A diploma is not enough

It's interesting when you read several books about the same subject and find out that they complement each other rather than contradict each other. I was reading a chapter called "Blessed are the poor in spirit" from the book Gospel according to Spiritism today and it made me remember the book The Astral City. I already mentioned both books previously in my posts. In my last post, I talked a bit about The Astral City, but there is a specific part of chapter 14 of this book that I remembered when reading chapter 7 of the Gospel according to Spiritism. If you haven't read any of these books, they're Spiritist books and I can explain why one made me think of the other. 

In Astral City, Andre Luiz (the author) is a doctor who had no religious beliefs before the death of his body and was completely unprepared for the spiritual life. When he got to the other side and saw how things work there, he started to realise how certain things are important there and not here, at the same time that some things are important here but not there. His diploma in Medicine didn't mean so much in the spiritual world and what really mattered was his spiritual values and his morals. He wasn't prepared morally to be a doctor in this place he was living in, in the spiritual world. The Governor of the Astral City says something on these lines to Andre Luiz in the book:"For us here, a degree is a mere identification card. The person who receives such a card is given the opportunity to study and cooperate with the Lord in His Divine work on the planet. This principle is applicable to all earthly activities, regardless of their nature or class conventions..." (From the book The Astral City, chapter 14, page 67). He said that to Andre Luiz when he offered to work in the Astral City, because Andre was thinking about practicing Medicine there straight away. 

The Governor also said: "You, my brother, were granted a medical card, and consequently were admitted into the temple of Medicine. However, your line of conduct does not justify my endorsing your present wish. How could I appoint you to treat spirit patients when on Earth you insisted on limiting your professional observations to the physical body?... As you are already aware, a doctor cannot draw the line at diagnosis and terminologies, he must go deeper and scrutinize the innermost recesses of the soul. On Earth, many of your colleagues become true slaves to academic convencionalism because of their professional life. Very few succeed in crossing prejudices. The rare exceptions are scoffed at by society and looked down upon by their colleagues." (From the book The Astral City, chapter 14, page 67). 

The Governor of the Astral City also told him that, even though Andre Luiz didn't attend poor patients who couldn't afford treatment with the intention of really helping them, while on Earth, he attended around 6.000 patients for free. Maybe he did it not caring about them as much as he should have, but from 6.000 people, 15 continuously prayed for him and that counted in his favour in the spiritual world.  From 6.000 people, who were helped by him, only 15 prayed for him!!! So it got me thinking how sad it must be to be in the other side and not receive prayers from people who you love or that you helped, when you need the most, because they might think that you're gone for good and there is no life after death...or they simply think that prayers are a waste of time! How sad is to think that prayers don't matter and how sad it is to not be remembered after the death of our body...It would sadden me to not receive prayers, I think... If you have someone that you love and this person already passed away, try to always pray for them because they will benefit a lot from your prayers. If you don't believe in God, at least remember the ones who went to the other side with love, and they will still feel your love, even if you don't believe they will. Love doesn't die anywhere and it can always benefit the object of our love wherever they are... If anything, please pray for me after I'm gone from this side of life ;)

Then we can see that the Governor explained to Andre Luiz the reason why only having a diploma and knowledge isn't enough in the spiritual world and why he wasn't ready to be a doctor there. It does not mean that we shouldn't study while on Earth or shouldn't acquire scientific knowledge, not at all! It means that only knowledge will not give you everything you need, as many people believe... We value diplomas, titles and scientific knowledge a lot, but fail to acquire spiritual knowledge, faith and morals, which always stay in second plan. 

This is exactly what chapter 7 of the Gospel according to Spiritism talks about. It basically explains what Jesus meant when he said: "Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven" (Matthew, 5: 3). It means that Jesus referred to the poor in spirit as being people that are humble; it doesn't have anything to do with people who lack intelligence. We see so many people that feel that they are better than other people because they have the knowledge and a diploma, but forget that they don't need only knowledge to be a good person. Many brilliant minds used their intelligence to do evil. People need to be humble and we need to believe in something greater than ourselves to learn to be truly humble. A person is not humble only because they are not proud or arrogant. A person is truly humble when they can admit that someone is superior to them, either morally or intellectually. Unfortunately, most of people that have the knowledge, do not have the humbleness to admit that there is a God who created all things and who is a Superior being to us...  

I am copying part of chapter 7 from the book "Gospel according to Spiritism" below for you to see how much this chapter complements chapter 14 of the book "The Astral City". If you haven't read The Astral City, try to keep in mind what the Governor said to Andre Luiz as per above and think about it: 

"WHAT SHOULD BE UNDERSTOOD BY THE WORDS 'POOR IN SPIRIT'
 

1. Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven (Matthew, 5: 3). 

2. Sceptics have mocked this maxim, as they have mocked many other things they do not understand. By 'the poor in spirit' Jesus did not mean those devoid of intelligence, but the humble, in as much as He said that the Kingdom of Heaven would be for them and not for the prideful.
 

Men of knowledge and imagination, so called by public conviction, generally hold such high opinions of themselves and their superiority that they consider everything divine as being undeserving of their consideration. By concentrating all their attention upon themselves, they are then unable to lift up their eyes to God. This tendency to believe they are superior to everything else very frequently leads them to deny anything which might be above them, even Divinity itself, for fear it might belittle them. Or if they condescend to admit its existence, they then contest one of its most beautiful attributes, that of providential action over things of this world, because they think they alone are sufficient to govern. Taking the intelligence they possess as a measure for universal intelligence, and judging themselves able to understand everything, they are unable to believe in the viability of that which they do not know. They consider their judgement to be law.
 

