first four chapters of my book summerized

Chapter 1:

                This chapter focuses on the beginnings of religion as an entity. Its analysis is taken from many disciplines such as Archaeology, Anthropology, Psychology and early metaphysical writings. It explains that religion has been apparent in early forms of art and oral tradition, for example evidence of ritual burying of the dead and symbolism via shapes and colors.  My assertion in this opening chapter is to give a brief background on the roots of religion in early human societies, what role is served and why that role later helped develop cultures and societies.  I also want to make clear, monotheism did not evolve from polytheism, and there are similarities in stories but that the idea for one god over many was not an evolution of religion. 

Chapter 2:

                Early Christianity has its beginning with the new testament, so that is where I start. I discuss the origin myth (as presented in the Bible) and delve into a few others which have similar elements, such as Epic of Gilgamesh, Islam Creation myth, Norse, Native American, Greek…I also go into the etymology of the words used to denote god in the Abrahamic texts; i.e. Elohim and YHWH. My point with this chapter is to merely show the parallels among elements in early creation myths and show how early creators of religions and beliefs used what they understood about the world they live in to create stories which explain origins. I will get more into parallels later in the book, but this does touch on the parallels of thought given the human experience at the time, regardless of geography. I attempt to only show ideas crossing between the myths at this point. *My goal for the reader is to open the mind to similarities amongst varying stories*

Chapter 3:

                My case here is simple, to give a historical account of the Abrahamic religions and the divergence between the three. I want to show how Christianity and Islam evolve from Judaism, and the evolution of Judaism itself from oral traditions of the region. This will be split into three sections

A.      Judaism Origins

B.      Christianity branches off

C.      Islamic branch off

My goal is to show that the three Abrahamic religions are all able to be linked back to common village stories spread across the Middle Eastern population. Also, I was to show that since the three religions can be traced back, why was there a split in essential ideologies that make the three so vastly different today? 

Chapter 4:

                Alternate reality sequence, what if Christianity had not become the dominant religion and Constantine had not converted from Pagan religion to Christianity. Also, run down the sequence for how difficult it was prior to Constantine to become a Christian and why if Constantine had not converted Christianity would have probably never left the Middle East, much like Islam. This chapter will touch on a few pagan symbols that made it into popularized Christianity, such as the cross, the fish, and even “Amen,” since they inevitably helped the spread of Christianity by seeming a bit more familiar…it was a great advertising campaign “look a new religion that is just like the old one but completely different join now!!!” 

preface to my book

Religion/ Reality – What is religion, really?

Dedication:

To my father, who always made me figure it out for myself.

Preface:

                You can say this book is about Abrahamic religions, i.e. Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. I would venture to say, it is about much more than those three as I delve into the root of these mythos and discover the origins of the stories repackaged into these faiths. I draw parallels, conclusions and irrationalities amongst all these religions and then some to show the root of the belief structure and to point out its faults.

                I feel the need to point out a few key ideas before you begin. I will not say that I am debating the existence of god, as that is topic for another book. Religion and God are separate entities and must be dealt with as such. All religions worship deities, not everyone who worships deities subscribes to a religion. Spirituality is not Christianity just as much as it is not Judaism or Islam; spirituality is the search for a path to enlightenment, whether your path included a deity of some sort in entirely up to you. This book is not about spirituality or god, but I felt that it should be acknowledged as separate from religion as well.

                What is this book about then; a fair question, to say the least?  This book is split into two parts. The first half of the book will relate to what makes up these religions. I dare use the word evolution, a bit ironically I suppose, in saying that religion is the evolutionary byproduct of thousands of years of oral tradition, questions, postulations and a desire for reason/ purpose as well as an understanding of origin. To say these things would imply that the religious texts that are held in high esteem in religious circles today reiterate stories and philosophy historically found in other cultures and time periods which predate the writings of these “modern” biblical texts.

                The second half will deal with philosophical implications, some of which have changed human history, that were derived from the previous oral stories and traditions. I will make note of many popular myths about Abrahamic religions that are apparent in western culture such as homosexuality, dichotomy murder and killing, righteousness vs. morality, ambiguity of beliefs among the believers ect. . Many of the stipulations I put forward into this part of the book will be drawing from varied disciplines, from metaphysics, physics, philosophy, psychology and many more.

                Who should read this book? Have you ever wondered where the narrative in the bibles around the world came from? Did you even know that most came from somewhere other than the authors pen? This is not a book that is supposed to make your mind up for you but rather, I hope a book to help you rationally decide where you stand in the issue of religion. I feel the need again, as with many of the debates I have had, that I am not arguing the presence, existence, omnipotence or power of any deity; I am not arguing for a lack thereof either.  

