I've recently come to the realisation that I've been seriously sidetracked in my interactions with Nairaland Forumites. Over time I've come to take the discussions here less seriously than I did previously, spending a lot of time making jokes and being generally silly.

So on this thread I want to get back to discussing religious issues more earnestly. My subsequent posts here will hopefully be of interest to others and will encourage them to engage in discussion.

Ciao

Eagerly waiting to benefit from your wisdom and knowledge. 

Pastor, e ku jo meta.

I have one question for you. I have always thought from your nickname "Pastor AIO" that you must be christian. But i have seen you on many threads arguing vociferously against the existence of God, or against churches.

Can you please clarify.

Deep Sight:

Pastor, e ku jo meta.

I have one question for you. I have always thought from your nickname "Pastor AIO" that you must be christian. But i have seen you on many threads arguing vociferously against the existence of God, or against churches.

Can you please clarify.

ojo kan pelu,

Although I, by force of habit, often refer to myself as a christian I have repeatedly renounced it formally due to the fact that I believe that the word has become meaningless. If I call myself a christian does that mean that my beliefs are one with those of members of the pentecostal movements who also call themselves christians? Does that mean that I believe the same things as the Ku Klux Klan which is also a christian organisation? What I am is what I am and anyone interested will get a sense of what I believe from talking to me about it without categorising me in any box with a heap of people that I don't belong with.

I deny that you have ever seen me on any thread arguing vociferously (or even timidly) against the existence of God.

Against certain churches, yes, I've argued sometimes intensely and sometimes humourously.

Below in blue is a quote from you on the on-going thread on Empirical Reasoning for Theism.

Can you deny that it infers strongly that you were arguing against the existence of God.

Please DeepSight, your post is hard to follow without an understanding of what you mean by intelligence.

Are you saying that where there is complexity there must be intelligence. When I unplug my kitchen sink the water runs down the plughole in a complex and intricate swirl of vortices. Does that make my Sink an intelligent being?

And as for 1 plus 1 equalling 2, that one is just impossible to agree or disagree without knowing what you mean by intelligence.

Quote from: Deep Sight on August 27, 2009, 03:44 PM

We established that the universe is something. We also established that no amalgamation of nothings can make a something. We therefore saw that something must have been involved in the coming into being of the universe. (0 + 1 = 1).



What something was involved in the coming into being of the something that brought the universe into being?

When 0 plus 1 equals 1 the both 1s are equivalent. If you use one 1 to represent the universe then how comes the other 1 is God. What you are saying is that
0 plus God = Universe

Therefore God = Universe
QED

Pastor AIO,

    I think I know what DeepSight is refering to. While I have some knowledge of your general belief system having been around this section for a while and read many of your submissions, I would say more recently your posts in general (perhaps because of your jocular and lighthearted approach) are ambiguous in quality, as in they do not leave an definite impression on the casual and intrested alike as to what exactly it is you[i] personally[/i] believe on the subject matter.

Just my observation.

Pastor AIO:

ojo kan pelu,

Although I, by force of habit, often refer to myself as a christian I have repeatedly renounced it formally due to the fact that I believe that the word has become meaningless. If I call myself a christian does that mean that my beliefs are one with those of members of the pentecostal movements who also call themselves christians? Does that mean that I believe the same things as the Ku Klux Klan which is also a christian organisation? What I am is what I am and anyone interested will get a sense of what I believe from talking to me about it without categorising me in any box with a heap of people that I don't belong with.

I deny that you have ever seen me on any thread arguing vociferously (or even timidly) against the existence of God.

Against certain churches, yes, I've argued sometimes intensely and sometimes humourously.

Deep Sight:

Below in blue is a quote from you on the on-going thread on Empirical Reasoning for Theism.

Can you deny that it infers strongly that you were arguing against the existence of God.

Please DeepSight, your post is hard to follow without an understanding of what you mean by intelligence.

Are you saying that where there is complexity there must be intelligence. When I unplug my kitchen sink the water runs down the plughole in a complex and intricate swirl of vortices. Does that make my Sink an intelligent being?

And as for 1 plus 1 equalling 2, that one is just impossible to agree or disagree without knowing what you mean by intelligence.

Quote from: Deep Sight on August 27, 2009, 03:44 PM

We established that the universe is something. We also established that no amalgamation of nothings can make a something. We therefore saw that something must have been involved in the coming into being of the universe. (0 + 1 = 1).