If they do not admit the existence of the invisible world and of a superhuman power, it is not because it is beyond their capability, but because their pride makes them revolt against the idea of something above which they are unable to place themselves and which would bring them down from the pedestal upon which they like to contemplate. Hence they only have scorn for everything that does not belong to the visible and tangible world. They attribute to themselves such imagination and learning that they cannot believe in things which, according to their way of thinking, are only good for simple people, taking for poor in spirit all who take such matters seriously. 

However, say what they like, they will inevitably be drawn into this invisible world they scoff at, together with everyone else. It is there that their eyes will be opened, so making them realise their errors. Nevertheless, God being just, He cannot receive those who have denied His majesty in the same manner as those who submitted to His laws with humility, nor can He give them equal share.
By saying that the Kingdom of Heaven belongs to the poor in spirit, Jesus teaches that no one will be admitted without simplicity of heart and humility of spirit; that the ignorant person who possesses these qualities will be preferred to the wise person who believes more in himself than in God. In all circumstances Jesus put humility into the category of virtues that bring Man near to God and pride into the category of vices that keep Man away from God. The reason for this is clear, for to be humble is an act of submission to God, whereas pride is a revolt against Him. For Man then, there is far greater value for his future happiness by being poor in spirit, as the world would understand it, and rich in moral qualities." (From the book Gospel according to Spiritism, chapter 7, page 139). 


It makes sense to me to think that life continues and there are also other lives to be lived through reincarnations, otherwise, I don't personally see the fairness in God. I do not believe that people go to hell or heaven after death, as our hell or our heaven is already inside us, depending on who we choose to be. I believe that the spiritual world is made of responsibilities, duties and work, even more than on Earth, but the currency there is not money. The currency is love, good morals, good heart, charity, wisdom, knowledge and God (not necessarily in this order!). I also think that every good deed counts in our favour, when we do them for the right reasons. We need to see beyond the material side of things to really prepare ourselves to the real life which is the spiritual life. Think about that! :) 
I will also leave you with a link to a very interesting article about a Professor who seems to not be afraid of being scoffed at or looked down upon by his colleagues. I respect him for that!  


Professor dares to discuss life after death in his classes


Take care! 


Mrs. P

The Astral City

Last week, I volunteered to be part of a book stand in the Mind Body Spirit Festival. Great experience! There were many religions, philosophies and beliefs in the same room co-existing peacefully in the same Festival. I haven't seen any exhibitor trying to convince any other exhibitor of their ideas or beliefs (although I heard it happened!). People were friendly and respectful to each other in their fair as far as I could see, and that made me feel good. The amount of British people that participated in this fair surprised me! For some reason, I tend to think that British people are not too interested in the spiritual side of things, but I guess I am wrong and it's good to be wrong about this ;) There were people from other countries as well exhibiting, and the fair, in general, was just great. A British lady came to our book stand speaking amazing Portuguese and I was very impressed!!! There was also another British lady that came to shout at us that we were not Christians because we believe in reincarnation and mediumship!! I guess that it's not surprising, but that didn't impress me at all! :P It's kind of funny to think that people really believe that they can tell you who you believe in, or who you do not, who can be called Christians and who cannot! I believe some people went to this fair with the sole purpose of disrespecting whoever doesn't think like them (is it really the example that Christians are supposed to give?), unfortunately, but I suppose they are minority. There was also a Tai Chi Chuan presentation that I loved! I've never seen such a beautiful presentation by a Master in Tai Chi! Everything was very spiritual and I felt home :)

Many times I referred to Spiritism as my religion, but it's not the correct definition of it. "Spiritism is a science which deals with the nature, origin and destiny of Spirits, as well as their relationship with the corporeal world." Allan Kardec (Taken from Qu'est-ce que le Spiritisme? - Préambule). I said many times that Spiritism is my religion because it's the philosophy that I believe in and connects me to God, but it has to be studied as a Scientific subject to be understood in depth. The principles in Spiritism were based in observations and researches made by Allan Kardec. In this fair, we had books to sell that were part of the Codification and books written by automatic writing by mediums such as Chico Xavier, for example. This book stand was to sell books that would help BUSS and spread the word about Spiritism for those who had the interest to stop by our stand. One of the books we had there in our book stand was The Astral City. I love this book and I feel that it's a great book to give us an idea of life in the spiritual world. I said some posts ago that I would talk about this book one day here, and I think that this day has come :)

This is the first book of a series by the spirit Andre Luiz who used to be a doctor on Earth and writes about his spiritual experiences after the death of his body. Some people like the book, but don't believe the story is real, some people think it's too heavy and don't want to face the possibility of this book being a real story. I guess we will all find out the truth after we pass away, but wouldn't it be advisable to give it a thought before going through this experience ourselves? 

