Human Traits and Attributes


Why do we describe God with human traits and attributes?

If God is limited to doing what humans do, only better, how is this helpful?

If we describe God in terms that do not apply to mankind, what would they be?

What are the missing attributes which would complete us?

Do you often wish you possessed the ability to Love at will? Or to stop? At will?

Are there moments in your life when you wish that you possessed total knowledge of past and future as well as current events?

Has there ever been a time in your life when you did not feel powerless when confronted with problems?

Are you troubled when you lose your car keys? Your glasses? The name of a friend or perhaps even a beloved family member?

When you ask for help what new trait or attribute that you feel you lack do you suppose will be present when a solution to a given problem becomes apparent



mur·mur·a·tion/ˌmɜr məˈreɪ ʃən/ Show Spelled[mur-muhrey-shuh n]Show IPAnoun act or instance of murmuring.

During the days of Middle English, this word had only one meaning, the hushed tones when speaking to another in a pass-it-manner; speaking softly and somewhat covertly. Contextually however, it came to include a concept describing the method by which news traveled in those days, one person murmuring to another. From this it is said that certain phrases evolved; “News travels fast” and then “bad news travels faster”. (if they had only known what the future held.)

Eventually, the definition became even broader and came to include a description of the almost instant communication of one creature to another when referring for example to the avian behavior of migrating starlings or swallows and even more-so in reference to the swarming behavior of bees. When watching the lead bird change direction and noticing that the rest of the community follows in a fraction of a second the effect is astonishingly beautiful.

When applying the same principles to the daily stream of human behavior the beauty is still there but it requires a bit of concentration and focus and a willingness that is free of judgment in oder to fully appreciate it.

If one ignores for a moment the issue of the human need for socialization and focuses in the interim on the advancement of human kind and then notices that virtually every major contribution to society was completed by a number of free thinkers so small that by comparison to the total of society would number in millionths of a percent of that whole, then mightn’t one ask the question “what if all of society or even just half of society were to demonstrate a similar level of creativity? Wouldn’t we have evolved into a much more sophisticated society, to say the least?”

The answer to that question must certainly be “No”.

Of course we don’t know what life would be like under similar circumstances. But, if truth be known I think the sudden burst in technical knowledge in the last century or so is not the result of an increasing number of contributors but in the nature of learning. The acquisition of knowledge increases exponentially. The next twenty years may produce greater changes than in the last century. And this suggests that there is a practical side to the herd behavior so prevalent in nature. The need for stability and adaptation to change can only be guaranteed by large, cooperative numbers of similarly minded people.

Have a nice day.


Opinions are a poor substitute for knowledge.

If we don’t understand what we’ve learned we haven’t really learned anything, have we?

True knowledge results from asking questions of one’s self and then by doing the work. Asking others for answers is rarely an honest path to the truth.

When we ask others to provide a solution to our puzzle and in so doing are given new facts, we encounter certain risks. We are placing our trust in an undependable source. We are also giving them an undeserved influence over the most personal part of our lives, that private space which resides between our ears. We have appointed someone to assist in all future decisions. Their influence may reside within us for the rest of our lives even if that other person disappears, never to return.

As seekers of knowledge we as a species tend to cling to members of one of two basic groups:

Group (a) members prefer to seek solutions from testing, from empirical data mining and from their own efforts.

Group (b) people are more likely to seek answers from others of their own kind. The rewards for doing so are energy conservation and validation by the group. There appear to be no other substantial benefits and certainly no dependable knowledge is acquired in such transactions. This is how social systems are built.

Group (a) members possess greater access to knowledge but are basically studious types who spend much more time alone than (b) members. Though these (a) people don’t require as much validation as the (b) group, they do require a social life. They obviously have a much more difficult time in getting the social strokes they need because this group is almost immeasurably tiny by comparison to the much larger (b) group. The herd instinct is much more powerful than the curiosity instinct. That is not to say that this is an argument for being a (b) person. It is larger because of the mechanics of behavior. (b) types once established as such are very territorial and will go to considerable lengths to dissuade those friends and acquaintances from demonstrating (a) tendencies and to abort all self-indulgence in favor of the group.

Roger is an (a).Roger is also a member of a very large (b) group. Though he is often at intellectual odds with this group, Roger nevertheless places a high value on the group’s  high sense of ethical behavior. Roger withstood the group  pressure  by writing and publishing his ideas. he found it necessary to select his words carefully when in contact with most members of this group. His unique view are expressed  only when appropriate, taking great care not to criticize others for their methods of inquiry.

Roger questions everything.

Roger is a practiced non-conformist and regards this particular ethic as his highest calling. he .is frequently and probably unfairly described as anti-social and rebellious. “I am neither”, he says. “I simply intend to protect my brain from invading usurpers of reason.” (So there. ).

Roger goes on to say “I prefer to ask others for answers only if they are experts in that particular field. I then ask them for source material. Often the source material is freely offered. In this particular group the source material lacks objectivity. I do not disregard information in these materials because this is information built on personal experiences and difficult times and as such deserves at least my respect. It is possible for mutual respect to exist among people of varying points of view. Difficult yes, but definitely possible.”

empirical, influence, knowledge, opinions, puzzle, social pressure, social systems, solution, territorial

ON KNOWING (Re-post 2 feb 2012)


“I would rather have a mind opened by wonder than one closed by belief.” -Gerry Spence


 Buddha (563 B.C.- 483 B.C)

 Do not believe what you have heard.

Do not believe in tradition just because it is handed down from many generations.

Do not believe in anything just because it has been spoken of many times.

Do not believe simply because the words come from some old sage.

Do not believe in conjecture.

Do not believe in authority or teachers or elders.

But after careful observation and analysis, when it agrees with reason and it will benefit one and all, then accept it and live by it.

The Journey ~ The Search ~ The Discovery

The journey to superiority reveals no truth.

The search for proof serves only the seeker.

Those who  teach, learn little.

Those who  encourage others to learn have taken steps toward peace, knowledge and self-respect.

Those who seek power over others enslave themselves.

In order to experience love one must love one’s self.

In order to love one’s self one must know self-respect.

In order to respect one’s self one must be willing to serve others with no expectation of reward.


Oh Yeah? Prove it.

The search for TRUTH can only be done by individuals.

Groups tend to search for PROOF.

TRUTH is ever-changing and not relevant to the goals of group stability.

Stability derives from finding and teaching PROOFS of the core beliefs of the group, passing this information along to new members. Newcomers who seek TRUTH must do so on their own time and are usually either scorned or shunned, sometimes even banned from membership, if the TRUTH seeker attempts to share newly discovered,  seemingly relevant information.

These observations do not logically conclude that either goal is superior to the other; only that this is the way it is. That’s the TRUTH and I can PROVE it.

Doing Well.

If you accepted the notion that Love is the only power greater than yourself, how would you explain that?

If you argued for a Power that did things for you, how would you describe that Power?

If you could describe God, what would you say?

If you were elected to be the Ruler of the Universe what Powers would you need to do your job well?

If at the end of your first term you were judged on how well you did your job, who would be your judge?