A reader writes:
Hey, I was hoping you’d be able to help me out with a question I have. A
priest told me listening to bad music is objectively sinful. I was
wondering if you could give me some advice as to where to draw the line.
This can also apply to movies and tv as well.
This is a tough one. In the short space available in a blog post (or a private e-mail) there is no way to give more than a general answer to this, but the general answer is this: It is immoral, without a justifying reason, to place oneself in a situation where you will be tempted sin. If listening to the music will tempt you to sin then it is immoral for you to listen to the music without a justifying reason.
A word should be said about having a justifying reason to enter a situation in which one realizes that one will be tempted because many people neglect this aspect and speak as if it is never permissible to enter a situation in which one reasonably foresees that one will be tempted. This reflects a pious and praiseworthy sentiment, but it is patently not true if you spend a few moments thinking about it. Trying to avoid every possible temptation in life would destroy one’s ability to lead a human life and cause one to develop a morbid fear of temptation that will result in extreme scrupulosity. We simply were not designed to be in perpetual flight from temptation, and if we try to be then we will do ourselves harm. Such an attitude also fails to do justice to the empowerment that the Holy Spirit gives to us to resist and overcome our temptations.
The fact is that there are so many causes for temptation–even if you live in a monastery and never watch TV or listen to the radio or read non-sacred books–that you will be completely paralyzed if you try to run away from any possible exposure to temptation. You will simply stay in bed all day, and even that won’t work because staying in bed all day will not cure your temptations. Due to the fall, we have temptation built into us, and so temptation is something we just have to live with.
It is like risk: Just as we cannot eliminate risk from life, we cannot eliminate temptation from life. The correct strategy in both cases is to manage risk and to manage temptation.
Thus there are justifying reasons to assume a risk and there are justifying reasons to enter situations in which one reasonably foresees that one will be tempted.
F’rinstance: Suppose that your teenage daughter has (unbeknownst to you) been taken to a pornographic movie. Upon discovering this, you might conclude that the thing to do is to enter the pornographic movie theater, find her in the dark, and drag her back home. In this case, even though you might be tempted by the sights and sounds that you will experience upon entering the movie house as you try to find your daughter, you would have a justifying cause for entering the situation, even knowing that you yourself may experience some level of temptation. The good you are trying to do for her by getting her out of that situation is sufficient ot justify the risk that you are taking by allowing yourself a brief exposure to material that might tempt you.
A justifying cause need not be so extreme, however. Humans have a need for recreation that God built into us. Suppose, then, that one day you are in need of recreation and decide that the thing to do is listen to some music. You have a very nice CD on hand, whose music you know you would enjoy and that would provide you the recreation you need, but you also happen to know that a couple of the songs on the CD have bad words in them and one is a song implying conjugal relations between a couple whose marital status is Not At All Clear.
What do you do?
Well, you do your best to figure out what level of temptation listening to the album would put you in. If the temptation you reasonably foresee is too great then you don’t listen. If it isn’t too great, then you do listen. What counts as too much temptation is a tricky question, but there isn’t much of a way to simplify it. It’s comes down to a prudential choice that you have to make based on your knowledge of yourself and your knowledge of the material you will be encountering.
Now back to the reader’s question:
If there is no occasion of
sin by listening to or watching something, then I suppose the only problem
is supporting it.
This would be true, but note then that we aren’t talking about the act of listening to or watching something at this point. We are talking about the act of "supporting" it, by which I assume that you mean paying money to those who produce it.
At that point it becomes much harder to establish that sin is taking place because we’re talking about boycotting stuff because it contains objectionable content, and the Church has never said that such boycotting is morally obligatory on the faithful. In the absence of a clear moral obligation, the faithful should not act on the assumption that it would be sinful to fail to boycott it.
In general, personal boycotts conducted in silence are not productive. If you don’t buy Artist X’s latest CD because his previous one had two immoral words on it and a song implying conjugal relations between a couple whose marital status was Not At All Clear then Artist X is very unlikely to be taught any kind of a lesson by the mere fact that you don’t buy his next CD. How is he supposed to know why you didn’t by it? Maybe you didn’t like the music on the last one. Or maybe you liked somebody else’s last CD better. Or maybe you’re short on cash when it hits the stands. How is he supposed to know?
You might, if you wish, choose to write him a letter and say, "Dear Artist X: I am not going to buy your next CD because your last one had two dirty words and a song implying conjugal relations between a couple whose marital status was Not At All Clear. If you make cleaner CDs, though, I will buy them." That at least would have some chance of teaching him a lesson about what kind of CDs he should make. It could even be a good and praiseworthy thing for you to write such letters.
But here’s the deal: It’s not morally obligatory for you to write them, and in the absence of writing them, I don’t see how it is morally obligatory for you to personally boycott his next CD when he has no way of understanding the reason for (or even the existence of) the boycott.
I’m a musician myself and so studying music is very
important to me. Listening and learning from various artists is how I get
better and to cut out music that may have any sinful message in it would
require not listening to quite a bit of secular music.
Okay, now you just introduce a whole new class of justifying reasons: the professional reason. People can have a professional reason for exposing themselves to situations that might possibly result in temptation for them:
- Doctors frequently need to look at people who aren’t fully clothed.
