“There is no good and bad,” said Epictetus, “there is only circumstances.” Alot of things are externals independent of our will, and in the hands of others. One is good, the other is on the contrary bad. But this is bestowoable only upon God who discerns, and who has permitted thus. Don’t tire yourself then. And on that matter, the most important skill to acquire is the ability to see circumstances rather than good or bad.
This is intended to reply those who habitually say and think that most of the successful men and women are wrongdoers, that money is the beginning of all evils, of course giving reasons, and in order to justify their claims. That wealthy men are witches and very bad people. This goes on, attributing all forms of witchery to wealth, but knowing not, that all men are sinners and exist for the better. Wherever you are, with your state, though poor, having all the others unright; and keeping all factors constant, you are corrupted by them enventually. Don’t play safe in many who are wrong. For whoever exercises excellence of virtue in among so many who are bad, is doomed, observes Machaivelli. Imperfection is of nature. Having speculated forth, repentence comes of force, a virtue to men who will see heaven with righteousness as their reward, for not that they didn’t sin, but they excelled in the virtue to the end.
The story henceforth arises, written in the bible, in the book of genesis. Through it, says Kato, “I came to know about Judah; son to Jacob who became Israel.” He was on his way to meet his sheep shearer friends, when he bumped into this beautiful woman. The woman was, in actual sense related to him, and here disguised as a whore. For as fate has truly been. Let’s assume he was tempted. Of course yes; as many of us would affirm after such confrontations. Truly, he was tempted. “Lady, can I come into you.” He said. But which kind of pick up line is this? Poor girl. Judah was the one blessed, among his brothers, to behold the blessings of holiness, that through his lineage came Jesus Christ. And his character then, i believe, so far, was in such a way; to behold the blessings such as this, and for also, in truth, think brethrens; blessings are worked, for rightly, as Sir Francis Bacon stipulates in his essay, “fortune,” that the mould of a man’s fortune is in his own hands. So the story goes on and on. But however, we can’t separate Judah’s action– even if we presume he was warped, or from without, that it was devine– from the assumptions raised in this discourse, and since we have decided to question our assumptions too, this was sin.
The story raises profound discoveries and already that the conversation was positive and yielding fruits, evidence to this thesis that this man was not innocent at all, rather; that he was used to such confrontations, and as can be any man. He could go to the red zones true or that this confrontation to come, was not willed, as usual, but originating from the devine certainly; for fulfillment and with such, I can’t begin to urge, for if you do; you remain as before- puzzled! Nonetheless, still the assumptions beforehand are cospiscous; clearly to exhibit somehow that the man in question used to seek pleasures from these kind of areas or from women such as this- still the presumption holds ground. We ask ourself the question then, why did the woman disguise in the first place? Why didn’t she just appear as decent a woman as these whence also face such confrontations as they carry on their businesses? Why of all avenues this one? Finally, i say, “to catch a thief, behave like one.” And because they were related, she had to disguise. Then for the devine, as in it’s true nature, is just with reasons. It uses present and past to exhibit direction or that it holds earth at ransom to magnanimously show piety, still corresponding to present and past, the future is in equilibrium then; and that so much depends on speculation. What then this is? None existence can’t impact a lesson to existence rationally and reasonably. Use what there is to envice the intended truth in cases where not. The story such as this, portrays a reason, and so many speculative ideas. But about my subject matter, indicates truth of existence. This is our only proof probably that rationally, the said woman knew about the whereabouts of the man in question and still proof that probably; out there, she wasn’t the only one in the vice, being that herself, no doubt, by mere fact of one act; she was indeed a whore, yes, at that instant. And that prostitution was in existence already.
But why did the woman disguise? “Was there reason.” Yes. Being moral, we assume still, she was new to these areas and passionately desirous to trap moral man. And whoever saw her by surprise, coined the word, “disguised,” definitely, or, either that being related; the man would have spotted the similarity, and so, that this secret came to light and people came to know about it. And when in the public domain, the culprits tried to save face. All this is speculation. But why in question, “disguised whore?” Supposedly, this is proof, inversely, “undisguised whore” existed.
