Hasan A. Yahya, Professor of Philosophy I received this question from Stephen Fernandes, 29 years old, asked: Do you think God wanted the Earth and all humans men and women to live peacefully in His original plan? You find here my response to the intelligent self-seeking question which is normal among those who find difficulty of understanding the complex aspects of nations and individual life during their mental development. Dear reader:You are 29 years old, and it is common to ask this type of questions under 18. So I believe it is too late for you to ask, but I appreciate your courage, to repeat the question every ten years. According to my knowledge in philosophy, human nature, psychology and sociology, I give you some partial insights to the question, which is in no mean satisfy a young person like yourself, but I have confidence that you will find the answer or may not find it without justification to satisfy your self. And here is the answer: No one knows what God’s original plan was and still is. However, according to my studies of the universe and the creation of evil people first (the Satanic generation), then the good angels, then the human beings, I reached the conclusion that the difference between the three stages of creation have logic, I explained this in my book: Crescentology, Theory C. of Conflict Management and Cultural Normalization. I explained in details, how the first stage Satanic people had no choice to be good, and the second stage angel people have no choice to be bad or evil. I also explained that human. beings where created differently from the previous stages, with different characteristics, while they were created to have both qualities of the first and second stages, Humans were distinguished by the quality of choice according to using their minds. That choice to be good or evil. In other words, God controls the previous two stages, and left the matter on earth to Adam and his family. I believe that God has a purpose in creating these stages, but what that purpose is far beyond our knowledge. To give humans the choice means that you leave them to decide for themselves. This may prove that God is not existent on earth, but somewhere, and may be everywhere, else. The psychological factor competing with sociological factor, created in humans and the struggle between the I and THEY, has something to do with human mental ability. Such ability is divided into two: One spiritual, and the other is physical. In other words, between the mind and the heart, between rationality, and reasoning on one hand and emotions and passions on the other. The magic word in dealing with both is the power of mind rather than the passion. Human beings have the choice, unfortunately through past history, the passion, the materialistic, and the selfishness qualities governed over mental and reasoning abilities. Here we may say, that God kows previously that peace will never comes on earth. Because no attempt from humans was made to be angel-like using one choice of submitting to God, or to be Satan-like using their evil qualities rejecting God’s orders. In conclusion, humans are applying more the animal-like mentality when it comes to their material needs, neglecting the mind to choose what’s best for all not only for oneself or ones nation. In my theory, Crescentology, however, I made it clear that certain rules have to be applied depend on exchanging true (available) knowledge, to promote understanding, in order to appreciate each other on earth, and live finally in peace together. Unfortunately cultures are running in opposite directions in this case following the evil way more than the opposite, which I am afraid of, is to continue that path without using mental abilities which is discarded in any selfish decision. Thank you, and hope this will give you some satisfaction on your thoughts. (663 words) www.hasanyahya.com
Archive for the ‘satanic’ Category
-
God’s Original Plan for Earth and Human-Beings
-
I Am Depressed Over A Breakup, And It Isn’t Getting Any Better
Going through a break up is a terrible feat to reach. Yet, there are a several points and ideas that can help you make it less problematic and more fast-paced. Surely getting over a break up gets more simplified with time but you can take that time go sleeker by keeping a constructive attitude and concentrating on you. Getting over a break up is in reality an ideal time to focus on your life and on improving yourself.nnEven thogh to get over a messy break up it may be influencing to keep on reach the person who hurt you and ask why or endeavour to put the parts back together. This is the most satanic thing you need to play because it holds open the person clear in your mind. You want a little distance to increase some perspective, analyze your feelings and what was wrong from a viewless perspective. Under no settings should you pursue in sexual activity with your ex.n
nWhen you are trying to get over a break up, learn to handle with your emotions at first. You may sense wrath, unhappiness, and guilt. If you want a good scream for awhile, don?t be terrified to do so. It can be good. Your friends and family are there to comfort you so use them. Talk to them about your feelings and take heed to their suggestions. Sometimes a third party can give a fresh aspect on matters and make you feel better. If nothing else materializes, you can be kept occupied with their companionship so you are not thinking of your exn
nWork on your life. In getting over a break up, it is the ideal time to concern about your wishes and needs. Who concerns what your ex thinks? Do you want to shave your head, get new clothes, take a class or make some shifts in your life? This is a uncorrupted time to manage those things. Spoil yourself a little while. You may not have shopped for a new outfit a month ago but do it now. You will feel a lot happier. Don?t overdo it, though, or your money issues might exchange your relationship agonies! Getting over a bad split is not comfortable, but with a few hints and ideas, getting over a break up it is viable.