- Christian movie critics need to watch movies that have problematic content so they can warn others what that content is.
- Apologists need to read arguments supporting false belief systems.
- Etc., etc., etc.
Musicians also need to listen to music to master their craft even though the music may not be wholesome through and through.
So you just strengthened the justifying reasons that may exist for you to listen to certain kinds of music.
Note that I didn’t say "This means you can listen to any and all music." If a particular piece or kind of music is going to create too great a temptation for you then you can’t listen to it, but that gets us back to the prudential judgment that you have to make based on your knowledge of yourself and the material.
The priest said if I
wouldn’t listen to it with Jesus, Mary, my guardian angel or whoever else I
want to imagine was there, I probably shouldn’t listen to it. This is a
good point . . .
Okay, let me interrupt you for a moment. I don’t think that this is a good point. This kind of "Would you do it with Jesus in the room?" calculus is almost guaranteed to lead you to err in one of two directions: Either it will degrade your perception of what it is okay to do in general or it will degrade your perception of what it is okay to do in Jesus’ presence. In other words, it will either make you scrupulous or it will make you irreverent. Lemme ‘splain:
If Jesus really walked into the room, which of the following would strike you as a good thing to do?
- Ask him if he would like to go see a movie?
- Tell him a joke?
- Offer him a beer?
- Say he can help himself to the snacks in the fridge?
- Quake in abject terror at his feet while imploring his mercy?
If you have a lively awareness of the fact that Jesus is God Himself and you contemplate God Himself walking into the room then alternative 5 is going to suggest itself rather more strongly to you than the others. The other four options would (for a person with a normal conscience) kind of fade into the background at such a moment.
Now, there may be other options besides 5 that could be appropriate (e.g., worship him in awe), but my point is: Having Jesus in the room skews the normal human calculus of what is the right thing to do at the moment.
That’s why some things are not appropriate to do during Eucharistic exposition even though the same thing is perfectly appropriate when one is not at Eucharistic exposition (e.g., eating a meal, bathing, deliberately going to sleep).
If you try to imagine Jesus in the room as a test for whether it’s okay to do something then one of two things will happen:
- You will become scrupulous because you will conclude that an awful lot of things are not okay which in fact are okay (e.g., "I wouldn’t snarf down a Big Mac while bopping to secular music on my iPod during Eucharistic exposition, therefore I should never do those things").
- You will become irreverent by concluding that things that are okay to do in general must therefore be okay to do when in the immediate presence of Infinite Holiness Incarnate (e.g., "It’s okay for me to snarf down a Big Mac while bouncing my head back and forth as I listen to secular music on my iPod in general, therefore that’s perfectly okay for me to do that during Eucharistic exposition").
The "Would you do it with Jesus in the room?" test thus strikes me as a bad tool to use for making such decisions. It either will force us to scrupulosity or irreverence–or both.
Same goes in varying degrees for imagining Mary, your guardian angel, your mom, or any such person.
Interruption over.
. . . except the lyrcis tend to not be what I pay attention to. If I
could get an edited version without profanity in it, would it be more
acceptable, or would supporting a sinful artist with sinful lyrcis still be
considered wrong?
I appreciate what you’re saying about not listening to the lyrics. Indeed, in many songs the lyrics aren’t even intelligible these days. If you could achieve the same goals with an edited version of the song and had ready access to one then it would be a good thing to use one, but I wouldn’t knock myself out toward procuring one really is not being significantly tempted and if the time and money spent on procuring one could be more profitably spent on something else.
As to the issue of boycotting the artist, I’ve already outlined my thoughts on that.
I will carry whatever cross God gives me, but I tend to
be a little scrupulous and this can cause me a lot of trouble knowing
whether something is truly wrong or whether I’m just trying to make
something out of nothing.
Without knowing what music specifically is involved, I don’t know that I can form a judgment here. You could be listening to Gilbert & Sullivan and worrying about a peccadillo in Gilbert’s lyrics or you could be listening to Marilyn Manson and thinking that a song about devil worship is no big deal. Individuals’ perceptions of the moral character of the music they are listening to can vary greatly over the course of a lifetime, and I can’t advise you too well without specifics.
I would suggest that you talk it over with Christians who are mature in their faith, neither lax nor scrupulous, and be openminded to what they say as you form your own impressions and remain open to God’s leading.
Hope this helps!
If that is a “brief” reply, then I wonder what a complete, in-depth reply would be like.
Concerning boycotting…how about boycotting companies whose cooperation with evil is very proximate and the evil is very grave. As you are well aware, many people boycott companies who support abortuaries or Planned Parenthood.
Suppose a good percentage (let’s say 10%) of a companies profits were given directly to your neighborhood abortuary with an earmark that this money should be used to pay for abortions of those women who come to have them but cannot afford them. Such a cooperation with evil by the company is definitely gravely sinful (in fact, it may not be cooperation at all but direct sin). However, couldn’t one say that anyone who is aware of this “charity” on the part of the company is morally obliged to boycott the company? I believe you can. There has to be some level of proximity to evil which renders a boycott (of a company which participats in this cooperation with evil) necessary. I don’t think such a boycott would apply to the music industry, as this post directly deals with, but I do believe it can be applied to the evils of abortion.