What something was involved in the coming into being of the something that brought the universe into being?

When 0 plus 1 equals 1 the both 1s are equivalent. If you use one 1 to represent the universe then how comes the other 1 is God. What you are saying is that
0 plus God = Universe

Therefore God = Universe
QED

If I am making an argument here it is against your reasoning and not against the existence of G-d.

The mathematics of Deep Sights reasoning is spurious, let us stop enabling it.
Wirinet made an excellent post on the other thread, 0 + 0 = 0 says nothing, its is not a standard mathematical expression
0 + 1 = 1 can mean every and so many things,
like pastor pointed out
0 + 1 orange = 1 orange
0 + 1 God = 1 God
your argument is saying God is equal to God, why are we here?

hehehehehehehehehehe
Pastor Aio is I go die

Chrisbenogor:

The mathematics of Deep Sights reasoning is spurious, let us stop enabling it.
Wirinet made an excellent post on the other thread, 0 + 0 = 0 says nothing, its is not a standard mathematical expression
0 + 1 = 1 can mean every and so many things,
like pastor pointed out
0 + 1 orange = 1 orange
0 + 1 God = 1 God
your argument is saying God is equal to God, why are we here?

I answered Wirinet on that: this is what i wrote -

Unfortunately it appears you have misunderstood the idea of the zero equation. It really is a statement of nothingness, which by that very nothingness implicitly makes the case for somethingness, an irremovable and necessary quantity which must exist in infinitude for anything at all to exist. The logical deduction for this remains the self evident truth within the zero equation that somethingness cannot come out of nothingness, and thus, only a pre-existent somethingness, could sire the universe as we know it.

So understand the following, Chris and don't jump to conclusions -

   1. The Zero equation simply shows the impossibility of nothingness, and is primarily a philosophical rather than mathematical equation.

   2. 0 + 1 = 1 should be understood in this light. The imputation being that to arrive at number 1, (or any quantity) you will need some other quantities however described. Dont miss the point, because i could just as easily have said: 0 + 0.5 + 0.5 = 1 or a million other ways i could have phrased it: the point would remain the same: that there must be a component (however described) in the coming into being of things that did not always exist.

So be careful and more thorough in understanding philosophical arguments, and do not limit yourself from contextual understandings of what is written.

Deep Sight:


I answered Wirinet on that: this is what i wrote -

Unfortunately it appears you have misunderstood the idea of the zero equation. It really is a statement of nothingness, which by that very nothingness implicitly makes the case for somethingness, an irremovable and necessary quantity which must exist in infinitude for anything at all to exist. The logical deduction for this remains the self evident truth within the zero equation that somethingness cannot come out of nothingness, and thus, only a pre-existent somethingness, could sire the universe as we know it.

So understand the following, Chris and don't jump to conclusions -

   1. The Zero equation simply shows the impossibility of nothingness, and is primarily a philosophical rather than mathematical equation.

   2. 0 + 1 = 1 should be understood in this light. The imputation being that to arrive at number 1, (or any quantity) you will need some other quantities however described. Dont miss the point, because i could just as easily have said: 0 + 0.5 + 0.5 = 1 or a million other ways i could have phrased it: the point would remain the same: that there must be a component (however described) in the coming into being of things that did not always exist.

So be careful and more thorough in understanding philosophical arguments, and do not limit yourself from contextual understandings of what is written.

With all due respect philosophers tend to stick to language as it is more susceptible to being interpreted in different ways, if a mathematician from Khuvuki land is reading this thread and cannot not make out the English he would definitely see
0 + 0 = 0
Your whole argument on that thread hinges on this equation, like I said there by all mean say nothingness somethingness and all the shenanigans but leave mathematics out of it, statements that are reduced to mathematical models have to be tested and when yours is reduced then it shows how ridiculous what you are saying is.
Dear deep sight, keep your arguments on a grammatical level, that way we can go on and on and on and on and on talking about conjectures and meanings, but when you reduce it to mathematics, always realise that it is an exact science, you do not bandy around equations that are based on emotions, you state equations that can stand rigorous and serious testing.

<< Matthew 6 >>
1 Take heed that ye do not your righteousness before men, to be seen of them: else ye have no reward with your Father who is in heaven.