True then, by acts evil, and in as much as we feign; we don’t hold ground. And whoever said, “brethren, dear brother, repent seven times 77 times was wholly right.” The good should ask, do we then do it daily. Do we do it weekly. Let the man with wisdom ask. Do we do it monthly. It’s not said so; rather plainly and presumptuously, that the good should do it daily. And the good are those who try by inclination to obey what’s moral. The right are not anywhere except those cleansed from wrong doing, who already by now, suppossedly, are in heaven. We have finally got the answer from the premises, that he who wishes to be good by inclination is of earth by nature and should co-exist with the man who forces himself to be bad for is warped, and who like wise is of nature. God didn’t create a bad people, they are only warped. This comes by reason of their behaviors and actions– obstinancy. But still, from the assumptions, evil is he who doesn’t repent to be cleansed of the bad and continues to be so by acts and that the righteous man is of heaven, speculate no more. He is righteous he who is in heaven. I infer. Sin existed in the ancient of days, and partly now in the archives of history, and signifies evolution. I use it here to interrogate morality philosophically, and though many sins there are; none is new and from a rational point of view, having examined this, we have been of the same abode for so long, no one is innocent. It’s then observed rightly, “birds of a feather flock together.” And as it’s difficult to see creatures not of a kind in a flock, so as to interest whoever looks at them; so it’s to the things different and separated devinely. To those of a kind, and supposedly the same; it’s not surprising. Why say you are holy in many who are evil? I conjecture truly, don’t try to mix things. Be of the same state and consider what keeps you at your state.
Adam also sinned and the curse was carried by all. “Should we say he was bad and obstinate!” Some go the extreme and wish, ooh how they wish? “He should have listened to the deamon” “He should have not sinned.” But why do you pain for nothing? This was meant to be. It was devine and by providence, it was out of Adams control. Jacob and Esau were both symbols of good and destruction respectively without there will still but devinely– one vessel unto honor and another unto dishonor? Things though different exist for the better and prudently they should not mix, rather should co-exist in the same abode affecting each other for the better or worse, for outrightly, we are born for co-operation. And that God finally, being aware of stauch qualms, intervenes when all goes to the extreme, and being supreme, above everything else there is, keeps the status quo in equilibrium.
Good or bad- it’s not our will. What did Epictetus say about things external? “Don’t be pained by them. Don’t plan in them.” Why do you pain for nothing? Likewise, why do you concern yourself for nothing? They are in the hands of the master who created them and in the hands of others who are somehow not concerned about your will. And if it’s their will, they act not as slaves; but the masters though instead, you actually act as a slave. The master craftsman is God as we have enviced obviously, therefore, in a word, he has willed everything, so unease yourself.
One asks, “was the sin committed by Adam related in any way to ours?” Answer. Dear friends who are compelled to doubt irresolutely, believe, sin is sin: not lighter, not heavier for if the world so sinned, that was corresponding to nature, and it was on the contrary though the devine willed it– devine is anything of the sort. Then, if we have observed singularly that the mastercrafts man has willed everything. Nothing happens asunder above providence, its difficult for man to lead a life in the world devoid of God, and certainly, this confirms this: that everything has been willed by Providence, coming from whom contends so. Why then do we blame ourselves? Why condemn our brothers? It was the will of God for some people to be stauch qualms and here not by the will of nature. Who can then tell? It was the will of God for others to be good creations just like Jacob, being the chosen few; and Esau for destruction. This confirms co-existence. Good or bad. And the sin, was it lighter? Was it heavier in that it lead to a punishment so harsh such as this! Was it small that it could lead to mercy! But we are under yoke still; even those of us who didn’t sin? Did we finally plead guilty from without? Yes. One sin covered the face of the earth and became seamless to it; that whoever comes of it, is guilty by virtual– he is of earth still. The condemnation went forth to be shared by all men. It’s not our conscious that we can avoid it, then, and that, it was willed by God. This affirms the truth, that whoever is righteous is so by acts of repentence, for having been sinners by virtual; to become of God, an act had to be performed, that innocent blood had to be shed for all of us, and though it exists, we evoke it through acts such as this: repentence. So who then is pious? Man has limits to it for it should be corresponding to his nature, supposedly of human things; not of angels: abstaining from evil deeds and thoughts where still the rule is observed, and in truth– abstaining from only those under their control. And so far, come to it again, consider:- he who has stolen an egg. And another who has stolen a book. If given the opportunity to judge rightly without bias. How do you judge? Judge rightly friend, for it’s your turn to acquit humanity. I say, sin is proportional! Don’t say to a brother that you are worse off. For as it happens to him who stole an egg, happens to who stole a book. This explains partly why we are under yoke still. And when God so wills to visit his annoited, “the good,” it’s for all; likewise, when the wrath portioned for the bad ensues, we are rightly ensnared by it. For it comes as afflictions, and it’s also said, that life is made of pain and pleasure and happens to all. This is the reason why men with silver spoons spontaneously weal for no reason in the eyes of the populance. “Will man live only for peace!” Certainly not. Nothing is evil which is according to nature.