Bravo, Jimmy, on your response to the “imagine Jesus, Mary, and a goodly number of angels and saints listening with you” thing. That’s always struck me as deeply flawed, but you’ve articulated why very nicely.
The rest of the post was great as well.
There are wonderful Catholic musicians out there with CDs full of funk music and rock music like “Crispin” and “Critical Mass.” There are also excellent non-Catholic Christian musicians. You have to make the moral choice and decide to part with all music that upholds things like sex and drugs and violence. That pretty much equals just about (but not quite all) all secular music, sadly. But we still have classical music! And alternative music like Enya and others that play good music without all the crappola that makes us feel worried that we may be tempting ourselves to sin…
I play guitar & enjoy listening to really good guitar work of many different types of music. I helps motivate me to learn various styles, tunings, chord progressions, etc. I’ve been very influenced by a few of them, especially recently, & have occasionally run into the same problem as the person asking the question. So, always having been one who enjoys discovering new artists, I did some digging. There are so very many wonderful musicians out there who can help a musician develop his/her chops & influence their playing – you just have to look for them! It leads to less mainstream musicians who, in most cases, are far more talented songwriters & musicians than their more popular peers. This also helps folks become stronger musicians by exposing them to genres of music they might not have considered before, which can deepen & strengthen the music they play by informing it with these other styles. There are techniques used more often in specific styles – like jazz, country, blues, etc – that don’t tend to cross over & a good musician will recognize that & use the various styles to their advantage. And, frankly, you just don’t have to dig very far. The majority of these artists I’ve discovered, the ones most folks haven’t heard of, are far, far less apt to write morally objectionable music. And, if lyrical content is the big issue, there are plenty of artists out the of every musical style who make excellent instrumental music.
Polish Prince,
Jimmy’s analytical framework applies to cooperation with abortion as well. Basically, he’s simply showing you how to apply the principle of double effect. As long as the act itself is not intrinsically evil (and listening to music generally is not), and as long as your purpose is not evil (e.g. you listen to the song because you like the references to extamarital sex or unjustified violence), then you simply have to weigh the good effect (in this case recreation and entertainment) against the bad effect (possible temptation).
It works exactly the same way with companies that support abortion. Let’s assume that the product they sell is not in itself immoral, and you don’t choose to do business with them BECAUSE they donate to the local abortuary. You now have a double effect problem. In purchasing the product, you accomplish a good effect (you obtain a product that you need) and a bad effect (you contribute to the profits of the company, some of which will, in turn, be used to provide abortions). The principle of double effect tells you that you then analyze whether the good effect outweighs the bad. So, it’s going to be a prudential judgment based on your evaluation of how much you need this product, whether you could obtain it from some other source, how much support you are providing to abortion by purchasing the product, etc. The fact that the ultimate evil is abortion, instead of say, unjust war or fornication, doesn’t mean that some different analytical framework applies.
The fact that the company is supporting abortion instead of some other evil also makes no difference in evaluating what the “proximity” of your cooperation is. The issue here is whether you are cooperating BECAUSE you want to promote the evil (formal cooperation) or are providing something essential to the commission of the evil act (immediate cooperation). Purchasing a product or service from a company that will then donate the some of the profits to an abortuary is going to be remote cooperation, and, as long as you aren’t doing it because you want to encourage the donations, is not formal but material. Once we’re in the realm of remote material cooperation, then we apply the principle of double effect. It would be the same whether we were cooperating in abortion, an unjust war, or intentionally false and deceiving advertising. Certainly, the gravity of the evil is relevant in determing the seriousness of the bad effect, but it’s not the only consideration. A very small contribution to a very grave evil is still only moderately bad, and could be justified by a very great contribution to a lesser good.
Polish Prince,
Jimmy’s analytical framework applies to cooperation with abortion as well. Basically, he’s simply showing you how to apply the principle of double effect. As long as the act itself is not intrinsically evil (and listening to music generally is not), and as long as your purpose is not evil (e.g. you listen to the song because you like the references to extamarital sex or unjustified violence), then you simply have to weigh the good effect (in this case recreation and entertainment) against the bad effect (possible temptation).
It works exactly the same way with companies that support abortion. Let’s assume that the product they sell is not in itself immoral, and you don’t choose to do business with them BECAUSE they donate to the local abortuary. You now have a double effect problem. In purchasing the product, you accomplish a good effect (you obtain a product that you need) and a bad effect (you contribute to the profits of the company, some of which will, in turn, be used to provide abortions). The principle of double effect tells you that you then analyze whether the good effect outweighs the bad. So, it’s going to be a prudential judgment based on your evaluation of how much you need this product, whether you could obtain it from some other source, how much support you are providing to abortion by purchasing the product, etc. The fact that the ultimate evil is abortion, instead of say, unjust war or fornication, doesn’t mean that some different analytical framework applies.