A persona, in the word everyday usage, is a social role or a character played by an actor. This is an Italian word that derives from the Latin for "mask" or "character", derived from the Etruscan word "phersu", with the same meaning. Popular etymology derives the word from Latin "per" meaning "through" and "sonare" meaning "to sound", meaning something in the vein of "that through which the actor speaks", i.e. a mask (early Greek actors wore masks).

The persona is also the mask or appearance one presents to the world.[1] It may appear in dreams under various guises (see Carl Jung and his psychology). Importantly, the persona, used in this sense, is not a pose or some other intentional misrepresentation of the self to others. Rather, it is the self as self-construed, and may change according to situation and context.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persona

the persona


The persona is a complicated system of relations between individual consciousness and society, fittingly enough a kind of mask, designed on the one hand to make a definite impression upon others, and, on the other, to conceal the true nature of the individual.
"The Relations between the Ego and the Unconscious" (1928). In CW 7: Two Essays on Analytical Psychology. P.305

Every calling or profession has its own characteristic persona. It is easy to study these things nowadays, when the photographs of public personalities so frequently appear in the press. A certain kind of behaviour is forced on them by the world, and professional people endeavour to come up to these expectations. Only, the danger is that they become identical with their personas-the professor with his text-book, the tenor with his voice. Then the damage is done; henceforth he lives exclusively against the background of his own biography. . . . The garment of Deianeira has grown fast to his skin, and a desperate decision like that of Heracles is needed if he is to tear this Nessus shirt from his body and step into the consuming fire of the flame of immortality, in order to transform himself into what he really is. One could say, with a little exaggeration, that the persona is that which in reality one is not, but which oneself as well as others think one is.
"Concerning Rebirth" (1940). In CW 9, Part I: The Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious. P.221

I once made the acquaintance of a very venerable personage - in fact, one might easily call him a saint. I stalked round him for three whole days, but never a mortal failing did I find in him. My feeling of inferiority grew ominous, and I was beginning to think seriously of how I might better myself. Then, on the fourth day, his wife came to consult me, Well, nothing of the sort has ever happened to me since. But this I did learn: that any man who becomes one with his persona can cheerfully let all disturbances manifest themselves through his wife without her noticing it, though she pays for her self-sacrifice with a bad neurosis.
"The Relations between the Ego and the Unconscious" (1928). In CW 7: Two Essays on Analytical Psychology. P.306

PR: We all have our pr. We invest so much of our energy and resources into maintaining it. By pr I mean the image that we present to the world. This is a fundamental aspect of our psychological make up, the need to be seen in a certain way by society. The awful truth is that no one is like their pr. There is so much more to the human being than the way he presents himself. In fact I can say with almost total certainty that the the truth about someone involves the diametric opposite of the manner in which they have presented themselves.

But what has all this got to do with Religion? Well I believe that the mask and all the investment and energy that we put into it is a major stumbling block to spiritual growth.

Deep Sight:


I answered Wirinet on that: this is what i wrote -

Unfortunately it appears you have misunderstood the idea of the zero equation. It really is a statement of nothingness, which by that very nothingness implicitly makes the case for somethingness, an irremovable and necessary quantity which must exist in infinitude for anything at all to exist. The logical deduction for this remains the self evident truth within the zero equation that somethingness cannot come out of nothingness, and thus, only a pre-existent somethingness, could sire the universe as we know it.

So understand the following, Chris and don't jump to conclusions -

   1. The Zero equation simply shows the impossibility of nothingness, and is primarily a philosophical rather than mathematical equation.

   2. 0 + 1 = 1 should be understood in this light. The imputation being that to arrive at number 1, (or any quantity) you will need some other quantities however described. Dont miss the point, because i could just as easily have said: 0 + 0.5 + 0.5 = 1 or a million other ways i could have phrased it: the point would remain the same: that there must be a component (however described) in the coming into being of things that did not always exist.

So be careful and more thorough in understanding philosophical arguments, and do not limit yourself from contextual understandings of what is written.