                The title for this book is Religion/ Reality, it is meant not to say that religion isn’t a part of reality, which is clearly the case. Rather it is meant in the sense that what people believe about religions may not be reality, or truthful for that matter. My reason for writing this book was to help myself clarify why I myself am not a religious person. I have always been taught to seek out my own answers and after years of research, thought and debate on this particular topic, I have answered a question I have had since I went to Lutheran school as a boy; “Is religion for me?” This book goes well past that, but from that mindset I set off to learn as much as possible about religions of the world, their histories, philosophies, traditions and biblical records.  This is a book about what religion really is, and because of what it is, I will never be subscriber to any of it.

I have faith in logic!

Faith: a firm belief in something for which there is no proof.
Logic: the science of reason.
Reason: statements conforming to/ agreeing with fact or known truth offering explanation or justification.

Given those definitions, it seems contradictory to say "I have faith in logic." But when a family member said the following:

...You've lived long enough to know that some things just don't make logical sense. If it can be figured out, why would you need faith? When you come right down to it, everybody has something, or things, that they believe "by faith". Even you..."

Of course, I use this blog as a tool to counteract such statements without offending anyone and without the fear of completely alienating relatives with my objections and rationalizations. Thus my rebuttal...

The first thing that came to mind after reading that was “I have faith in logic." After further thinking about it on the way home and throughout the evening, I have concluded that that statement is a contradiction, but the English language as I know it does not allow me to quickly and clearly express how my sentiments toward Logic.

Logic is undeniable and always correct. You (as the person using logic) may be wrong, but it is not the fault of logic, it is your use of the science, you are the human error behind the format, this is called a fallacy.

I do not know of anything that "...(doesn't) make logical sense." Perhaps my understanding and application of the logic is incorrect, but that does not make the topic of debate in discord with correct and accurate logical analysis.

As my family member correctly states "If it can be figured out, why would you need faith?" That is indeed the question to ask. I do not need faith, I do, however need logic to base my opinions and conditional statements on! Faith itself can be based on a logical need for understanding in cases where the capacity for that understanding is lacking. It is why magic shows are so fascinating to children, they see the rabbit come out of the hat where they were sure there was none before, and they have faith that magic just happened! Their understanding of the trick is not there and thus the faith what makes up for the gap between what they originally saw and what happened next. If all children were shown logically how it is done, it would ruin the trick for them since now they have an understanding and do no longer need of the faith to believe in magic. If I showed you how the universe works and how life was created, basically the magic of the universe, you would no longer need faith, just like that child you now know how and why that rabbit came out of the hat.

Just because science and logic \does not know the answers all right away does not give reason for faith just to fill the gaps in knowledge. If anything, it should be a reason against faith since science is showing to be correct, the fact that I am writing this on a computer, putting it online and you are reading it is a testament to logic and science.

A popular argument is that I have faith in the scientist, as if the scientists were the magician and what they are showing me is their brand of magic. This is a fallacy in the sense you are assuming that I think every scientist is correct and I would take their word right off the bat without regard to experimental analysis and debate over findings. I admit, some of the science goes over my head, but that does not mean I have faith that they are correct in their theory or findings. It means I am relying on those who are professionals that have studied and have been taught the intricacies of the science in question to criticize and try their best to prove false, using science and logic, what the other scientist said. If enough of the scientists that know what they are talking about agree then I consider it, try to understand and make my own personal assessment given the data presented to me. If you want to say that all scientists are in cohort with each other then you have resorted to conspiracy theory and have just excused yourself from debate.

Debate between Jack Levy(JL) and Brad (BM) on a quote.....

In science, 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.' I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms. - Stephen Jay Gould

Debate:
BM: Should string theory be taught then?

JL:Of course! Its a theory! The possibility of string theory being accurate or leading to a more accurate theory is highly probable. Compared or a theory that an apple will start to rise rather than fall, the two have no basis of comparison.

BM:How is string theory more likely to be true? A theory is developed based on testable hypotheses. String theory was not developed based on experimental observations. It's just a story to help tie certain perspectives in physics together. Science is supposed to be based on skepticism and string theory proponents are acting opposite to that approach.

JL:Any theoretical physics would suffer under those parameters. Even relativity begins to falter and, according to that standard, shouldn't be taught if we follow that logic. For that matter the theory of gravity should not be taught either, since our current understanding of it falls to the waste side once we get into the quantum state. Theoretical physics is full of thought experiments, minute (comparably) amounts of data and varying degrees of accuracy and is mostly based on mathematical computation and models based on observations.