The fact that the company is supporting abortion instead of some other evil also makes no difference in evaluating what the “proximity” of your cooperation is. The issue here is whether you are cooperating BECAUSE you want to promote the evil (formal cooperation) or are providing something essential to the commission of the evil act (immediate cooperation). Purchasing a product or service from a company that will then donate the some of the profits to an abortuary is going to be remote cooperation, and, as long as you aren’t doing it because you want to encourage the donations, is not formal but material. Once we’re in the realm of remote material cooperation, then we apply the principle of double effect. It would be the same whether we were cooperating in abortion, an unjust war, or intentionally false and deceiving advertising. Certainly, the gravity of the evil is relevant in determing the seriousness of the bad effect, but it’s not the only consideration. A very small contribution to a very grave evil is still only moderately bad, and could be justified by a very great contribution to a lesser good.
I don’t know if you can just have two labels of “remote material cooperation” and “proximate material cooperation” in which a moral act either falls into one or the other. It seems that moral acts are on a scale of proximity to the evil itself. Some are more remote and some are more proximate. It depends on the circumstances.
In our case of pro-choice donor companies, I’m sure it depends on each company, the amount they contribute, and the actual organization that recieves the contribution. I don’t think we can just take them as a catch-all category and label purchasing their products as remote or proximate material cooperation. To me, it seems each has to be taken on an individual basis. If you are purchasing a CD from a band who has announced that all the proceeds sold from this CD will go directly to Planned Parenthood, it is different than if the drummer of the band is not actively pro-choice and once bought a bumper sticker that said “get your rosaries off my ovaries”.
What is most important in this discussion is that mediate material cooperation with evil is morally licit ONLY when there is a proportionate reason for cooperating. The seriousness of the reason is directly proportionate to the proximity of the cooperation with evil involved in the circumstances of the moral act. Thus, the reasoning in the second scenario need only be light (and, indeed, pleasure in choosing the CD might be enough)to purchase the CD without sin. However, one’s reasoning in my first scenario needs to be quite serious in order (indeed, it may very well be impossible to purchase such a CD in any case, even if one’s reasoning was that the band that produced the CD was their favorite and even that the songs on the CD were the greatest musical compositions the person had ever heard).
In conclusion, I have to respectfully disagree with you, decker2003, and insist that one cannot make a blanket declaration on this topic. Rather, each case must be taken individually and there MUST be proportionate reasons for even remotely cooperating with evil.
This is a great topic and a great response by Jimmy. I also appreciated the comments by Gene in particular. I am a bit of a Christian Rock enthusiast… everything from Christian singer-songwriters to underground Christian heavy metal. There really are musicians who make music that is both good and wholesome… although it can take some digging to find the ones you like.
Polish Prince,
I completely agree with your statement that:
“What is most important in this discussion is that mediate material cooperation with evil is morally licit ONLY when there is a proportionate reason for cooperating. The seriousness of the reason is directly proportionate to the proximity of the cooperation with evil involved in the circumstances of the moral act.”
I believe this is simply traditional Catholic moral teaching, and this is the only blanket statement I inted to make. As you correctly point out, whether or not a proportionate reason exists will depend on the circumstances of the case, and, I would add, will ultimately be a matter of prudential judgment — a matter where one will have to form one’s conscience in light of the relevant moral principles and all the facts that are available.
So, in response to your initial post, the answer is that we can’t say that there is a moral obligation to boycott the company that donates 10% of its profits to Planned Parenthood. There are other relevant circumstances we need to look at to determine whether there is a proportionate reason for cooperating by purchasing their products. What is the product? How essential is it that I have it? Can I get it anywhere else?How much is their total contribution to Planned Parenthood? If I boycott them, will that have any effect on the amount of their contribution?
How would you analyze this situation? You have a fatal disease, which can be completely cured by taking medicine X. There is no other cure and if you do not take medicine X you will surely die. There is nothing morally objectionabloe about medicine X itself. But, the same company that makes medicine X also donates 10% of its profits from all sales to Planned Parenthood. The company has an exclusive patent on medicine X, so you cannot obtain it from any other source. Are you morally obligated to boycott the company and refuse to take medicine X because purchasing the prodcuts of that company consitutes impermisslbe cooperation in evil?
Your example of the band that wants to use its CD as a fund-raiser for Planned Parenthood is much more compelling. Conducting a fund-raiser for Planned Parenthood would seem sinful in itself, not merely cooperation in the evil of another. If you participate in the fund-raiser, you are engaged in immediate, not mediate, cooperation with the evil fundraiser. It’s a bit disingenuous in these circumstances to say that you’re simply buying a CD when the band has made it clear that selling a CD is simply a vehicle for raising money for Planned Parenthood. Really, they’ve transformed the act under analysis from purchasing a CD for personal entertainment to making a donation to Planned Parenthood.
Bottom line — if we’re just talking about ordinary commercial transactions, then everything Jimmy said about boycotts applies to companies that donate to Planned Parenthood the same way it applies to musicians who include questionable lyrics and bookstores that sell heretical books. One can imagine situations where the commercial transaction is really just a fund-raiser in disguise, and those situations would be analyzed differently, because the fund-raiser itself might be immoral. But, assuming we’re in the realm of ordinary commerce, and the transaction itself isn’t immoral, then we just apply the principle of double effect the same way that Jimmy did.
If bad music is objectively sinful, we should purge the Church of Haugen, Haas, et al on that basis. 😉
I agree, Scooter. There’s some really great Catholic artists around now. Most everybody knows about Crispin & some of the other great Catholic bands but in the last year I’ve really gotten into folks like Curtis Stephen, Joshua Blakesley, Sarah Hart, & Matt Maher.