This book makes me cry every time I read it and makes me think a lot too! It makes me think about things like: Am I wasting my time worrying about things that don't hold real value? Am I doing enough for the good of others? Am I being faithful to the spiritual values that I hold inside me in my everyday actions? Probably not, but at least I am thinking about them and this is the first step to achieve these things. We should all be grateful that we have news from the other side alerting us to the spiritual life, instead of wasting our time being so skeptical because, whether we like it or not, agree with it or not, believe in it or not, we will all die one day and live to the eternal life. Thinking about spiritual life is not being morbid, it's dealing with a certain future (the only certainty we have in life is knowing that death is inevitable). Don't we all plan our future when we are sixteen years old, thinking about which profession to choose and which kind of life to carry? We don't know what the future will bring us, but we all think about it anyway.

You can read The Astral City on this website for free  O Consolador- The Astral City

Remember that this is a real story and it could happen with any of us, although each of us is different and have different paths to walk and different baggage. It doesn't mean that you will go through the same struggles that the author of this book went through, but it will give you an idea of how many things we do that are acceptable by society, but these things can get us into trouble in the other side of life. This book can make you feel uncomfortable, let's say, from time to time, because it will tell you things that you possibly would rather not hear (some people might have difficulties facing the truth) and it might make you feel overwhelmed by the responsibilities we hold while incarnated (usually we don't pay too much attention to spiritual responsibilities at all). But it will also give you hope and give you an opportunity to ponder about what is really important in life and what is not. It will make you see that the time for changing behaviours and habits for better is now and that's why this book is so dear to my heart... 

My friend, if you're reading this, take a minute of your life to think seriously about what you seek in life and if it is really worth seeking. I will end this post with a dialogue from the film Contact that I love.

Drumlin: "Helen, I know that you must think this is all really unfair, maybe this is an understatement. What you don't know is that I agree. I wish the world was a place where fair was the bottom line, where your idealism and your dreams were rewarded, not taken advantage of. Unfortunately, we don't live in that world."

Helen: "Funny, huh? I've always believed that the world is what we make of it".

Peace! 

Mrs. P

Social Network and employers

Today I was reading some tweets from a friend of mine that caught my attention. The tweets were talking about how much social networks are more and more part of your curriculum vitae for future employers, because they are accessing them more and more to find out more about you. A tweet also said that, if a job offer is withdrawn because the future employer saw your Facebook, for example, it's your fault, not theirs.

Although I can see that only knowledge isn't enough nowadays, moral also is (or at least it should be), I cannot understand how future employers can base their opinion in what they read in an "about me" or a picture they see on someones Facebook, for example. How can future employers judge someone based on these things to give them a job or not? Is it fair or sensible? Are those people being truthful in the network? Can they know whether they really are, or are not, this or that way by looking at a network profile? These are questions I asked myself.

It seems to me that people can say everything you want to hear and write everything you would expect them to, just to get what they want, but not because of whom they really are. Everybody nowadays knows that internet can make you or break you, let's say. Maybe that candidate who seems to be great for the job copied something from someone else's work, article or profile on internet, and put in theirs, just because they thought it would take them somewhere, not because they necessarily agreed with it. What about people that are being honest and showing themselves as they really are, but seem less than perfect in the social network, for example? Are they to be in disadvantage compared to the ones that chose to deceive? How can a future employer know who they really are based on internet?

With globalization, people from different cultures live and work in different countries. How can the future employer disregard cultural differences? Maybe what would be tolerated in one country, would be an offense in another. The future employees, who were not born in the country they're currently working in, might not always be familiar with certain "work rules" in that particular country. This takes time to get used to, and maybe, the future employee will never be able to get used to certain things. For example, I was told once that it is an offense to call a manager by his name instead of by his nickname, if this is the way they prefer to be called, here in England. In Brazil, it doesn't make any difference at all if you call someone by their name or nickname, even if they prefer nicknames, and it would be viewed as totally acceptable. In England, for example, drinking beer during lunch breaks is normal and accepted, but it wouldn't be seen as professional and acceptable in Brazil, for example. Can you really say that British people are not professional because they drink alcohol during lunch breaks and people from Brazil are professional because they don't? No, you can't. Let's say that a British citizen tweeted that they were going to have a pint with their colleagues at lunch break in a sunny day. Would future employers from different countries dismiss this person's application because of that? Should they?

It seems to me that future employers using the internet to choose their candidates can lead to discrimination. This is something that our laws combat so much and it seems that it could be  accepted, if it involves internet. And, in this scenario, it seems that future employers will have the right to say that it is the applicants fault, not theirs. So, who is to prove that a future employer is discriminating someone by what they have in their profile, for example, religion, interests and etc? How can anyone prove that they weren't chosen by a future employer because they have a criminal record and this information is available on a social network, for example? How can anyone prove that they weren't chosen by a company because they wrote about their religious views and it's not the same religious views of their future superiors who are about to hire someone? I don't think anyone can prove it. But should we start writing about or putting pictures of things we think others will approve of, or write about and put deceitful pictures of whatever we want to? Wasn't it the point of social networks when they came up: to allow people to be virtually spontaneous and socialize via internet? Is this point starting to be distorted now?

People make mistakes. Everyone does. If someone was very young and put a picture on internet that was less than nice, why should this individual "pay"for that, by not getting that vacancy they wanted, later on when they are mature? If an individual wrote something in the heat of the moment that seems a bit unpleasant, why should this individual "pay" for that professionally? Does it mean that these people are not good people or good employees? Maybe they are not, but maybe they just made a mistake, but are essentially good people and will make great employees. The fact that we cannot tell if it was a simple mistake, or if the person doesn't  strike us as being how we would like them to be professionally, is enough to make the "internet recruitment process" unfair.