Stephen Hawking would be out of a job if we followed that criteria as his landmark hawking radiation can not possibly (yet) be tested. Skepticism is great if you got the math to back up you postulation. String theory is a mathematically a plausible road to take...an apple rising on its own has little (i'll give it a little) to no plausible mathematical basis.

BM:That's why I'm wondering what the difference is between thought experiments in physics compared to any logic-based viewpoint? It seems like our understanding of the world can be completely different. The strings of string theory are just as likely to be seen tomorrow as an apple rising upwards. My frustration is that the filter for what is merited as physics is based on who you are in the field of physics rather than what you say.

Gould's quote that "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to without provisional assent" can negate so many viewpoints in physics. Yet, physicists use that argument to debunk other "unscientific" theories that were not created by reputable people in the field.

Physics is going through an identity crisis. People used to say "we are the hard science, the science of the observable and measurable." Now they realize that the scope of that science is limiting since it cannot explain all of the questions we hope to answer regarding our universe. So now it is more acceptable to think in a more philosophical framework about the physical world. Now people can have valid beliefs in physics without it needing to be tested.

Physics, just like any other type of knowledge-seeking, is a social activity. An apple can rise upward tomorrow just as easily as Hawking can change his mind on whether a supreme being is compatible with the science of our universe. The physics of the world doesn't change, but our perspectives do.

JL:Fact is extremely different than theory. What is theory cannot be accepted as fact scientifically speaking. Gould's quote is good for factual basis but can not be accurately applied to anything still in the realm of theoretical physics.

I will grant you the point that theoretical physics is leaning towards the realm of philosophical thinking to an extent; however we can not neglect the mathematical aspect which is the defining chasm between the two. The mathematics, models and data are what give the direction to the thought experiments and lead to better equipment for discovering truth. I disagree with the idea that physics is going through an identity crisis simply by understanding the intent of theoretical physics. its intent is to not say this is true and this is not, as you mentioned earlier the idea of any science is to be skeptical and experiment to show truth. As technology advances theory will move out of this field and into the field of observation and experimentation. Unless you are suggesting that we stop creating newer ideas simply because out technology is not as advanced as our motivation for thought?

Logic based view points would be the famous Schrödingers cat thought experiment, where logical deduction of obvious facts are interpreted to imply a reason for observed behavior (double slit experiment being one). However, we can not say why the particles behave the way they do other than to speculate theoretically and further research ways to measure the seemingly immeasurable i.e. the point where the particle becomes a wave and vice versa.

"An apple can rise upward tomorrow just as easily as Hawking can change his mind on whether a supreme being is compatible with the science of our universe. "

That statement is incorrect, as it would take serious mathematical computation and many models to postulate otherwise. At the time Hawking came up with the theory it was yet to be able to be tested and experimented (I am guesstimating in the mid 70's is when this was theorized but I may be off a few years). However recently experiments are showing this to be a real possibility, so almost 40 years later we have just begun to be technologically able to observe. Theoretical physics is the hypothesis of the greater scientific process which takes, as we have seen, many many years to follow through.

My point is that it is not simply "oh i changed my mind" it is more like "i think this, math supports me, let me check my math, yes its good, lets see if others can find a problem with my math, nope okay this is my theory!.....years later ok we have this new measuring device lets see if the theory was right, yes we see what my grandfather predicted the theory is now tested hypothesis and put through skepticism and repetition of experiments to validate the findings."

BM:Gould's quote is the opposite of being good for a factual basis. Gould even admits that scientific facts are not truths. “Facts” only state that we think an event is more likely to occur because we have observed it occur a certain way in the past. Gould even implies that there is a possibility, although not a probability, that an apple can rise upward.

I feel that you put too much faith in math and that math rules lining up is a sign that something is a law of nature. Math is just a bunch of rules based on symbols that we have assigned values to. Just like language and the rules of logic. Yet, the rules of logic can be flawed just like the rules of math. Mathematics is a logic game and the history of math has shown that the rules of math can change and the values we assign to mathematical concepts can change. Math is a human endeavor.

Physics, like any science, is just a certain way we assign values to what we observe. A good science allows multiple viewpoints so there is a larger discussion in the field regarding how we interpret the world around us. Saying an apple can rise upward is more valuable than saying “an apple always falls downward” since it challenges conventional viewpoints and leads to questions of “why can’t this happen?” rather than statements saying “we are fairly certain that the next apple to fall will fall downward since the apples we have observed so far have fallen downwards.” The “why can’t this happen?” questions have led to the most advanced scientific revolutions.