Chrisbenogor:

With all due respect philosophers tend to stick to language as it is more susceptible to being interpreted in different ways, if a mathematician from Khuvuki land is reading this thread and cannot not make out the English he would definitely see
0 + 0 = 0
Your whole argument on that thread hinges on this equation, like I said there by all mean say nothingness somethingness and all the shenanigans but leave mathematics out of it, statements that are reduced to mathematical models have to be tested and when yours is reduced then it shows how ridiculous what you are saying is.
Dear deep sight, keep your arguments on a grammatical level, that way we can go on and on and on and on and on talking about conjectures and meanings, but when you reduce it to mathematics, always realise that it is an exact science, you do not bandy around equations that are based on emotions, you state equations that can stand rigorous and serious testing.

abeg na. sebi una don get one thread for dis already.

Pastor I get big big kweshun for u. .  should i open a new thread or is this the official Pastor  Q&A thread?  It is sumn about African traditional religion

Chrisbenogor:

With all due respect philosophers tend to stick to language as it is more susceptible to being interpreted in different ways, if a mathematician from Khuvuki land is reading this thread and cannot not make out the English he would definitely see
0 + 0 = 0
Your whole argument on that thread hinges on this equation, like I said there by all mean say nothingness somethingness and all the shenanigans but leave mathematics out of it, statements that are reduced to mathematical models have to be tested and when yours is reduced then it shows how ridiculous what you are saying is.
Dear deep sight, keep your arguments on a grammatical level, that way we can go on and on and on and on and on talking about conjectures and meanings, but when you reduce it to mathematics, always realise that it is an exact science, you do not bandy around equations that are based on emotions, you state equations that can stand rigorous and serious testing.

What part of 0 + 0 = 0 is not exact mathematics? Why does the numeric figure 0 appear at all in the numeric sequence if it has no relevance?

Or is 0 + 0 = to anything else other than 0?

With respect, this is not an equation based on emotions, you go and fetch me a more correct answer to the question, then i can hear you.

@ Pastor - sorry about the digression. I will leave the thread to concentrate now. Chris, we can address these questions on the other thread.

Krayola2:

Pastor I get big big kweshun for u. .  should i open a new thread or is this the official Pastor  Q&A thread?  It is sumn about African traditional religion

If na small queshun, fire away, if na big issue open another thread.

Pastor, this new thread of yours seems rather vague and indeterminate,

Whats it about really? You have not defined the issues you wish to address.

But i have some general questions for you.

1. What's your perspective of the identities of these people: Jesus of Nazareth, Mohammad the Prophet, Sidhartta Gautama (the Buddha), Abd Ru Shin (wrote the grail message).

2. Do you believe in an after life characterized as heaven and hell

3. If yes, what categories of people will fit where (e.g: only budhists will go to heaven, etc)

4. Do you believe in an immortal soul.

5. What to you regard as being the purose of human life on earth?

Deep Sight:

Pastor, this new thread of yours seems rather vague and indeterminate,

Whats it about really? You have not defined the issues you wish to address.

you're right. It is a bit vague that I why I am now trying to streamline it down to the issue of the effect our social interactions have on our spiritual growth.

So for now it is about the relationship between a person's pr (that is the way he controls public perception of him) and his ability to grow spiritually. It is my belief that pr is necessarily hypocritical. It is for this reason that Jesus points it out with such persistence to his fellow pharisees. It is still a big problem for many christians. In fact it is a problem for anyone that is a part of any society. Social conformity, and the need to present oneself as a paragon of that social group is detrimental to the true expression and spiritual growth of that individual.

Deep Sight:


But i have some general questions for you.

1. What's your perspective of the identities of these people: Jesus of Nazareth, Mohammad the Prophet, Sidhartta Gautama (the Buddha), Abd Ru Shin (wrote the grail message).

2. Do you believe in an after life characterized as heaven and hell

3. If yes, what categories of people will fit where (e.g: only budhists will go to heaven, etc)

4. Do you believe in an immortal soul.

5. What to you regard as being the purose of human life on earth?

I don't fully understand what you are driving at with these questions so I don't know quite how to answer. Are you asking me if I identify any of the personalities in question one with someone or something else? Are you asking if I think they are the same person? Or are you expecting an answer like "Jesus is the only begotten son of God" and both abdrushin and Mohammed is the Paraclete of which he spoke. Their followers both make the claim that they are the paraclete. Perhaps they are identical. Mohammed is Abdrushin is Paracletos. I don't know. Buddha I know even less what to say about.

The afterlife matter is not a trifling matter that can be answered in a few sentences either. Nor the matter of an immortal soul or whether there is a soul or not.