All of this makes me think that future employers should be like a jury that is asked to disregard some information in a trial, if this information is not accepted by the court as being valid "evidence". The evidence would be the social network information and future employers would be the jury (if you're a lawyer, pardon me if my metaphor is not too good!). It does feel to me like we can potentially be judged and be "convicted" or not by future employers for our internet personal content. The sentence would be to not get the job you wanted because of social network content. Everybody has the right to a fair trial, right? Even the criminal who was convicted for a crime that they committed in real life will need to work to survive someday, in the real world, so maybe we should ask ourselves whether it's acceptable that future employers can dismiss anyone's application based on what we seem to be on a social network.

I might be seen as trouble to many future employers because I write and I say exactly what I think. Many of them don't like that in an employee, although, by law, they cannot give it as a reason for not choosing me. But I believe that everybody should be totally honest about who they are, we shouldn't be forced to being robotic or paranoid about what people might think about us, without knowing us. It doesn't make me less than a team player or a reliable employee to be outspoken, direct and strong willed. It doesn't mean I can't follow leads either. Thinking out of the box and being upfront about it is a great personality trait to have, in my opinion, but in my personal experience, it hasn't been always appreciated in the professional world. We are free human beings and future employers should cherish our differences, not try to make it harder for anyone to get a job because they are not exactly the way they wanted us to be on the internet. Kids might write silly things that are rebellious to impress their mates, once upon a time, but they shouldn't be punished for that after they grow out of it, for example. The young ones, in particular, can be in disadvantage just for once being young and immature, like everybody else once was. People can be so different on internet, because they choose to be a character, many times, and not because of who they really are...this can be really tricky. They might create this character on internet, who doesn't share their real beliefs, tendencies and personality, because they want to be that character, but are not. Or maybe they just want to convince people they are that character to gain something from it. It seems that it can be better to be whom you really are, but use a pseudonym to avoid being judged, than to pretend to be something you are not and use your real name. What does that mean? How can you know that what I wrote here is what I really mean? You can only tell if I mean what I wrote if you know me. If you don't know me, don't judge me. 

In order to have a better society, we have to try to be understanding, even when the situation involves money. People can be extremely competitive or unreasonable when it's about financial matters, positions, status, appearances! There is that popular saying which makes total sense: "Appearances deceive us".

I think that the video below is interesting... especially because of the final question that appears on the screen. I don't know if the information in this video is correct or up to date, but it does make you think.

Peace!

Mrs. P

Balance

I was thinking today about Science and God. I am constantly thinking about both. I want to be able to understand both and, at the same time, understand the reason why people in general do not consider both subjects equally important to our evolution as moral human beings.
I went to a Science event the other day. It was very interesting, but I could observe certain behaviours that, quite frankly, disappointed me a bit. Sometimes, I have the impression that scientists, in general, seem to think that, by knowing more about Science, they are better human beings than the ones who don't. It also made me think that many religious leaders might think that, by believing in God and knowing more about Him, they are better human beings than the ones who don't. This shows us how we are far away from being perfect. Where is the balance to be found in human nature?
Scientists seem to often regard people who believe in God or are religious as stupid, uneducated, weak minded or delusional. They don't say it as being what they think, because this wouldn't be accepted by society, and they might be regarded as prejudists. In the Academic World, being considered prejudist is synonym of ignorance, as far as I am concerned, and no scientist would like to be seen as such, I am sure. So, instead of saying it as they think, they make jokes, because this is accepted by society. That was the disappointing bit for me. If scientists are so certain that Science alone is the only way to get answers from, why do they feel the need to humiliate religious people and their faith in the form of jokes? Not direct jokes, not to any particular faith or particular person, but in general. Is it to masquerade their despise for religion and make it sound very plausible and funny? This event wasn't offensive to me at all, because I didn't feel the need to be offended by it (it was rather interesting, actually, to observe this behaviour that I didn't expect, being disclosed by scientists), but gave me an insight to something I was rather surprised to find.
I couldn't help it but compare this Science event to the Divaldo Franco's lecture that I've been to, days before, which was essentially religious. Divaldo never attacked Science, quite the opposite, he used of Scientific information in his lecture many times. He never made fun of Science, on the contrary, he respected Science. I just wonder why Scientists could not do the same in regards to religious matters...
To be honest, I don't know why scientists need to mention religion at all in their events...isn't religion a delusion in their point of view? So why was it used as a way of making some of their points in this event? Things like "the world will not end, morons" was used in the event, implying that certain religious people who believe in the end of the world are morons; and a song played backwards mentioning Satan (which can be a sacrilege for many religious people) was part of this event (at this part, I must confess that I was imagining how truly shocked a religious fanatic would be by listening to something that mentioned Satan and 666!). I know that those scientists were trying to make a point by using these methods, but my question is: why did they use methods that could be associated to religion to make their point? Not only to make their point, but also to ridicule religion itself. I noticed all of this because I am a spiritual person, and I am also into Science (believe me, it is not that uncommon!), but these points might have been missed (intentionally or not) by the majority of people there. I didn't go to a Science event to hear scientists making fun of religion (even if it was indirectly), I went there to listen to them talk about Science. As much as I didn't go to Divaldo Franco's lecture to listen to something negative about Science, like (this is a hypothetical situation!!) if he told us to not want to know more about Science because it's not from God (which he didn't do at all, let's make it very clear!)
There is a young British scientist who I admire for making Physics an interesting and understandable subject for the mass. I think that what he is doing is brilliant. His name is Brian Cox. His contribution in this event was the best, in my point of view. He mentioned something that really caught my attention. He explained something and showed us a formula. The formula had a H in it, which is for helium, if I remember well, but the helium hasn't been discovered yet to be part of that formula. I understood that the helium was thought to be part of that equation, but it hasn't been proved by Science yet, although they are almost sure that they will be able to prove it soon. At that point I thought: Why can Science accept the possibility that they might be wrong about an element being part of a formula, but say no to the possibility that they might be wrong about the existence of God? After all, they were not able to prove that this element is part of that equation yet, as much as they are not able to prove, scientifically, that God does or does not exist...interesting, isn't it? I have a friend (a dear one) called Raul Teixeira who is, at the same time, a religious person and lecturer, a medium, a Physicist and a Professor who teaches Physics in a Federal University in Brazil. Isn't it an example of balance?
I think that we all need to find balance in life to achieve best results in everything, and it's not something easily done. Being an extremely intelligent scientist doesn't make you an example of a good hearted human being with great morals, as much as being a religious person doesn't make you stupid, weak minded, delusional or uneducated. Being a religious person doesn't make you kinder or better in anyway than an atheist either! It's not how much you know about Science or how much you believe in God that makes you better than anyone. Let's ponder about what the thought of being better than others, for whatever reason, does instead!!!