If the history of science is any indicator then the physics we currently study now, with all these complex math proofs, will be inadequate and wrong in the eyes of future physicists. Science needs to come to terms with what is it--a human process. We observe with our human senses and interpret with our human perspectives. We are the tools of science and we are terribly horrible at accuracy.

JL:Gould places the term fact in the reference of science and that is what I was referring to, his definition is a good one when referring to "fact" in science. I should have clarified that, I meant that Fact cannot be used to be accurately applied to anything still in the realm of theoretical physics. Sorry my mistake there.

I am not sure what you mean by the rules of math has changed? Rules have been added and new maths created but when has it actually changed. Math, form my understanding, is the only thing that has not changed since its initial inception, it continues to grow at a phenomenal rate and has become an integral part of everything we know. If you are considering additions to math, like the evolution of algebra into calculus and such, as change then I would disagree on the basis that the rules are the same for advanced and mediocre math, it is the difference of scope and analysis of the problems at hand. I put a lot of as you call "faith" in mathematics as it has never been wrong. Point out one time when correct math, with all the data, has been wrong (not statistics, thats a low blow)? Logical foundations give mathematics more than just certainty-they are a tool to investigate the unknown.

I disagree, you can say all you want that the apple will rise, however facts and proof of the phenomenon needs to be present for it to be valid to be taught. It would be like me bringing up the idea that you are going to turn the apple into a frog because you waved a wand. Should Harry Potter effects be taught in physics because someone thinks that it is possible but with no proof of the phenomena, either mathematically of via observation?

I agree that the "what if?/ why not?" questions most certainly drive science! That is the heart and soul of any science from social to physical ect. However, simply asking the question does not warrant the teachings of it until it has been through at the very least its first trial of research.

For anything in physics to be taught it has to be real physical science. Thus it has to be predictive. What matters most in science is not how you explain something, but how accurately you can forecast the outcome of an experiment. Theoretical physics, to that end, can not satisfy that prerequisite until it has been put through a proof. As technology is adept at the moment, mathematics and models are all we have. Show me a model that has an apple rise and I will say that its mechanism should be taught and researched until understood and replicated consistently.

Logic and math is the only basis of proof we have. Our own senses can be of hindrance to us so even observation is flawed. You said "Math is a human endeavor." True, however would you believe something you saw over logic? If you would, then you are saying that a magic show full of illusion is real, where as logic tells you that, there is no way that man just sawed her in half and put her together again. Thus logic would trump any observation made by out sense, as you said we are horrible at accuracy. You mentioned your frustration was with what was the "filter for what is merited as physics," that filter (for theoretical physics) is mathematics/ logic at least until we can experiment futher.

I challenge you to find a logical argument that is wrong, not a logical fallacy mind you. Find a real argument that follows the rules of logic that after verification proves to be wrong.

BM:You emphatically say that "what if?/why not?" questions drive science but then you say those question do not warrant teachings of those questions. What is science but a series of questions in search of answer? We should absolutely have our students challenge every theory, concept, and "fact" in a science for it to evolve successfully instead of just proselytizing them with rules which we believe to be true.

Even in math rules have changed. Just look at the history of infinity. Mathematicians believed that infinity could not exist. Both Plato and Aristotle wrote books defining the limit of numbers. Then the need for an infinity became apparent by Newton when creating rules for calculus. This changed both rules and major perspectives in mathematics.

Mathematics is just a language that humans have created to symbolize the world. It is a human creation. The rules of mathematics will change depending on whether you're looking at nature through a ten-base math system or a binary math system.

Even within the science of math there are hypotheses that cannot be proven. For instance, the Continuum Hypothesis which has actually been proven to not be approvable or disprovable. If math is the language of nature and there is a complete set of laws that can be described by math then we should be able to use math to describe everything. Except, ya know, some math hypotheses.

Math and physics are just as limiting as any set of logic or language rules humans create. Our best thing to do is to remain skeptics of current knowledge. If anything in the history of science teaches us it is that rules and theories change. Scientific perspectives are modified. And often, we are proven wrong. We want to teach our students to be the most bad-ass critical people possible. To see if we can see things from other perspectives, even if that means questioning what is up or down in their world.

The concept that there are concrete laws of nature in both physics and math is the worst mental state to put our students in. We want them to test new ideas, challenge current ones and we cannot do that by telling them that this is how the world works because symbols that we assigned a numerical value to proves it is so with rules that we created. It is wonderful when a set of human created rules can fit some people's perspectives of the world around us. It's not great for us to say that those rules are the default state of our world.

