TaN: As I watched a video today (October 15) with the title “Great Depression (1929-1939)” — URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TtttXC9tFPU or https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6_nTuExTR5M — it suddenly dawned on me that (wait a minute, kapeng mainit) if many committed suicide or became distraught during the Great Depression of 1929 in the United States of America, that money suddenly disappeared, where did all the money go?
Money could not just disappear; it must go somewhere. Why is it not revealed what happened to the money? It is only proper accounting and mathematics that when you take away from one side of an equation, there must be a corresponding change on the other side of the equation in order to maintain equality (of one side to the other). So money cannot just disappear but is just moved from one place to another. So the question is, where did the “disappearing” money go?
Unless money is burnt, destroyed (like blown up by explosives or accidentally torn and shredded by machines or disasters), or somehow damaged into an unusable form, the money that vanished from the masses must have gone to somebody else.
Why has not anybody noticed and asked this unusual issue and what is the answer? Where did the money go? Who’s got it?
TaN: I do not believe that divorce — in the context of modern definition and (common) understanding — may or should be permitted (and definitely no remarriage) like what was written in the Holy Scriptures. In fact, there are several passages that dealt specifically with it, namely:
* 1 Corinthians 7:10-17 – “And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: But and IF SHE DEPART, LET HER REMAIN UNMARRIED or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.”…emphasis mine
* 1 Corinthians 7:39 – “The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord.”
* Luke 16:18 – “Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from [her] husband committeth adultery.”
* Matthew 5:31-32 – “It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: But I say unto you: That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.”
* Matthew 19:7-9 – “They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adulttery.”
* Romans 7:2-3 – “For the woman which hath a husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.”
* Mark 10:12 – “And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.”
* Deuteronomy 24:1 – “When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give [it] in her hand, and send her out of his house.”
This is clear that the relationship of marriage is very sacred otherwise why mention it repeatedly and by different writers? Moreover, though it mentions divorce (i.e., divorcement), its definition is very different from what we have today. In the Biblical context, divorce is the equivalent of our legal separation, not annulment — because annulment permits remarriage. In addition, annulment is granted certain and very specific grounds, like deceit or dishonesty on any or both parties.
However, in the Holy Scriptures, there is no mention of conditions where remarriage is permitted. This would imply that marriage is something that must be considered carefully and mistakes are not permitted. A Filipino saying describes it perfectly): Ang kasal ay hindi parang mainit na kanin na isinubo mo at kapag nainitan ka ay iluluwa mo (or loosely but as accurately translated as possible: Marriage is not like steamy rice that when you take a mouthful and you are burned, you will just spew it back out).
And, as in a previous TaN where I mentioned a quote from the late Joan Rivers (and I paraphrase): If you sleep with a man and there is no ring on your finger, you are a whore. And, by extension, I would add: And if you use marriage as a means to sleep with different women, you are an adulterer. Legality cannot legitimize the immorality of (modern-day) divorce.
TaN: Trust or confidence is a very powerful thing. People are known to die because of trust issues — among the most obvious of which is trust in (allopathic) physicians when it comes to matters of health and nutrition, even when it is clear that the latter are the sole cause of the demise or misery (known as iatrogenic disease). Even when the truth is staring right at us in the face, many find it very difficult to believe that their physicians, especially the oncologists, are really the ones responsible for their loved one’s demise. This is known as iatrogenic disease — a medical condition or even death caused by the (allopathic or even the naturopath or alternative medicine) physician in the course of applying or administering a treatment or medical protocol.
This misplaced trust (or blind loyalty) make up a great majority of the reason behind a patient’s morbidity or mortality and the continued dominance of allopathy in mainstream or conventional medicine. And this is backed up by massive support from Big Pharma or pharmaceutical industry (led by vaccine makers, who have become so arrogant as to be immune from suit even when they are clearly responsible for the harm or death of a patient).