Nobody ever doubted that Beethoven was still a brilliant composer and musician even after he became completely deaf. Although he didn't have his hearing, which it's essential for a musician, nobody ever thought that his works were not his, because he couldn't hear, or he wasn't as much of a genius after his hearing loss. He was a genius while he could hear and he continued being a genius after losing his hearing. It shows me that we don't need only our material senses to be able to accomplish goals. We also need our soul to continue to accomplish them, because only a soul keeps what is truly ours...
This is my favorite song of his composition. One day, I will be playing it myself ;) 

Take care!

Mrs. P 

               

It's not always easy to put things into practice

I went to Divaldo Franco's lecture on Tuesday in London. It was great! I was feeling in peace, but that same day I noticed how difficult it is to put everything we believe in into practice sometimes. I find it easy to have beliefs, but it's very difficult to give testimony of those beliefs. And I don't mean only the testimonies that we have to give in front of everybody, but also the ones in private, when only you and God know about them.
Sometimes I feel that, in society, people act in certain ways to fit in into whatever they think will make people like them better, but in private, between them, their consciousness and God, the story is different.

Although a new era is coming, where people are starting to want to be more good than bad, we still struggle to offer the other cheek. This is probably part of the process of trying to change for better, because no one changes easily and quickly. But the important thing is to persevere, even with any possible failure you might encounter on the way, while trying to do so. 

Sometimes I feel like I am being constantly tested in my weaknesses. And now I think that I understand better what Jesus meant when He said: "And if thy right hand offends thee, cut it off and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of they members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell. And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell". (Matthew, 5: 30-29).
This day, after Divaldo Franco's lecture,  I felt like I would like to physically remove every part of my moral being that wasn't good. Unfortunately, no one can do it physically, we all need to learn how to remove our moral flaws through changing ourselves for better and, I think that the majority would agree with me, it's hard!!!

I read in the chapter Blessed are the pure in heart, from the Gospel according to Spiristism, parts number 12 and 17, something that I think it explains what I mean: 

"12. In its most usual sense the word offence means any action which goes ostensively against morality or decorum. The offence is not in the action itself so much as in the repercussion it may cause. The word always implies a certain amount of commotion and dispute. Many people are content if they avoid causing offence in public, because this would cause them to suffer loss of prestige, so hurting their pride. They do their best to hide their mistakes as this is sufficient to quieten their consciences. They are, as Jesus said: "As white sepulchres which are full of rottenness, like vessels which are clean without, but dirty within."
But in the evangelic sense the accepted meaning of the word 'offence', used so repeatedly, is very much more generalised and this is why in certain cases its meaning is not understood. It becomes not only that which affects the conscience of another person, but also everything which is the result of vice and human imperfections, every bad reaction from one individual to another, with or without repercussion. In this case the offence is the effective result of bad morality."

"17. If your hand be the cause of offence, cut it off. This is a very strong statement and it would be absurd for it to be taken in its literal sense. It should therefore be understood that each one must destroy within themselves everything that might cause offence, that is to say all evil, by rooting out every impure thought and every tendency towards violence, corruption or depravity. It also means that it is preferable for a man to cut off a hand rather than use it to commit an evil action, or better still, to lose one's sight rather than allow one's eyes to conceive bad thoughts. For those who take the trouble to discover the allegoric meaning of His words, Jesus never said anything that was absurd. Nevertheless, many things cannot be understood without the key to decipher them and this key is offered to us through Spiritism."

I love the prayer from Francis of Assisi. He was extremely inspired when he wrote this prayer, and this prayer probably contains in itself what everybody should aspire to do properly one day... That's a prayer which always make me emotional and I wanted to share it with you, not mattering who you are or what you believe in: 

Lord, make me an instrument of your peace.

Where there is hatred, let me sow love.