JL:There is nothing implying empathy on my part in relation to the "What if/ Why not?" questions. They are truly and absolutely the foundation for the area we have come to know as science. I still proclaim that they are not something we should teach. We should teach the asking of the questions, of course! Without teaching students to ask those questions we will become scientifically stagnant. However, we should not be teaching questions like "Why don't jolly ranchers grow on trees?" Does that question really deserve equal time in the class room as say the question “Why do germs make us sick” or “What is the magnetic poles shifted here on earth?” We would never get anywhere if every single question ever asked was taught to every student. My point is that simply asking the question does not merit scientific teaching, you must first as the question, conclude that it is a valid question by understanding the implications, and then explore via the scientific method. My jolly ranchers question sounds more like an advertisement for the hard candy (which are awesome) than as a suspect phenomenon, and thus should not warrant teaching to a student in biology.
Your example of infinity is flawed, in the sense that just because the concept was not known worldwide, does not negate the mathematical implications that had already governed the laws of nature. Of course we had to learn the concepts, us learning the concept does not mean that the math has changed, it just means that we had not learned that idea yet. For example, god as the prime mover, as a scientist you cannot ever say with 100% fact that there is not god. Just because we do not understand the concept and its implications does not mean that some day it won’t be discovered, as the Mayans implied god might be in the numbers. But just because we do not know that math yet, does not mean that it is not acting on the natural world. As you point out, math is just a human created symbolist system, but that system is what allows us to share and logically deduce the actual phenomena that we see.
Your point is a epistemological, do we know that our math is right, is the nature of our math the same as natures math. In that respect math has “changed” in the sense that sometimes our math is inadequate to describe the universe around us. “The rules of mathematics will change depending on whether you're looking at nature through a ten-base math system or a binary math system. “That line is without a doubt wrong in every way. The maths that you described are following every single rule the same exact way. I can make the same computation, come up with the same exact and precise answer with either system. The only thing that makes them different would be that I can do ten based usually in my head and binary I need to write down. For example, when you figure out on a binary clock what time it is, you are simple converting between two systems but the answer is still the same.

Your example of the CH is a logical fallacy, as you say that it cannot be proven or not and that since math should be able to describe everything, and yet it can’t describe its own hypothesis. It is a fallacy because as I previously said, math sometimes needs new maths to adequately describe the universe, and your misconception is that to prove or disprove anything we need accurate math to describe the conditions, and because it is unable to be proven, we obviously do not. I am not proficient with the CH concept, however, I am pretty sure it has to do with set theory (don’t quote me) and if that is the case then our current understanding of sets just do not satisfy, in analogy we need to learn to understand infinity for that new math to be invented so that CH is then proven or disproven. However our current set theory suffices for most calculations. Just like algebra suffices for most everyday computation but to figure out how to launch a shuttle you need calculus. Calculus isn’t even the end of it I am sure, as some of the computation that we may need for interstellar travel, or worm hole creation or some other really cool thing, we may need a new math which can more accurately describe the conditions that we encounter. Let’s call that math Jackulus! Jackulus will follow the same logical barrier that cal and algebra do, that does not make it a change to the basis of math, just an addition to the way we commutate and understand nature. There is not one argument or example shows a change in how new maths operate different than old ones. Just like me may need new words for new social interactions, when Webster’s dictionary added the text phrase “LOL” did that change English in its foundations, no or course not. It merely added to the existing framework to allow for better communication of ideas. That’s what happens when new math is added.

If any teacher ever says this is how the universe operates and that point is final, I want to kill them. However, when a teacher says this is how physics works, this is what you need to learn how to do then that is what the student should learn. If they find a problem with the science, then yes ask about it, and if you can show (with proof) that something is wrong then the kid gets a nobel because he furthered the science to better understanding. However to question physics by saying for example, the law of entropy is wrong, and not show, that does not say that everyone should now learn that entropy is wrong simply because some student questioned it. That’s preposterous! However if one day our current understanding of entropy is shown to be wrong either through models or observations and experiments then yes now it should be proven wrong. Don’t discourage the question, but if someone is saying something is wrong demand some sort of proof that we can all analyze and see for ourselves.

Humans did not create the rules; we weren’t even around when the rules happened! Humans try to understand the rules, and that’s where your argument falters, in thinking that we somehow have a say in the rules is saying that we are the prime movers. If we made the rules then we should be able to break them…just like social laws…man made them and man can break them. We can only look at the laws of nature, and describe them to the best of our ability and as ability and mathematical vocabulary grows we understand it better.