Perhaps the best way to go about this is to pick one of the questions and open another thread with it and I will meet you on that other thread and discuss it.

Pastor AIO:


So for now it is about the relationship between a person's pr (that is the way he controls public perception of him) and his ability to grow spiritually. It is my belief that pr is necessarily hypocritical. It is for this reason that Jesus points it out with such persistence to his fellow pharisees. It is still a big problem for many christians. In fact it is a problem for anyone that is a part of any society. Social conformity, and the need to present oneself as a paragon of that social group is detrimental to the true expression and spiritual growth of that individual.

Very deep, truely thought provoking.

The following is from a thread that was active a very long time ago. It is a bit long but I've made the relevant part bold.

Pastor AIO:

Hi Huxley, I was going to take my time and properly respond to your above posts but it might take some time for me to compose myself properly so I'll just go ahead and give a cursory explanation of what I think and may the spirit guide me, as always.
First the basis of my saying that it is baseless and delusional is because based on my understanding of human psychology and motivations, compassion is but one of our faculties and one that does not play a big part in the character of most adults. Please excuse the Vitriol. I do have a loathing for ideologies that claim to be panaceas of all human ills and yet do not have any solid basis or foundation. This includes religious ideologies as well as secular ones. However I admit that I probably should have responded less aggressive afterall I do like you and I very much appreciate a lot of your posts and I've certainly learnt a lot from reading your posts and following your links.

Now you might say that it is my christian indoctrination that leads me to believe that wickedness in at the very core of man's being, but this is a belief that has been constantly demonstrated and still is being demonstrated before my eyes every day when I walk the streets. Perhaps your experience is different but me I don see with my koro koro eye say man no be better creature. And the last thing in the world that I want to subscribe to is an ideology based on Human-ism. You might as well called it Evil-ism.
As regards that stuff about technology, I don't see what difference that makes. What would you rather face? A caveman with a club or A cave man with a kalashnikov rifle. Oh yeah! there is no difference between that grunting growling caveman and modern man. There hasn't been much evolution since then and it is the same brain (go check the fossil records). Me, I don't think that learning technology is gonna change the basic nature of man.

There are many other points that you are making that I don't agree with but I won't address because I want this to be as brief as possible.
Humanism proposes a type of human society does it not? There is nothing in humanism that suggests (from what I can tell) that a proper appraisal of humans and their motivations has been made. Let me give you an example. One key element of the human psyche is the need to achieve distinction and be regarded as different. We all need attention. Even if it is only from a few select people ( our closest friends and family), we need to know that other people are thinking of us and have us in their regard. There is even a special regard that we expect from at least one person (usually our spouse). When a child realises that he can get more of mom's good regard by doing something clever this motivates him to do more and more clever things. Everybody seeks to distinguish themselves in one way or the other in order to get some good regard from the public. When people fail to achieve this good regard the motivation gets twisted. The next best thing is Bad regard. They do something wicked just to get people's attention. I don't know if you've ever had a younger sibling. If you remember around that adolescent period of their lives they start trying harder and harder to be noticed by adults. They want to hang out with you and sit with you and your friends. The worst thing you could do at that point is to tell them to get lost. That is asking for trouble. "Ehn hen! Me! Get Lost!!" If you recall it is at the point that your little brother turns into the most obnoxious beast you can ever imagine. And you won't ever hear the end of it. You would have saved yourself a lot of trouble if you had just invited him out one night with your friends and allowed him to sit with you till he got bored and retired back to riding his bicycle. This urge to seek regard of any sort is often seen in some criminals who are often concerned with what impact their crimes made on society and if they made it onto the news. Often they show signs of pride with this occurs. All these people ever wanted was to be noticed and respected and as they realised that they couldn't get any good regard they went for the next best thing. [b]
Now the other thing about regard is that from childhood you learn that certain aspects will get you good attention and others will draw bad attention such as a flogging. Since we all want to be held in high regard we learn very quickly to hide those aspects of our being that draw negative attention or even no attention at all and to display those things that draw a high regard. This means that falsity and mendacity have to be introduced into the human psyche at a very early stage. Psychologists have termed this display the Persona. I call it the egungun, or rather the Masquerade. We are all masquerading (don't deny it!). This mask and such devices that we use to attain social status is a great obstacle in spiritual development, but that is another subject. The real point that I want to make is that Humanity is by necessity Mendacious and rotten. This is a more accurate appraisal of a human being and his ability to create a fair and just society on the basis of the qualities found in him. [/b]
Perhaps I'm just stupid then. Ah, you must be talking about the fact that we are much happier than we were in the past and that the air is much cleaner and we have more leisure time. NOT!!! those that have leisure time are starving because of it. A thousand and one technological inventions are not going to change anything. If a country(say the EC in the 1970s and 1980s) produce any surplus they just hoard it while people starve or they throw it away. Remember the milk lakes and the food mountains. Plus when a scientists invents a better crop or whatever, he is not thinking let me do this so that I can feed the world. His thoughts are usually much darker. But I don't want to make a sweeping indictment of all scientists, maybe there are some altruistic ones but most of them are thinking of the money they will make if they can find a cure for something or the nobel prize etc. And if the people who need the drug most cannot afford it then that is tough blockis. Please check out this site:http://www.storyofstuff.com/ I would like to know what you think.