What is said of adversity then? Look, pain is of nature connoting that it’s of the earth and happens to all; for God created everything therein and his will on all therein. We are not safe then, observe, but our portion of righteousness is in heaven and awaits on whoever pains to the end. And addressed to the good, says he, “I refined you, but not as silver, I have tested you in the furnace of afflictions.” This is the will of the master most high. It will not go unfulfilled. And even though you may disagree– don’t wish it away. This all comes of effect from without, fulfilling what was given to our grand fathers, and who on the contrary disobied on the onset? Must we also not obey: the ten commandments? Must we be obstinate? We must obey by law. What is contrally to this by definition is unright. What is contrally to nature but of the same from as of the assumptions mentioned, still, is sin? Is nature of the earth or of heaven? Kato answer. If nature is of the earth, and we have observed already; that good or bad exist for the better, is the allegory then not contrally to the laws. Nature is of man, yes, for all creatures corresponding, true, not of heaven. Observe, corresponding to nature is sin absolutely. Who then contends to be innocent? Do the righteous exist accordingly and of a kind to nature? Certainly not. He has not been forgiven in order to qualify. And as we have ellucidated, contrally to nature is that which is of heaven. I conjecture therefore, that righteousness is of heaven; and is come after repentance, of which, also, it’s in order, that man qualifies.
What did Solmon tell us finally? Consider this my critics; the words in Ecclesiastes 9:4:
“Don’t be overly righteous.” This is worth all acceptance. It’s a goad to a man who has choosen wisdom, his asset and a path of action; not hypothesis and lies. Why should you destroy yourself? Nature as mentioned above, with all it’s composition combined, is unright. It’s not just. This lastly is a testimony to our assumptions, and he who is holy or righteous on earth exists on the contrary.
I have pointed out that those of us who seem to be righteous pretend, or rather we are, superficially, and if so, we shun repentence most times; which here in this discourse is a virtue. What comes first? Repentence. Who has been forgiven? No one. There is no proof to that. So peddler of words, why do you condemn and divide things supposedly of a kind and mix things separated devinely? Why do you play holy yet inherently you are not? And in a word: the blame game must stop. We are all of God and made unright by nature. Jeremiah 17:5, says: “cursed are those who put there trust in mere humans, who rely on human strength and turn their hearts away from God.” God already knows the nature of this creature in question, and that sin is of man by nature. Don’t be lured into believing the many falsehoods. Observe piety which is corresponding to your kind and to nature and not that supposedly of the angels. For these also are separated devinely. Don’t mix.
If we can recall truth therefore, as already mentioned, righteousness is of heaven not of the earth. “Where is the righteous man who ever lived?” In heaven. Well answered. “Who is that?” Jesus. Where is the most corrupt man who ever lived? Answer. Where is he? On earth. Is there reason? Certainly. For from this, sin comes virtually without our will, and it justifies the reason why i said it comes from without? Therefore, cultivate piety and prepare for holiness in heaven, saint of saints through and after repentence, forgiveness then comes virtually. When this fails, you remain of the same abode forever with bad man who ever lived- being great descendants of satan. And you are not holy, be assured.
Sin is a general weakness and has not started yesterday. John 1:8 says: “If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves. And the truth is not in us.” Those preaching a purge in immorality, saying our fore fathers lived righteously fail to realize reason which is paramount to rational animals. Things must be applied to reason. And if generally we believe there’s mutation of species which is of God and if we believe that God said to Adam that multiply and fill the earth. I presume it was a law. Was it of human things only! Was it of creatures only! Was it of herbs! “It applied generally,” well answered. I conjecture, truly then, that the leaders of all other species also were commanded. Certainly. If human things multiplied in order to fill the earth, still, all that which belonged to human things multiplied gradually, and all that which is of use by humans. After purging, it’s then not new. It’s not change rather progress. Worry not. And sin is evolving persay from a rational point of view. So the question arises, “How do you catch a man in wrong.” By views contrally to his. “How then do you catch a sinner?” By sin. Therefore, sin is a trap, observe, and can be applied by any one who chooses to do so in order to catch who seems to be holy– moral man.