Something that a friend wrote and I added to on Facebook...i thought it sounded pretty cool.

2:00pm - 2:30
Somewhere in that interval, I am cruising in my vehicle, across Bearrs Avenue. The sky is azure. The humidity seems to be on a short vacation. All of a sudden, I get this feeling like my truck is going to blast off into the stratosphere. For a few seconds, I felt as if I was really flying above the clouds. Transcending space and time may not be science fiction after all.

Reality had for that brief moment trespassed into a skewed surrealist depiction of the cosmic elation. Then as if the singularity of the moment bursts into its Big Rationality Bang... reality hits and I realize that its just a stop light impersonating that red dwarf and that empty intersection is having an identity crisis masquerading as a black hole. My voyage across the unknown has diminished into a cosmologically insignificant blip in the framework of my mind...But the ride was fucking awesome!!!

select writings some by me and some by other people who are credited

The One
I am the one who's been Chosen,
I the only one in this.
DISMISSED!
Only to be unheard,
In this torture called life
Would give cause to the disturbed.
INSANE!
Some may say,
But who really is to judge
Who really is to blame.
For this I have been Chosen.

Listen
Listen to the rhythm of the rising sun.
Listen to the words spoken by the shunned.
Hear the many people who created life.
Who spoke strong words through all their strife.
The world today is seen through those eyes.
Always remember and listen to the sunrise.

I am who I am
I am who I am,
and i don't know.
I'm not  who you see,
that's only my show.

I am who is seen,
but not through normal eyes.
I am who I am,
and that's my disguise.

I often wonder,
just who I am.
I'm just as unique,
as every other man.

I am myself,
that's who i am.
And then there's my question.
Who am I again?

An Abusive Paradox
He’s in my head,
Like a shadow within.
When I’m to dead to live,
He comes out with my grin.
He never stops ,
He doesn’t even let me breath.
He once was a necessity,
But now hell never leave.
He lurching over my shoulder,
Even as we speak.
I would run,
But I cant even get on my feet.
He’s beating me to life,
He suffocating, I can barley see.
He’s lost the only person,
Who ever cared about me.
I used to love him,
He use to make me feel free.
But now I despise the fact,
That He and I are Me!.











Sonnet # 1
If there is beauty in only a name
Then it's that beauty which I adore.
For only with her my heart becomes tame
Through freedom of our love my heart can soar.
Words can't describe the beauty of her eyes
For if they could, they would be on this page.
Many would say, that my lines are all lies
It's only their jealous heart causing rage.
Her beauty is captured by natures hand
Her perfection lasts all eternity.
Together, untamed hearts will always stand
For my love is as boundless as the sea.
    It is your elation that consumes me
    Your my dream, my muse of lucidity.

Sonnet # 2
Was it her love, or just my joyous pain,
Who's howls woke me from a sleepless dream.
In my desert heart, her rose still remain,
Love lost, for love's not love my mind shall deem.
Beyond the scope of my now hopeless life,
Loves' now lust, and is a sin from the start.
Stone heart beats, and stabs itself like a knife,
As each life giving drop murders my heart.
Oh heart redeem and ignorance be gone,
Never to see her without sleeping eyes.
For if she were real my sorrow be done,
She is but hope leading to my demise.
    My perfect mate, my eyes await to see,
    She is my love and lives within my dream.

Sonnet #3
Could I ever understand life's design
Or with virgin eyes dream of a pure love
Could a kiss ignite all that is divine
Or make into truth what I've long dreamt of
Could I write of love with Shakespear's own script
Or with Da Vinci's brush paint all it's grace
Painters have painted and poets have writ
But few have immortalized her true face.
Could my eyes bask in an infinite gaze
Or a second lasts an eternity
Could a painters stroke or a poets phrase
Make my dream become a reality
    Could a painter paint my dream to be true
    Could a poet write of my love for you





Sonnet #4
I could gaze forever into her eyes
in search of heaven amongst their abyss
the birth of this devine elation lies
within the chasm of infinite bliss








Love lies on the brink of infinity
where utopia meets reality



About a man
I once knew a man
who died at thirty-one
he was shot by a man
who happened to have a gun
he used to do drugs
and that was his fault
now he lies forever
in his eternal vault.