-
The Satanic Verses of Bhagavad-gita
Bhagavad-gita, also known as Gitopanishad or simply “Gita”, is the essence of Vedic knowledge and one of the most important Upanishads in Vedic literature. ‘The content of the Gita is the conversation between Krishna – who is claimed to be God in human form – and Arjuna – who is regarded as a great & moral human warrior – taking place on the battlefield before the start of the Kurukshetra war. Responding to Arjuna’s confusion and moral dilemma about fighting his own cousins, Krishna explains to Arjuna his duties as a warrior and prince and elaborates on different Yogic and Vedantic philosophies, with examples and analogies. This has led to the Gita often being described as a concise guide to Hindu theology and also as a practical, self-contained guide to life.’ Gita is constituted of 18 chapters, each entailing multiple verses or texts. The main satanic aspects of Gita are described below.
The message of Bhagavad-gita is inherently satanic. To begin with the simplest of criticism, Chapter 9: verse 32 of Gita considers women, alongside vaisyas [merchants] and sudras [workers], to be of lower/inferior birth. And the same verse and verse 33 altogether imply clearly that righteous brahmanas and saintly kings are considered to be of superior birth. So, by “brahmanas”, Gita means males, not females. Chapter 4: verse 13 and Chapter 18: verse 41 altogether mention that Krishna has created brahmanas, ksatriyas [warriors], vaisyas, and sudras as four divisions of human society. Chapter 18: verse 47 & verse 48 collectively make it clear that Gita asks everyone from a division to do work only assigned for their division. Therefore, women who do the works of (male) brahmanas – e.g. the work of a professional teacher – would be irreligious according to Gita. Now, in Chapter 4: verses 7 & 8, Krishna tells Arjuna that to deliver the pious and to annihilate the miscreants, and to re-establish the principles of religion, He, Himself, appears millennium after millennium. This means that all irreligious women, considered as miscreants by Gita, are threatened to death. Even Gita would think it religious to annihilate the irreligious – all of those whose beliefs and practices do not conform to the message of Gita, which would include atheists, agnostics, free thinkers, other religious people like Christians, Muslims, Jews, etc. (To conclude, to this point, “Bhagavad-gita is Hindu terrorism.)
Moreover, the message of Gita is violent. In Chapter 2: verses 31 to 38, Chapter 4: verse 42, and Chapter 11: verses 33 & 34, Arjuna is advised to fight the irreligious people with violent means. If Krishna himself is God and almighty, he must be able to induce the irreligious people to righteous thoughts and deeds with pacific means. Instead of doing so, he wishes bloodshed. (In Chapter 11: verse 32, Krishna mentions that He has come to this world to destroy all people (i.e. millions of people in the battlefield), except few. Only twelve warriors, including Krishna & Arjuna, survived the war.) In Chapter 4: verse 8, Krishna claims that to annihilate the miscreants, he, himself, appears millennium after millennium. Krishna mentions “miscreants”, not “misdeeds”. Further, in chapter 11: verses 33 & 34, Krishna says that he has prearranged the deaths of Arjuna’s irreligious enemies. If deaths can be prearranged, anything can be prearranged, and if that is the case, why Krishna doesn’t prearrange all good in the first place? Doesn’t Krishna – the governing principle of the material manifestation, as he claims himself to be in Chapter 7: verse 30 – do this for his own despicable enjoyment? If he were really good and noble, he would only create numerous pleasant (mental) states of self-realisation – the thing that he hails throughout Gita, including Chapter 3: verse 17 & Chapter 4: verse 35 – and not any of suffering. Isn’t, therefore, Lord Krishna – being responsible for unfathomable violence and suffering – satanic?
Lastly, Gita is full of contradictions, absurdities, and flawed philosophies – its disregard for suffering (As expressed through verses 2:11, 2:14, 2:30, 2:57, etc.), its concept of atman (If there were such a thing called ?tman (i.e. soul), the consciousness of seeing blue colour, for instance, would make incomplete sense on its own, where, in fact, it does apparently make complete sense on its own. In other words, it seems that nothing other than the consc