Where there is injury, pardon.

Where there is doubt, faith.

Where there is despair, hope.

Where there is darkness, light.

Where there is sadness, joy.

O Divine Master,

grant that I may not so much seek to be consoled, as to console;

to be understood, as to understand;

to be loved, as to love.

For it is in giving that we receive.

It is in pardoning that we are pardoned,

and it is in dying that we are born to Eternal Life.

Amen.

In french: 

Seigneur, faites de moi un instrument de votre paix.

Là où il y a de la haine, que je mette l'amour.

Là où il y a l'offense, que je mette le pardon.

Là où il y a la discorde, que je mette l'union.

Là où il y a l'erreur, que je mette la vérité.

Là où il y a le doute, que je mette la foi.

Là où il y a le désespoir, que je mette l'espérance.

Là où il y a les ténèbres, que je mette votre lumière.

Là où il y a la tristesse, que je mette la joie.

Ô Maître, que je ne cherche pas tant à être consolé qu'à consoler,

à être compris qu'à comprendre,

à être aimé qu'à aimer,

car c'est en donnant qu'on reçoit,

c'est en s'oubliant qu'on trouve, c'est en pardonnant qu'on est pardonné,

c'est en mourant qu'on ressuscite à l'éternelle vie.

In Portuguese:

Senhor: Fazei de mim um instrumento de vossa Paz.

Onde houver Ódio, que eu leve o Amor,

Onde houver Ofensa, que eu leve o Perdão.

Onde houver Discórdia, que eu leve a União.

Onde houver Dúvida, que eu leve a Fé.

Onde houver Erro, que eu leve a Verdade.

Onde houver Desespero, que eu leve a Esperança.

Onde houver Tristeza, que eu leve a Alegria.

Onde houver Trevas, que eu leve a Luz!

Ó Mestre,

fazei que eu procure mais:

consolar, que ser consolado;

compreender, que ser compreendido;

amar, que ser amado.

Pois é dando, que se recebe.

Perdoando, que se é perdoado e

é morrendo, que se vive para a vida eterna!

Amém

Now there is this song about this prayer in Portuguese that I love. I think the version in Portuguese prettier than the version in English. This song makes me really feel every word of this prayer and it makes me feel more determined to be a better person every time I listen to it. Hope you like it. 

Peace! 

Mrs. P 

                            

Holiday and my feet artwork

Well, I feel like I have been back to the UK for about a month already!! I had to make a huge effort to concentrate on my studies since I've been back...for obvious reasons I can't stop thinking about our holiday ;) 

On a serious note, before I start writing about holiday and etc, I would like to invite you to go to a lecture. The lecturer is called Divaldo Franco and he is a well known medium in Brazil who will talk about Planetary Transition in Holborn tomorrow at 19:00. You can find details of this event here                         

http://www.buss.org.uk/eventos/divaldo_franco/Divaldo%20Franco%20poster%202011.jpg  


I would highly recommend this lecture as I've read his book about Planetary Transition and I loved it. Just be aware that this will be a normal and interesting lecture about the period of moral transition that the planet is going through in the light of Spiritism.

Talking about lectures, we went to see a lecture from an astronaut in Nasa. His name is Fred Gregory and he's a lovely guy. He told us a bit about his life and it seems to me that, what motivated him to change jobs all the time and get to be an astronaut, was boredom. That made me think that there is still hope for myself!!! I don't hope to be an astronaut, but I hope to find different things that I love doing and motivate me. His lecture was extremely interesting because it was extremely personal somehow.

It made me a bit sad to see him talking about his program being cancelled and the fact that no more shuttle launches will happen after these two scheduled ones. It makes me feel that we are taking a step away from God by not going into the space. But I am sure that we, as a humanity, will be able to take another step forward again in the future.

Okay, now let's talk about holiday and my feet artwork :) During this last holiday, I decided to take my feet art work seriously. Everything started in Barbados last year...

           

This was probably the first shot I ever took of my feet!!!! And I only did it because the view was great and I couldn't be arsed to move my feet out of the way ;) But while we were in the cruise, I thought about starting to take pictures of my feet in every single beach place I go to!! The view of the sea was great from the ship and that's why I took pictures of my feet again, but now I think I will do it everywhere I go with a cool beach and nice views around to have my own artwork!!! hehehe

I know what you're thinking, but I haven't drunk anything, I am just a bit quirky ;) Before you get to any conclusions, have a look at my feet art shots taken somewhere in the Atlantic Ocean. This time I thought carefully about poses and angles. Tee hee!!!!

                                      

                      

  Not bad, hey? ;) I thought I would have trouble with being in a ship for 7 days and not seeing land around, but, as you can see, I couldn't care less and I couldn't stop appreciating the view. The colour of the Ocean is so beautiful, isn't it?  

In this trip, I also learned things about myself that I never felt strongly about before. I learned that I love the sea more than I thought I did. I learned that I absolutely hate sharks and they are predators of dolphins (outrageous!!!).

I also learned that people from different cultures might stereotype different things in different ways, but stereotypes exist everywhere. I learned that people, sometimes, miss on doing things or experiencing things themselves, in order to form their own opinion about stuff, because the majority of other people "judge"their choices or insinuate that their experience will not be good, for whatever reason, without having ever experienced those things themselves. Sometimes we might say things like that, just repeating what everybody else is saying, and we don't stop to think that this attitude is seriously silly. 