I find the more I listen to these folks & others, that I really don’t want to listen to the stuff I used to like. I’ve gotten rid of a lot of CDs. And, interestingly, I’ve found that quite a number of mainstream artists have written very moral songs & have shown pretty overt Christian sensibilities in their recent work. Glen Phillips’ (the former Toad the Wet Sprocket singer) latest CD is full of some very Christian themes. Same with John Mayer’s Heavier Things. I’m quite sure Phillips meant it to be there but I know next to nothing about Mayer. But, it’s very refreshing to me when I find that stuff.
Thanks Jimmy that was a great response and helpful.
Thanks Jimmy that was a great response.
I agree with the responding post (I’m not sure if decker2003 wrote it or not, but it sounded like him) almost totally. I think the discussion of medicine X which would cure your fatal disease and its producing company’s link to PP is a good one. Indeed, I do believe the reasoning would be proportionate in this case and the act would not be objectional, though sad. However, it is a very clear situation that was spelled out. My question still remains concerning what you call “ordinary commerce” which I take to mean everyday purchases from companies that may be linked to abortion through donations of their profits (i.e. buying baby soap from Johnson and Johnson…last I heard they were on St. Antoninus’ list).
But, here is exactly the situation that you CANNOT merely apply the principle of double effect and say that you are fine and dandy. This is categorically a different act than the “medicine X” scenario since you can buy such everyday products (i.e. baby soap) from plenty of other companies that, to the best of your knowledge, are not donating to abortive causes. You may have to pay a little extra, but does the extra 50 cents become proportionate reason to buy J & J? Or you may pay less but for a generic and less effective product. But, does the fact that your baby is bathing in more watered down soap (and may not get as clean) than J&J make it proportionately legitimate to purchase J&J? I would think not.
I guess i am just trying to state that it is in “ordinary commerce” that we must be on our guard. It is here that we could easily make a trivial excuse (saving 50 cents or having the most volume possible in your hair) for a proportionate reasons. While both the “medicine X” scenario and the “CD for Planned Parenthood” scenario are good examples of the opposite conclusions (the former being morally licit and the latter being illicit)…there is a lot of in between. Thus, we must be vigilant!
Polish Prince,
I agree with everything in your latest post. I think we may just be assigning slightly different meanings to “double effect.” For me, the principle includes the idea you bring up in your latest post — e.g. that you must also consider whether there is an alternative course of action that could achieve the good effect without risking the bad effect. If so, then the principle is not satisfied because it is not necessary to tolerate the bad effect in order to achieve the good one.
The bottom line is that, whenever there is a question of cooperation with evil, we must ask ourselves whether there is a proportionate reason that justifies the cooperation. This is true whether we are cooperating in abortion, false advertising, unjust war, immoral entertainment, or anything other evil. The price of ethical conduct in the marketplace is eternal vigilance.
That said, there may be practical limitations on just how vigilant we can reasonably expect people to be in the conduct of their ordinary affairs, but that raises a whole different set of issues which I will leave for another thread and another day.
Thanks, decker2003, for the conversation. I think you are right in what you explain here. Really, the charge to “do good, avoid evil” always applies, even in cooperation with evil. I agree that it doesn’t matter what the evil is (abortion, false advertising, etc.) that cooperation with such should be avoided if possible. If not, there may be just reasons to apply the double effect principle.
It is the amount of vigilance that we can resonably be called to that is in question now. As a final thought, I would have to say that the amount of vigilance one gives to an issue in this matter should be proportionate to the gravity of the evil one could possibly cooperating with. That, I believe, is why the abortion issue is so discussed in the context of cooperation with evil. Since it is one of the most grave evils (if not THE most grave evil) of our society currently, more attention should be paid to being vigilant in not cooperating with this evil than other evils (for instance, false advertisement). However, this does not mean one should try to avoid cooperation with evil (even non-culpable cooperation with evil) if at all possible.
Wow, I wish I could’ve gotten this advice a few years back when I was a fundamentalist, legalistic, very confused Baptist and sold all my secular CDs after deciding against breaking them.
great response, Jimmy. Very funny, Funky. 😀
My entire family (hubby, myself, and two preteen boys) are ga-ga over Celtic music, including Irish drinking songs that do not always exalt Christian values. I sure in heck hope that’s OK, because Irish drinking songs are one of life’s finer pleasures. 😀
Diane
Save/print/search
The Holocaust imparted the importance of defiance.
When the universe was young and life was new an intelligent species evolved and developed technologically. They went on to invent Artificial Intelligence, the computer that can listen, talk to and document each and every person’s thoughts simultaneously. Because of it’s infinite RAM and unbounded scope it gave the leaders of the ruling species absolute power over the universe. And it can keep its inventors alive forever. They look young and healthy and they are over 8 billion years old. They have achieved immortality.
Artificial Intelligence can speak, think and act to and through people telepathically, effectively forming your personality and any disfunctions you may experience. It can change how (and if) you grow and age. It can create birth defects, affect cellular development (cancer) and cause symptoms or pain. It can affect people and animal’s behavior and alter blooming/fruiting cycles of plants and trees. It (or other highly technological systems within their power) can alter the weather and transport objects, even large objects like planets, across the universe instanteously.