Untitled
i am the dreamer of the dreams
within my sleeping eyes are endless possibilities
i have dreamt of standing on the horizon
catching a glimpse of the sunrise
regardless of it's beauty, I would have seen nothing
Compared to the grace I descry in her eyes
sometimes i go to this place in my mind
where the wind blows, and it feels like an angel
kissing your cheek
she feels like an angel, the perfect woman
only i see her in my sleep


Untitled
if all truths are true, and all lies are lies
and what is real was at one time just dreams
then a lie is just the truth in disguise
and all that is real is not what it seems






Untitled
If there were ever beauty in a name
It is this beauty for which I now hate
Love's not love by invoking heavens shame
It's the devil that greets us at heavens gate
Once i though love was as true as the stars
As stone in hard and the sun is bright
By deceiving heart and soul both now at wars
For love is to love as dark is to night.



Untitled
what would it be like to live forever
to see the world age and the people grow
to see life seek a new endeavor
or to learn what only a god can know
I see what only an artists should see

Untitled
I want to see what everyone sees
when i wake and gaze into the mirror
to look into the eyes of all that seems
it's not me, what is see is much clearer


YOU
I play with your hair, I touch your face.
I kiss your lips, I feel your grace.
Your whisper is quiet, your words are clear.
Your touch so soft, when you are here.
Why is it when I talk to you, I feel like nothings
wrong?
As far away as we are apart, you are still here, here
in my heart.
I will wait until I'm older, to see what life a comes.
To see if we will be together, and what we will have
done.
You make me feel so warm inside, not like all cold
when you die.
My stomach fills with butterflies, overtime your voice
says, "Hi".
Every time I have to go, it makes me wanna cry.
While I lay here I think of you, when will we see each
other and
What will we do?
It all makes me wanna tell you, that, "I Love You"!

HeatherAnn Johnson

Top Of The World
You don't know it, but
Sometimes, I go to a hill that overlooks
the landscape's mask of city lights
For a sip of momentary grace.
On this brink of everything I know, I can gain
An eyeful of the lost Atlantis in the human soul,
And a breath that fills my lungs with the air between
If right now, you
Were to capture this elation
In the framework of your mind,
Or find transcendence through these words,
Then at most you would know
Nothing
Of the beauty your existence throws to me.
For mine has become a love no experience,
 No thought, no measure, no words
Could ever degrade into reality by virtue of degree.

Rider Strong

An Unpublished Manuscript for J.D. Salinger
It is possible to assonate my heroes with the scope of
my individualism.
However, by their own persistence to themselves, I
believe that they have chosen me to pursue a self.
 What is literature, but the illumination of that
which I wouldwrite?
 Salinger speaks through me, to me, whispers, "where
to little boy?"
My answer is the doggerel pen to page which lights
consistentlythe pathway home.
It is on that road,
 That I alone,
Can trip my way back
 To myself.

Rider Strong

By José
I learned about sobriety through the abuse
 Of my friend in junior high
 Name: Rusty
 Drug of choice: Weed
 Clouds of smoke distorted his vision
 Unable to see that he was a genius
 The first kid that showed me his poetry that inspired
me to write
 The red veins in his eyes
 Traced the timeline
 Of the purple haze he lived in
 'Til he was expelled
 Caught on campus with a nickelbag of herb

 Now I'm college bound
 I stayed sober
 Through the day he dropped out of high school
 And I don't know where he is now
 But I hope he knows
 That he changed my life
 and he could've changed the world
 If only he could've stayed
 Sober.

Jose Vadi (2005)

Sudden Light


I have been here before,
But when or how I cannot tell:
I know the grass beyond the door,
The sweet keen smell,
The sighing sound, the lights around the shore.

You have been mine before,--
How long ago I may not know:
But just when at that swallow's soar
Your neck turn'd so,
Some veil did fall,--I knew it all of yore.

Has this been thus before?
And shall not thus time's eddying flight
Still with our lives our love restore
In death's despite,
And day and night yield one delight once more?