This kind of situation happened to me in regards to the cruise this time. I cannot count how many people asked me why I would go on a cruise if I am not on my 70's!!! hahaha I am so glad that I went to one before my 70's and now I can say that I loved it and it was worth it. I think I did things in this cruise that I wouldn't be able to do if I was in my 70's!!! Anyway, I was able to make my own judgement about how it feels to be in a cruise, and I can say that, if you have the opportunity and the will to go on a cruise, but you're not 70 years old, go and have a ball! Don't care about what other people might say or think, just go if you want to and get to your own conclusions.

 After writing about weird stuff that I found out about myself and the world, which might seem a bit random but that are absolutely true, I want to talk about Sherlock having a twitter account. Sorry, hubby, but I have to mention this because it's just too weird to be ignored :D 

Sherlock is our beloved chocolate Labrador for the ones who don't know about him. He's the chocolate sauce on top of my vanilla ice cream #lovehim

To cut the story short, hubby had a beer or two one night and created a twitter account for our dog. You can add him if you want to (he's very friendly after a while...). He is @ChubbySherlock. 
I just want to make it absolutely clear to all of you that I wasn't the one who created his account (it wasn't me who has done a weird thing in this house for a change!) ;)

Take care!

Mrs. P

         

            

I'm back!

Hi there!!!! 

Wow! Haven't written here for almost a month! Have loads to talk about but it's too much to write in once...will take some days, I think! We went on an wonderful trip to the US which had moments that took my breath away.

In this post, I just want to be grateful. I always wanted to be a grateful person because being grateful is one of the best personality traits I think anyone can have. I want to thank God for having my eyes, my ears, my legs, my arms and my health. They allow me to experience everything and these experiences allow my soul to feel more than my body can. I felt so many things in this trip. I felt the nature, the beauty of the animals, the beauty of the seas and nature's amazing views. I felt love, emotion and a great happiness. I felt everything was created for our appreciation and delight and we take it all for granted, unfortunately. I remember being in the most amazing sea swimming and I was praying to thank God for the opportunity to see what I was seeing and to feel the happiness I was feeling. I am talking about feeling the sand between my toes, the smell of the sea, the temperature of its water, to taste how salty it was, to see the creatures that live in it up close, to feel the sun in my face, you know...simple things that make me the most happy! I will never be more happy than when seeing and feeling what God created for us all. Money can give you the means to go to certain places and do certain things, but no money can buy how you feel about these experiences and how you choose to cherish them, like when you interact with God's creatures and the nature! When I told my husband about how grateful to God I was for these things, he answered:" Strange!" hehehehe 
I guess people feel things in a different way and at different levels! Like when I cried while watching the film about space and universe at Nasa or when I felt my eyes tearing up because I was feeding a dolphin! These things have a deep spiritual meaning to me...They might not seem spiritual to you, but they are very much so to me ;)

Now I just want to put a picture here of one of the creatures that I fell in love with (I truly did!!!) while on this US trip and who I can't stop thinking about!!! :P I am also posting a video of a song that I love and has great lyrics which I think it has everything to do with this trip! I dedicate this song to Andy!!!! ;)  

Peace! 

Mrs. P 

And I'd give up forever to touch you
Cause I know that you feel me somehow
You're the closest to heaven that I'll ever be
And I don't want to go home right now 

And all I can taste is this moment
And all I can breathe is your life
Cause sooner or later it's over
I just don't want to miss you tonight 

And I don't want the world to see me
Cause I don't think that they'd understand
When everything's made to be broken
I just want you to know who I am 

And you can't fight the tears that ain't coming
Or the moment of truth in your lies
When everything feels like the movies
Yeah you bleed just to know your alive
And I don't want the world to see me
Cause I don't think that they'd understand
When everything's made to be broken  
I just want you to know who I am
 

I don't want the world to see me
Cause I don't think that they'd understand
When everything's made to be broken
I just want you to know who I am 

A quick note about my blog

Up until yesterday, I had the impression that I was writing in my blog and thinking on my own about God and the books I have been reading about. Much to my surprise, that isn't the case :) When I went to post my blog to my Facebook profile, I was informed by Facebook that my blog was marked as abusive or spammy. To be honest, that doesn't make any difference to me, but it proves how people can be odd, let's say, in regards to other people's beliefs, opinions and points of view. 

I just want to say that the contents of this blog are the result of my thinking, my beliefs and my point of view and nobody is obliged to read them. I post it to my profile on Facebook and you only clicked on it and read whatever I wrote because you wanted to. If you don't want to, please feel free to ignore it. I don't force my views on anyone, I don't intend to convert anyone and I don't disrespect anyone's view, that's why my blog is only posted to my profile, not to anyone else's profiles or emails. I believe that everybody is entitled to their opinion, I just don't believe that people are entitled to force their opinion on anyone or reprimand anyone's opinion, beliefs or views if they are not intentionally offensive. I want to think about God and I want to find answers that make more sense to me, but I am fully aware that it might not make sense to you who is reading. If this is fine with me, why wouldn't it be fine with you? I like to ask questions out loud about everything and I also question things that may be someone else's solid belief (or disbelief!), but it doesn't mean I am being disrespectful. It means I am thinking about it to get to my own conclusions, similar to when a theory is being challenged by questions and different views of the same subject in the academic world. An inquisitive, open and/ or scientific mind will be able to understand this process and if you think that you don't fit in these categories, maybe this blog is really not for your taste, so don't waste your time. For those who enjoy thinking about all possible things and are up to reading and learning more about everything, hope you enjoy my blog. Anyway, I welcome you all to my space :D

I'm not sure why, but this situation made me remember the passage from the Bible that says: "Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels" Mark 8:38 

I found a video of a film in you tube that I really want to watch (below). I am not sure if this film will be in the cinemas here (probably not, unfortunately), but the trailer looks good. It is based in a spiritist novel that I have read before and loved it called Astral City in english. I will talk about this book here one day :)

Peace!  