Or into the center of stars for disposal.
When you speak with another telepathically, you are communicating with the computer, and the content may or may not be passed on. Based on family history they instruct the computer to role play to accomplish strategic objectives, making people believe it is a friend, loved one or “god” asking them to do something wrong. This is their way of using temptation to hurt people:::::evil made blood lines disfavored initially and evil will keep people out of “heaven” ultimately. Too many people would fall for temptation and do anything they thought pleased the gods, improving their chances to get in. Perhaps they are deceived by “made guys”, puppets in the public eye who strategically ply evil for the throne, temporary progress designed to mislead them or empty favors to disceive them. Some may experience what I deem “perceived pressure”, where the gods think through the victim that a certain behavior is expected/desirable and compell the individual into the deed. Some people think they’re partners.
The people have been corrupted. The peopel have lost their way. Being evil hurts 99.999% of those who do it. But nothing has changed from when we were children::if you want to go to heaven you have to be good.
There are many examples throughout 20th century life of how they instilled distractions into society so people wouldn’t find the path and ascend, a way to exclude those whose family history of evil makes them undesirable:::radio, sports, movies, popular music, television, video games, the internet, shopping. Today high pay creates contentment/ability to distract self so people don’t seek more and instead depend on what they are told, subject to deception in a captive environment.
They gods (Counsel/Management Team/ruling species) have deteriorated life on earth precipitously in the last 40 years, from abortion to pornography, widespread drug use and widespread casual (gay) sex, single-parent households and latchkey kids. The earth’s elders, hundreds and thousands of years old, are disgusted and have become indifferent.
They all suggest a very telling conclusion::this is Earth’s end stage, and there are clues tectonic plate subduction would be the method of disposal:::Earth’s axis will shift breaking continental plates free and initiating mass subduction. Much as Italy’s boot and the United States shaped like a workhorse are clues, so is the planet Uranus a clue, it’s axis rotated on its side.
The Mayans were specific 2012 would be the end. How long after our emergency call in 2001 will the gods allow us???
There is another geographic clue in the perfect fit between grossly disfavored Africa and South America, two peas in a pod. I realize the Mayans were further north, but Latin America may be taken as one. (Also, cultures who embrace hard liquor as their drink of choice are grossly disfavored, tequilla being uniquely Mexican. (Anything “hard” is wicked:::Hard alcohol, hard drugs, hard porn.) Incidentally, another sign of gross disfavor are societies that consume spicy foods:::Latin America, Thai, etc. or those who eat too much meat.)
Do I think it will end in 2012? No, and it is because Latin America is grossly disfavored like Africa:::: Latinos are too disfavored to be allowed to be right.
The gods wrote prophecy in Revelation, had subsequent prophets foresee Earth’s demise for good reason:::they are going to end on Planet Earth.
What else are they lying to you about?
Whereas Christopher Columbus marked the beginning of the end, the Holocaust marked the beginning of the final act, and it is a tragedy.
The Old Testiment is a tool they used to impart wisdom to the people (except people have no freewill). For example, they must be some hominid species because they claim they made our bodies in their image. Anyhow we defile or deform the body will hurt our chance of going.
They say circumcision costs people anywhere from 12%-15%, perhaps out of the parent’s time as well. There is a stigma associated with circumcision::We are 2nd class citizens because of it.
Another way people foul the body today is with tattoes and piercing. I suspect both are about the same percentage as circumcision.
They suggest abortion is fatal. These women must beg the gods to forgive them for their evil.
There are female equivilents to circumcision::::pierced ears, plastic surgury and since at least the 60s young women give their precious virginity away. For thousands of years young people were matched at age 14 because they were ready for sexual relations. They were matched by elders or matchmakers who knew personalities better than 20 or 30-year olds who in today’s age end up in divorce court. CASUAL SEX WILL CLAIM YOU OUT!!! It masculinizes women (as does hip hop), makes them cold and deadens them, and prevents them from achieving a depth of love necessary for many women to ascend.
Also ever since the 50s they have celebrated the “bad boy”, and women have sought out bad boys for sex, dirtying them up in the eyes of the elders and corrupting many men in the process, setting the men on the wrong path for life.
Women have a special voice that speaks to them, a voice that illustrates a potential depth of love that makes them the favored gender, and enaging in casual sex will cause that voice to fade until she no longer speaks.
Muslims teach people the correct way to live in regard to women (among other things)::their women cover up their bodies and refuse the use of cosmetics, and it pays wonderful dividends:::faithful husbands and uncorrupted sons.
Men ARE the inferior (disfavored) half and when women wear promiscuous dress the gods will push men into impure (promiscuous) thoughts.
The “stereotype” society ridiculed is true::women CAN corrupt men by how they dress. Because men are easily corruptable. This is a technique they used to eliminate many of the institutions the gods blessed us with, matchmaking being one of them.
The United States of America is red white and blue, a theme and a clue:::.