In this case, the story envinces how God reminded Judah of his forgotten responsibility by existence, a need and partly attached to sin; for from Adams story, the same thing was also served and finally fulfillment came. Henceforth, the big fish was caught. And for centuries it’s said, “pleasure is good but moderately,” reason, that it is naturally cojoined to sin.” Excess of it is a trap and so leads to sin. And to endure is just and pain is of God. For having said: “Do all things without complaining,” was reffering to endurance. And the people under yoke are of God. Tolerant people are of God too. Endure your brother. Endure your sister. If good or bad, let God be the judge. For good or bad comes through actions:- done either at the right time or at the wrong time. So all things can lead to unright, from whence, comes sin, even from without. You don’t hold ground righteous man.
The story I am speculating about came after Christ probably or before Christ. The vices existed. Some for wages even; can you believe! Bottom line, nothing is new.
My reasoning is this so, in this part of the world; there lived undisguised whore, still as said. And this was in the middle East. Holy of holies, where if perchance; you’re caught in the habits such as this, and generally immoral, punishment there was to be stoned to death out rightly.
Men clad in overalls just like women. A game of innocence at play. But still even when ladies are clad in overalls, their animal magnetism in presence of the law, leads men astray. And rightly, the presence of the law, confirms the presence of sin.
The law plays the arbiter and not to annihilate but ideally to confirm as in these situations, some play innocence, in angel clothes indeed, yet they are worse off.
I don’t think this good woman, who had just been in a happy marriage; except that fate had just lurked at her happiness and caused a sudden death of her good and lovely husband, with the presumptions above considered, plain and with little understanding if any; I don’t think she invented the business. It existed. And still exists. For many years immemorial, it has always existed.
Why then blame who are considered guilty? Why then believe they are sinners more than those who are way too much worse adorned in angel clothes. We are drawned here naturally and all practice these things as we may say legally or illegally in ways known to many: in marriage for example et. al. Its your opinion, good man, to judge which is safe but sin can ensue from any. This good woman captured in the story, circumstances forced her in the vice. It was not will. For as it’s said, the love of money is the beginning of evil. Money deciphers its ugly evils to good ones. And people build houses out of vices immoral and still call them jobs. How? Don’t ask! In these cases, consquently, this is partly true, sometimes, sin can be good and am not emphasising the act, for it always happens. Example is murdering a fellow man in self-defense or in acts of war. And consider this also, “God has not dealt with us according to our sins,” probably knowing good or bad exist for the better. Why then judge fellow men? If God is patient to the sinners, so much, and to that extent, why do you curse suspects of the most high. Holy of hollies, you sin still.
Now probably you’re thinking I am wasted. Good God! As you are reading, sounding like, I am earnestly pro sin; and benefit from it. Not at all. Bear with me, for it’s just a case scenario to connote my meaning of the subject matter. And if the vice existed in AC or BC, whichever, you can’t obliterate it after so many years.
God knows why? For if like said, Esau and Jacob sons to Isaac through a prophecy were born different. Esau as a vessel for destruction and Jacob a vessel for mercy as enviced, portray no will but fate. God willed it. And some people, certaily, are stauch qualms because the gods have willed it– blame not. The devine is responsible for everything. For most times, as far as AC, and so far, believe, when the devine is at war with each other; we are involved, being sons and daughters, and having different fathers–the good and the bad respectively–there is concensus henceforth between the powers that be. And as yet, having observed so, such as this, the righteous man and the sinner, if this is for continuity, living and going no where as it has existed time immemorial. The sons should not fight but acknowledge presence, and take sides respectively, having been born vessels for destruction or so; having powers either side still, but whoever has willed such, man can’t change. And such as these, the powers also take time to change their laws; yes, unless if the powers stipulated concede defeat, that, one takes lead. But it’s definitely heavenly. Earth is a constituency of sin, and it’s going no where. Acknowledge you are a sinner, from without, for being in the very consituency. Acknowledge fate. Acknowledge sin and repent.