The fact is the Power corrupts and Absolute Power corrupts Absolutely. Not to mention money being the root of all evil. Combine these two and you have double wahala for deady body. Andy owner of deady body.
Fact is Religion is powerful for changing lives. The Romans noticed that and that is why they used it to rebuild their empire. However coming into contact with that money and power has a detrimental effect on anything and everything religion included. And Science included. Yes, science included.

Most scientific surveys are costly. Experiments costs millions sometimes billions. The days of an eccentric scientist discovering cures in his bicycle shed as long gone. Scientists need funding. He who pays the piper calls the tune. A scientist can never make a report that a drug has harmful side effects when the person paying for his research is the pharmaceutical company producing the drug. Today scientific discoveries are too influenced by the concerns of multinationals, Political correctness, and making sure not to step on the toes of big political powers. Like I said, anything that comes into contact with power and money gets twisted. But to be really honest, It is anything that comes into contact with humanity in this wicked base state that is corrupted even the Power and the Money.

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=146706.msg2451826#msg2451826

this is the link for the above

ah ha! What happened? It disappeared.

I'll try again and just copy the most pertinent part of the post.

Humanism proposes a type of human society does it not? There is nothing in humanism that suggests (from what I can tell) that a proper appraisal of humans and their motivations has been made. Let me give you an example. One key element of the human psyche is the need to achieve distinction and be regarded as different. We all need attention. Even if it is only from a few select people ( our closest friends and family), we need to know that other people are thinking of us and have us in their regard. There is even a special regard that we expect from at least one person (usually our spouse). When a child realises that he can get more of mom's good regard by doing something clever this motivates him to do more and more clever things. Everybody seeks to distinguish themselves in one way or the other in order to get some good regard from the public. When people fail to achieve this good regard the motivation gets twisted. The next best thing is Bad regard. They do something wicked just to get people's attention. I don't know if you've ever had a younger sibling. If you remember around that adolescent period of their lives they start trying harder and harder to be noticed by adults. They want to hang out with you and sit with you and your friends. The worst thing you could do at that point is to tell them to get lost. That is asking for trouble. "Ehn hen! Me! Get Lost!!" If you recall it is at the point that your little brother turns into the most obnoxious beast you can ever imagine. And you won't ever hear the end of it. You would have saved yourself a lot of trouble if you had just invited him out one night with your friends and allowed him to sit with you till he got bored and retired back to riding his bicycle. This urge to seek regard of any sort is often seen in some criminals who are often concerned with what impact their crimes made on society and if they made it onto the news. Often they show signs of pride with this occurs. All these people ever wanted was to be noticed and respected and as they realised that they couldn't get any good regard they went for the next best thing.
Now the other thing about regard is that from childhood you learn that certain aspects will get you good attention and others will draw bad attention such as a flogging. Since we all want to be held in high regard we learn very quickly to hide those aspects of our being that draw negative attention or even no attention at all and to display those things that draw a high regard. This means that falsity and mendacity have to be introduced into the human psyche at a very early stage. Psychologists have termed this display the Persona. I call it the egungun, or rather the Masquerade. We are all masquerading (don't deny it!). This mask and such devices that we use to attain social status is a great obstacle in spiritual development, but that is another subject. The real point that I want to make is that Humanity is by necessity Mendacious and rotten. This is a more accurate appraisal of a human being and his ability to create a fair and just society on the basis of the qualities found in him.