When someone enjoys complete trust or confidence, there is (almost) literally no blame that can be leveled on the trusted (no matter how blatantly the trusted is undeserving of the trust) and the “truster” will even fight to the death to defend the trusted — or, as in the case of medicine, be “eternally” grateful to the physician for trying to hard to “save” the patient when in fact it was the physician’s doing that caused the morbidity or mortality.
Moreover, this is likewise witnessed in politics, especially in certain Third World countries, where the masses foolishly and repeatedly elect into office the same corrupt and insidious thugs and continue to believe and support them while in office. However, this particular case is not completely due to (blind) loyalty but a significantly large reason is due to (extreme) poverty and ignorance of the mechanics of the law — like vote-buying, gerrymandering, and the maliciousness of crafting (specialized) laws that favor particular lawmakers and other government officials.
In conclusion, as in faith, trust is a potent thing and should not be given just on a whim — especially nowadays, when the unscrupulous have become more sophisticated in their ways of winning people’s trust and confidence.
TaN: I just realized that there is really no need to brush your teeth, much less floss, if you eat right. Tooth decay and other related issues arise only because we do not eat what we are supposed to (and/or not the way it is supposed to be eaten) — physical injuries or damages notwithstanding. Take the case of wild animals (that do not live in close proximity to urban centers) who never brush their teeth yet enjoy good dental health — except for the expected wear and tear of daily use, especially those that have diets containing anything tough or hard, like shells, bones, barks, and armor.
The only instance that teeth brushing might be necessary is when gooey stuff sticks to the enamel, especially between the teeth. For those that eat proper foods, the teeth are specifically and perfectly designed to cope.
Carnivores have pointed teeth that are set apart so that food particles that can cause tooth decay will not lodge between the teeth. And, should it ever happen that food bits get stuck between the teeth, they will be easy to dislodge.
As for herbivores, since the diet consists mainly of fibrous plant matter that should be ground up, the teeth are tightly packed so as for form a continuous surface for grinding. Should food bits get in between the teeth, these are usually fiber and fiber will not cause tooth decay and they are relatively easy to pull out and unstick.
It is when the wrong food is being consumed that dental problems and issues arise and this is precisely what we do and have. We are vegetarian omnivores — in contrast to being vegan, which adheres strictly to a pure plant diet — so we can eat both plant and animal food. However, since the qualifier is “vegetarian”, this implies that a large part of the diet would have to be plant matter and not animal meat. It is when we indulge in a disproportionate and improper plant to animal ration that dental problems emerge.
In addition, we have the propensity to indulge in unnatural food — i.e., man-made such as candy and junk food — that not only compounds but even exacerbates everything. And this is not to mention that many of man-made stuff are acidic, aside from animal meat, and the acid content in the food eaten contribute significantly to the erosion and destruction of the protective enamel.
Anyway, it is just a thought.
TaN: Nowadays, it is wise to teach our young not to believe, at least immediately and blindly (without so much as discerning the accuracy of the historical accounts being taught), what is being taught us by history in school. The saying that Might makes right is very true even though it is not (always) correct — i.e., it is (or, if not, it should be) known that the victor always “writes” history and I doubt if any victor will ever accede that they were in the wrong. In addition, there is the other saying that, The victor gets to write history.
It is only when objective historians dig deep and long into the past that there would be a chance to unearth the truth about history. And even then, there could still be some bias, especially if the sources of (hidden or obscured) information themselves have a skewed perception of what really happened.
In any case, the truth will always come out in the end. The only problem is how soon that end is and will it be in time to avert any damage or harm to the lives of people?
Moreover, even when the truth is slowing surfacing, there will always be those who benefit from the altered history (or their minions) who are ever on the look out for such attempts and will not hesitate to deter the truth from coming into the light or to muddy the waters, so to speak, to sow confusion and doubt as to mitigate the impact of the truth emerging, if not totally suppress it.
In conclusion, it will always be the eternal struggle between those who have the common interest at heart against those who desire only that alone should benefit, to the detriment or expense of others. This is one aspect or interpretation of “the good fight” as mentioned in the Holy Scriptures.