whereunto shall I resemble it? Luke 13:19 It is like a grain of mustard seed, which a man took, and cast into his garden; and it grew, and waxed a great tree; and the fowls of the air lodged in the branches of it.

Notice that in Luke’s account that Jesus said nothing about the size of the seed. It is quite possible that this is closer to his original words and other writers just embellished what he said.

But what if Jesus did say that the mustard seed is the smallest. This was a logical presentation as far as I can see for the mustard seed with the smallest seed with which the people were familiar. If he had identified the true smallest seed in the world the people would have been confused and the parable would not have had much meaning.

But the black mustard seed (Brassica nigra = Sinapis nigra) was the smallest seed ever sown by a first-century farmer in that part of the world according to some scholars.

Whatever the case, the mustard seed was probably the smallest seed that Jesus knew about and the contrast between its beginning and end made for a good example to illustrate the truth of his thinking.

Jesus probably didn’t have a clue as to what the real smallest seed on earth was. Neither do I and I do not care.

 

March 26, 2013

Re: Thinking Makes It So 

The questions: Is it true that thinking determines whether a thing is good or bad?

In what context would it be true and when would it be false?

We’ve had lots of good comments on this assignment – too many for me to comment on so I’ll just add a few of my own.

The individual’s thinking definitely determines whether a thing is good or evil in his own mind and thinking.

For instance, the teacher that ordered his students to stomp on the name of Jesus thought it was a good thing to do.

On the other hand, the student who resisted had different thoughts. He saw this as a bad thing to do.

The only difference in how the two people saw good or evil in the act was determined by their thought.

This principle also applies to groups. For instance, the Nazis as a group thought that it was a good thing to exterminate the Jews. On the other hand, the Jews had a different outlook. They definitely saw their persecution and extermination as very evil.

So Shakespeare was correct as far as good or evil is interpreted by individual or group consciousness.

Now we need to look at the bigger picture and ask if the Nazis belief that killing Jews as being a good thing really meant that it was a good thing to do?

To understand the answer we must define the principle of good and evil. We have previously defined good as that which moves us forward in our spiritual progression and freedom and evil that which takes us backward.

Therefore, the Nazis were definitely doing an evil act, even though they thought it was good. Taking an innocent life interferes with the path of the soul whose life is taken and the one taking the life suffers loss of soul contact and gains karma.

Now let us apply this to the assignment to stomp on Jesus. One thing that interferes with spiritual progression is to interfere with free will. For the students in the class who cared less about Jesus there was no problem. They could stomp on the name of Jesus, have a good laugh and their free will would not be infringed. On the other hand, the teacher’s command violated Ryan’s free will as the idea of disrespecting his messiah was repugnant to him and the teacher had to know that some would feel this way. This violation of free will puts his command in the evil category.

Let us suppose that the whole class was composed of atheists who didn’t care about Jesus. Would the order to stomp on his name be good, bad or neutral?

In this case it would not be nearly as bad as the violation of free will but stomping on the name of an honorable person is a sign of disrespect. The teacher is assisting in conditioning the students to not respect good people and if this happens on a large scale civilization deteriorates placing such actions in the evil category. It may be slightly evil if done infrequently but could lead to a great evil if people are conditioned with hate and disrespect over and over.

 

March 26, 2013

Good Grief 

As if the university is not making a big enough fool of themselves they are now adding further disciplines to Ryan who was ordered to stomp on Jesus. This kid is providing good PR for Mormons who are looked upon as not believing in Jesus by many Christians.

 

March 29, 2013

Re: Pregnancy (or not) & Intention 

Sarah asks: How can I control whether I conceive or not with no traditional contraception?

JJ First, most are familiar with the Rhythm method. This doesn’t require any extra sensory perception and is not 100% reliable.

What you are referring to is the process of tuning into your body so you can tell when it is ready to conceive or not conceive. If the seekers are tuned into their bodies during sex they can tell when a conception will occur and if they do not want a baby they can avoid impregnation.

There are two problems with this.

First, this method of tuning in is taught nowhere of which I am aware so the seeker is left on his own to perfect it.

Secondly, even if you believe in and like the concept you have no guarantee that you will have control over conception. Before this occurs the seeker must practice tuning into his body. One thing you can do is when you decide you want to get pregnant try to tune into your body when having sex and attempt to registe5r the moment when conception occurs. When you realize what this feels like you have made a large advance in the direction of being sensitive enough to control your time of conception.

Since there are not normally a lot of time periods where one is trying to get pregnant one must practice sensitivity in other areas. One way to increase body sensitivity is to pay attention to all things you eat and take into your body. This includes food, food supplements, vitamins, herbs, beverages and medicines. Shortly after you ingest something, especially if you haven’t had it for a while, see if you can tune into how your body is responding to it. Does it like it or not? Is your sense of well being greater or less?

Until the seeker becomes confidently sensitive he or she is better off using conventional birth control means. If a copper Paraguard IUD is causing problems I would switch to something else.

You might want to talk with your doctor and tell him you want to switch to another method and see what he recommends. Also google something like “safe birth control” and lots of things will come up.

In the coming age classes will be taught hat will assist students in tuning into their bodies and assuming greater control but for now we all have to plow with the horses we have.

Good luck.

 

March 30, 2013

Interesting Articles 

I read a couple interesting articles today. Take a look:

How the Massacre of 40,000 Elephants Could Lead to the End of Global Warming

Twenty-year hiatus in rising temperatures has climate scientists puzzled

Copyright 2013 by J J Dewey

Easy Access to all the Writings

Register at Freeread Here

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

Check out JJ’s Political Blog HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Join JJ’s Study class HERE

 

Series NavigationKeys Writings 2013, Part 7Keys Writings 2013, Part 9

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

code