- Qualities of the Soul
- Fiction or Not?
- Power of Thought
- Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder
- The Great White Chief Part 1
- The Great White Chief Part 2
- The Great White Chief Part 3
- The Great White Chief Part 4
- The Great White Chief Part 5
- The Great White Chief Part 6
- Fun Facts
- Beatles and the Soul
- The Mystery of Healing
- Gathering Attempts
- Morya Federation
- Branches of the Tree of Life
- Precarious Future
- A Witness and Signs
- Where Are the Masters?
- Dead Ends
- Facing the Storm
- Rebel Lightbringers
- Finding the True Progressives
- King for a Life
- Conspiracy Theories Debunked
- Seeing Eye to Eye
- Dark Brothers and Dark Matter
- A New Approach
- Joseph Smith Weighed in the Balance
- One God, Many Members
Posted June 7
What can a single woman do to increase her chances of being with someone? for without that, there is no chance she can be in a molecule.
You do not have to be married, or with someone to be in a molecule. The male/female partnerships in a molecule are working relationships designed to balance male female energies. If you do not have a good working relationship with a spouse or romantic partner then it would be best to work with someone else. It is essential; that the partners in the molecule have no grievances toward each other.
On the other hand, if a married couple have a good relationship then a molecular partnership is possible.
As to the best way to find a romantic partner there are many good books written on this subject. My advice for a seeker of wisdom is to go places where you may find other seekers. Join study groups and organizations where you will find like-minded souls.
On another issue Dan quoted a post I had written ten years ago about global warming. (see: http://freeread.com/archives/1162.php) It did not sound like many of my recent comments about the subject where I criticize environmentalists for wrong headedness in this area.
It may seem like there is a contradiction between what I said then and what I say now. This is not the case. There has been a shift of emphasis, but not a contradiction.
I have studied up a lot on the subject since I wrote the quoted article and found a lot of deception and dangerous support for legislation that will not only hurt the economy and reduce freedom and hurt even the environment itself and lead to more pollution, not less.
Another point is that ten years ago I was seeking to teach without ruffling feathers on either side of the political spectrum whereas now I am much less concerned about this.
Here is a quote that set the tone for the article:
“The basic problem with this issue is that one side presents evidence that there is global warming but then promotes draconian measures limiting the economy and freedom to prevent it.
“The other side states that the evidence is non-conclusive but then promotes the belief that there is nothing to be concerned about and that we should do nothing unless there is concrete proof.
“In my view neither of these approaches touches on the middle point of truth.”
I haven’t said much on the other side of the global warming equation, but they do have several valid points on their side.
CO2 is a greenhouse gas and it is possible that if enough of it is released that it could produce too much warming or other possible unknown and unforeseen effects.
Where the left has gone wrong is in seeing present time as one in which reducing the burning of fossil fuels is so crucial to the health of the earth that even destroying the economy may be necessary.
Burning fossil fuels will not bring a warming apocalypse in the next couple decades but what is often overlooked by the conservatives is that it does have some warming effect and if we continue burning fossil fuels as a prime source then sooner or later we may get a dangerous amount in the atmosphere. It mat not happen in the next couple decades but a century or two could make a big difference.
It is therefore in our best interests for this and other reasons to find more harmless energy sources. If we do not destroy our economies through bone headed feel good tactics then we should be well on our way to replacing fossil fuels in the next couple decades.
But, if we destroy the economic systems of the free world then we may not develop the needed technology and may wind up relying on fossil fuels for centuries rather than decades.
Thanks for the video on the oil spill solution Blayne. That’s too logical for government bureaucrats. The government is always to slow and ignorant that conspiracy theories always have plenty of room to grow.
It is quite possible though that there are many who do not want an easy solution to this problem, especially if it comes from either Republicans or private enterprise.
Copyright by J J Dewey
JJ’s Amazon page HERE
Gather with JJ on Facebook HERE