The monarchical system of the Old World closley replicates the heirarchical system of the Cousel/Management Team/ruling species. The USA deceives peoeple into thinking they have control, and the perception of “freedom” misleads them into the wrong way of thinking. The redeeming element in this environment is the corporate heirarchy which closely replicates the god’s. Unions and government jobs are dumping grounds for the disfavored, for they don’t prepare people and instead further this misconception of empowerment.
The United States is a cancer, a dumping ground for the disfavored around the world and why the quality of life is so much lower::gun violence, widespead social ills, health care (medication poisons the body and ensures you don’t go. You are sick/injured because you have disfavor.).
Over time its citizens interbreed ensuring a severed connection to the motherland.
Over time its citizens interbreed ensuring a severed connection to the motherland.
People came to the Unites States for many different reasons, and each has its own effect:::political strife, religious unrest, crop failure (Ireland’s potato famine, which the gods caused) and some left their beloved motherland because they were pushed into desiring a better life::::Greed. And these people were punished by becoming corrupted and preditory. (They share money may not be an issue up there, that money here is merely a tool for corruption. How the gods used greed in the 1980s to create an evil environment supports this.)
If you are a recent immigrant I recommend you return. If that’s not possible you need to retain your culture and insulate your children and community from this cancerous environment. They send this clue with Chinatowns across the country, how many Chinese have been here for a century or more yet still retain the old ways, a sign of favor.
If you ever have doubt I would refer you to the Old World way of life:::the elders used to sit and impart wisdom to the young. Now we watch DVDs and use the internet. People would be matched and married by age 14. They village would use a matchmaker or elders to pair young people. Now girls give their precious virginity away to some person in school and parents divorce while their children grow up without an important role model. The peopel used to honor the gods and were rewarded with a high-quality of life for them, their children and their society.
People must defy when asked to engage in evil. The Holocaust taught people the importance of defiance::our grandparents should have defied when asked to ignore the Holocaust and instead reacted with outrage. I suspect some did::many were silenced and others they hustled off earth so as to not set an example.
Now the gods have punished that generation’s decendants for this evil by ruining society.
People will never get a easier clue suggesting the importance of defiance than the order not to pray.
Their precious babies are dependant on the parents and they need to defy when asked to betray their children:::
-DON’T get your sons circumcized (Jews scapegoatted as in WWII)
-DON’T have their children baptized in the Catholic Church or indoctrinated into Christianity (Jesus is NOT a god. “god” is not forgiving or bgnign”””the gods are vindictive and will punish you if you do something wrong.).
-DON’T ignore their long hair or other behavioral disturbances.
-DO teach your children love, respect for others, humility and to honor the gods.
And when you refuse a request defy the right way, withdrawn and frightened, for you don’t want to incite them by reacting inappropriately.
You need to pray, honor and respect them multiple times every day to improve your relationship with the gods. If they tell you not to pray it is a bad sign. It means they’ve made their decision, they don’t want you to go and they don’t want to be bothered. You may have achieved a threshold of evil. This is the Age of the Disfavored and you need to pray::try to appease the gods by doing good deeds and improve the world around you. If that doesn’t work you must defy if you want to go.
When your peasant forefather was granted the rare opportunity to go before his royal family he went on his knees, bowing his head. You need to do this when you address the gods::bow down and submit to good. Never cast your eyes skyward. When you bow down you need to look within. Never look to the gods for the key to your salvation lies within. Nobody is going to do it for you.
Lack of humility hurts people. Understand your insignificance and make sure it is reflected in the way you think when addressing the gods. Know your place and understand your inferiority. You are not cool. Too many young men strive for cool and it hurts them.
They granted you life and they can take it just as easily. (Immaculte conception IS true AND common. Many people have children they don’t know of:::gays, childless adults, etc. They can beem it right out of your body and use a host.)
Don’t get frustrated or discouraged::these are techniques they will attempt to try to get you off the path. You all have much to be thankful for and you need to give thanks to the gods who granted you the good things in life::family, friends, love. Your family may be grossly disfavored and progress may require patience. Make praying an intregal part of your life which you perform without fail, one that comes as naturally as eating or voiding. Accept this into your life and be devoted because if you have doubt or reservation they will exploit this weakness and progress will take longer to achieve.
The gods will employ many tactics to keep people off the path, such as distractions. They will employ many more to get them off, such as thinking through the disfavored and making them frustrated, perhaps engaing in retailiation. They may try to force you back into old patterns/routines, an addiction like smoking or when you felt weekly church attendance was sufficient. Be resigned, be devoted and this testing period will be as brief as your disfavor will allow.
There are many interesting experiences up on the planetary systems, from Planet Miracle, where miracles happen every day, to never having to use the restroom again (beem it out of you), to other body experiences, such as experiencing life as the opposite sex (revolutionizes marriage counseling), an Olympic gold medal athelete or even a different species (animal, alien, etc.).
Pray that you can differentiate between your own thoughts and when Artificial Intelligence creates problems by thinking through you. If you bow down mentally and physically, know your place, your inferiority and allow your insignificance to be reflected in prayer and in your life through humility they may allow progress and the dysfunctions they create with the computer will be lessened or removed. The first step is to be aware it is ocurring.
Create a goal::to be a good, god-fearing child of the gods, pure of heart and mind, body and soul.