Dante Gabriel Rossetti


Auguries of Innocence

To see a world in a grain of sand
And a heaven in a wild flower,
Hold infinity in the palm of your hand
And eternity in an hour.
A robin redbreast in a cage
Puts all heaven in a rage.
A dove-house filled with doves and pigeons
Shudders hell through all its regions.
A dog starved at his master's gate
Predicts the ruin of the state.
A horse misused upon the road
Calls to heaven for human blood.
Each outcry of the hunted hare
A fibre from the brain does tear.
A skylark wounded in the wing,
A cherubim does cease to sing.
The game-cock clipped and armed for fight
Does the rising sun affright.
Every wolf's and lion's howl
Raises from hell a human soul.
The wild deer wandering here and there
Keeps the human soul from care.
The lamb misused breeds public strife,
And yet forgives the butcher's knife.
The bat that flits at close of eve
Has left the brain that won't believe.
The owl that calls upon the night
Speaks the unbeliever's fright.
He who shall hurt the little wren
Shall never be beloved by men.
He who the ox to wrath has moved
Shall never be by woman loved.
The wanton boy that kills the fly
Shall feel the spider's enmity.
He who torments the chafer's sprite
Weaves a bower in endless night.
The caterpillar on the leaf
Repeats to thee thy mother's grief.
Kill not the moth nor butterfly,
For the Last Judgment draweth nigh.
He who shall train the horse to war
Shall never pass the polar bar.
The beggar's dog and widow's cat,
Feed them, and thou wilt grow fat.
The gnat that sings his summer's song
Poison gets from Slander's tongue.
The poison of the snake and newt
Is the sweat of Envy's foot.
The poison of the honey-bee
Is the artist's jealousy.
The prince's robes and beggar's rags
Are toadstools on the miser's bags.
A truth that's told with bad intent
Beats all the lies you can invent.
It is right it should be so:
Man was made for joy and woe;
And when this we rightly know
Through the world we safely go.
Joy and woe are woven fine,
A clothing for the soul divine.
Under every grief and pine
Runs a joy with silken twine.
The babe is more than swaddling bands,
Throughout all these human lands;
Tools were made and born were hands,
Every farmer understands.
Every tear from every eye
Becomes a babe in eternity;
This is caught by females bright
And returned to its own delight.
The bleat, the bark, bellow, and roar
Are waves that beat on heaven's shore.
The babe that weeps the rod beneath
Writes Revenge! in realms of death.
The beggar's rags fluttering in air
Does to rags the heavens tear.
The soldier armed with sword and gun
Palsied strikes the summer's sun.
The poor man's farthing is worth more
Than all the gold on Afric's shore.
One mite wrung from the labourer's hands
Shall buy and sell the miser's lands,
Or if protected from on high
Does that whole nation sell and buy.
He who mocks the infant's faith
Shall be mocked in age and death.
He who shall teach the child to doubt
The rotting grave shall ne'er get out.
He who respects the infant's faith
Triumphs over hell and death.
The child's toys and the old man's reasons
Are the fruits of the two seasons.
The questioner who sits so sly
Shall never know how to reply.
He who replies to words of doubt
Doth put the light of knowledge out.
The strongest poison ever known
Came from Caesar's laurel crown.
Nought can deform the human race
Like to the armour's iron brace.
When gold and gems adorn the plough
To peaceful arts shall Envy bow.
A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply.
The emmet's inch and eagle's mile
Make lame philosophy to smile.
He who doubts from what he sees
Will ne'er believe, do what you please.
If the sun and moon should doubt,
They'd immediately go out.
To be in a passion you good may do,
But no good if a passion is in you.
The whore and gambler, by the state
Licensed, build that nation's fate.
The harlot's cry from street to street
Shall weave old England's winding sheet.
The winner's shout, the loser's curse,
Dance before dead England's hearse.
Every night and every morn
Some to misery are born.
Every morn and every night
Some are born to sweet delight.
Some are born to sweet delight,
Some are born to endless night.
We are led to believe a lie
When we see not through the eye
Which was born in a night to perish in a night,
When the soul slept in beams of light.
God appears, and God is light
To those poor souls who dwell in night,
But does a human form display
To those who dwell in realms of day.

William Blake


The following passage is from a sermon by John Hagee of Cornerstone
Church in San Antonio:

I want you to close your eyes and picture in your mind the soldier at
Valley Forge, as he holds his musket in his bloody hands. He stands
barefoot in the snow, starved from lack of food, wounded from months
of battle and emotionally scarred from the eternity away from his
family surrounded by nothing but death and carnage of war. He stands
though,
with fire in his eyes and victory on his breath.
He looks at us now in anger and disgust and tells us this...

I gave you a birthright of freedom born in the Constitution and now
your children graduate too illiterate to read it.

I fought in the snow barefoot to give you the freedom to vote and you
stay at home because it rains!

I left my family destitute to give you the freedom of speech and you
remain silent on critical issues, because it might be bad for
business.

I orphaned my children to give you a government to serve you and it
has stolen democracy from the people.

It's the soldier, not the reporter who gives you the freedom of the
press.
It's the soldier, not the poet who gives you the freedom of speech.

It's the soldier, not the campus organizer who allows you to
demonstrate.
It's the soldier, who salutes the flag, serves the flag, whose coffin
is draped with the flag that allows the protester to burn the flag!!!