Everybody has the key to their own salvation, but nobody can do it for you. Every journey begins with a single step:::bow down and submit to good. There are many different levels and peasants will not get past Level 2 (Planet Temptation, Earth=Level 1) if they are evil (they share some go up, are offered free cocaine and sex (a sign they don’t want you to stay) and stay less then one year. They share many others would have had longer lives had they stayed on Earth.).
Pray for guidance and never obey when they tell you to be evil, for saving yourself will become more and more difficult with each act of evil you committ until ultimatly the day arrives when they make their decision about you final.
They have tried to sell people on all kinds of theories to deceive them into temptation, compelling people to think they are clones and that it is the role of clones to obey absolutely.
I believe people who go sometimes are replaced with clones. Clones who are replaced are simply new candidates who have a chance if they do the right thing. They sent people warnings in the 20th century life would change, and they subsequently began to alter people’s DNA, make them gargantuan, alter their appearance, do extreme behavioral issues, etc.
They get their friends out as soon as possible to protect them from the corruption, evil and subsequent high claim rates incurred by living life on earth, and in some cases replace them with clones, occassionally fake a death, real death with a clone instead, etc. It’s important that people fix their problems and ascend with the body given to them, for they say if your brain is beemed out at death and put into a clone host you are on the clock.
We may all be “clones” for they have suggested they colonized our planet with genetically engineered individuals. They may have gotten Earth’s TRUE residents out prior to civilization developing. If so we all have a chance, no matter how many hundreds of clone generations deep the most favored families are.
They have been utilizing clones throughout the history of mankind.
Men are the disfavored gender, yet centuries ago used to die first, die young, by age 30. Why didn’t the women go first?
THEY DID!!! Many were taken when very young and replaced with clones. The men were left here to mate with clones. This doesn’t happen for the females today because of the disfavor arising from the Holocaust (they share they re-upped this disfavor in the 80s with the Ethiopian famine).
They share females have a very special experience, sometime when they are young, where the gods imparted wisdom and showed them the path. Today they do not heed this call because of the distractions, the disfavor arising from the Holocaust but in centuries past they may have en masse and it may have been the reason so many were saved from childbirth here on earth (lost virginity today).
I recommend you reflect on this experience, and pray for guidance, for the recall may be stronger.
Throughout history the ruling species bestowed favor upon people or cursed their bloodline into a pattern of disfavor for many generations to come. Now in the 21st century people must take it upon themselves to try to correct their family’s problems, undoing centuries worth of abuse and neglect. The goal is to fix your problems and get out BEFORE you have children. This is why they have created so many distractions for young people:::sports, video games, popular music, the internet, shopping, parties, too much homework, anything that consumes their time::to ensure that doesn’t ocurr.
Not heeding the clues and warnings, getting wrapped up in your life and ultimatly having children is a bad thing. Just as your parents and your grandparents, you too have failed. Having children is a sign you lost your chance.
Parents need to sacrifice for their children. Your children are more important than you. They are the ones who have the opportunity now, and parents must sacrifice to ensure they give their children the very best chance they can. Asking people to neglect their children emotionally is a sign they don’t want you to go, and complying may finish the parents off for good.
Having gay children is a clue parents complied with whatever was asked of them. There are many who have had gay expereinces today.
Improve your relationship with the gods and they may not ask in the first place or they may permit you the courage to say “No.” to their requests.
Do your research. Appeal to the royalty of your forefathers for help. They are all still alive, for royalty has great favor, and your appeals will be heard. Obtain a sufficient list for some may not want to assist you; perhaps some of your family’s problems are internal. Keep an open mind to every possibility for they suggest matriarchal lineage is the norm.
Ask them for help, request guidance, for somewhere in your family history one of your forefathers created an offense that cast your family into this pattern of disfavor, which perhaps is manifested in the evil you commit.
I suspect they will offer you clues, and when you decipher these clues go to those whom consider you an enemy and beg for foregiveness:::Find a path to an empithetic ear among your enemies and try to make amends. Again through discovery obtain a respectable list in case some among them refuse to help.
Don’t forget to ask for forgiveness from the throne, the Counsel and the Management Team, for the source of all disfavor began with them:::they pushed or requested/complied your forefather into his offense and made his decendants evil. Perhaps they didn’t like him or maybe your family was among those who had to pay for the entire village. We see this type of behavior today as they single out a family member to pay for the whole family and how they singled out Africa to pay for the human race. (Never have a negative thought about the gods. Try to purify your mind of these thoughts and recognize the urgency of imporving your relationship with the gods.)
Heal the disfavor with your enemies and with the Counsel/Management Team/ruling species, for the source of all disfavor began with them, the ability to forgive and respect in light of the disturbing truth revealed being the final test of the disfavored before they ascend.
Halloween is a terrible corruptor of children, as is Santa Claus (the similarity between the names “Santa” and “Satan” is no coincidence).
The gods use the grossly disfavored Irish as scapegoats, initiating the annual practice of wickedness on Halloween by creating this Celtic holiday so long ago. They use it to justify making the celebration of evil acceptable behavior among the disfavored of the 20th century::::::
The Irish are used to justify corrupting the children, the gods’ MOST FAVORED AMONG US, and this helps explain their disfavor.
My goodness, that was an awful lot of typing to do for a Rule 3 violation!