Mrs. P 

I can't prove that the points made in this chapter are wrong. Can you?

There are several points made in the first chapter of this book that challenges anyone to prove them to be incorrect!!! I definitely can't say I would be able to prove them wrong with any other kind of reasonable theory (between you and me, I don't feel the need to prove them wrong, because the points made in this chapter are very reasonable to my understanding!!).

This is another book from Allan Kardec. I am currently reading it. The first chapter already showed me that this book will be extremely interesting and it will make me think a lot which it's always great! Mediumship ( this book, like any other Allan Kardec's book, will also challenge your vocabulary, so a dictionary might be needed for the difficult words!) is still a controversial subject to many, but mainly because people don't try to read about it and be properly informed about this subject to get to their own conclusions, they simply reject it straight away...not a good way to ponder about anything in my point of view!
This book came out in 1861, but its concepts and explanations are still very much contemporary, especially because people still ask the same questions over and over again without having an answer to them and also not accepting new answers, if they are offered, because of disguised prejudice or maybe just plain stubbornness! This book gives you loads of answers, but if you will accept them or not, it's up to you. To me, they make perfect sense! 

I copied in the first chapter of the book below to give you a taster. Good chapter for the inquisitive minds as well as for the skeptical ones. 

You can read the book for free here: 

http://www.oconsolador.com.br/linkfixo/bibliotecavirtual/ingles/ingles.html

Enjoy! 

Mrs. P 

DO SPIRITS EXIST?
 

1. Doubt concerning the existence of spirits arises from ignorance of their real nature. People usually imagine spirits to be something apart from the rest of creation, and the reality of whose existence has not been proved. Many think of them as imaginary beings, known to them only through the fantastic tales of their childhood, and regard their authenticity much as they would that of the personages of a romance. Without stopping to inquire whether those tales, divested of absurd accessories, may not have some foundation of truth, they see only their absurdities; and not giving themselves the trouble to peel off the bitter husk in order to get at the kernel, they reject the whole, just as others, shocked at certain abuses in religion, confound the whole subject in the same reprobation. Whatever ideas we may hold in regard to spirits, the belief in their existence is necessarily founded on that of the existence of an intelligent principle distinct from matter; this belief is therefore incompatible with an absolute negation of such a principle.We assume then, as the ground-work of our belief, the existence, survival, and individuality of the soul, of which spiritualism is the theoretic and doctrinal demonstration, and spiritism the practical proof. Let us then, for a moment, leave out of sight the fact of spirit-manifestations, properly so called, and let us see to what conclusions we are led by inductive reasoning.
 

2. If we admit the existence of the soul and its individuality after death, we must necessarily also admit: 

1st, that it is of a nature different from that of the body, since, when separated from the body, it enters upon a phase of existence distinct from the destiny of the body ; 

2d, that the soul retains, after death, its individuality and self-consciousness, and the capacity of feeling happiness and unhappiness, as otherwise it would be an inert being, and its existence would be equivalent to non-existence. These points being admitted, it follows that the soul goes somewhere ; but what becomes of it, and whither does it go? According to the ordinary belief it goes to heaven or to hell ; but where is heaven, and where is hell? People used formerly to say that heaven was '' up on high," and hell, '' down below ; " but what is " up," and what is "down," in the Universe, since we have learned that the earth is round, and that, through the movement of all the stellar bodies, what is " up " now, will be " down " twelve hours hence, and this throughout the immeasurable extent of infinite space? It is true that, by "below," we may likewise understand the "deep places of the earth;" but what has become of those "deep places," since geologists have begun to dig into the interior of the globe?
What has become of those concentric spheres called the "heaven of fire," the " heaven of stars," etc., since we have found out that the earth is not the centre of the universe, and that our sun is only one of the countless myriads of suns which shine in space, and each of which is the centre of a planetary system of its own ? Where is now the earth's importance, lost as it is in this immensity ? and by what unjustifiable privilege shall we assume that this imperceptible grain of sand, distinguished neither by its bulk, its position, nor any peculiarity of attribute, is the only sphere peopled by intelligent creatures? Reason refuses to admit such an inutility of infinitude; and common sense declares that all the other worlds of the universe must be inhabited, and that, being inhabited, they, too, must furnish their contingent to the realm of souls. But what, it may next be asked, becomes of the souls thus multiplied to infinity by the theory of the plurality of worlds, now that astronomy and geology have annihilated their ancient habitations?
To this question we reply that, the doctrine which formerly localised souls being opposed to the data of modern science, another and more logical doctrine assigns to then, as their domain, not any fixed and circumscribed localities, but universal space itself which is thus seen to be one grand system, in the midst of which we live, which environs us unceasingly, and touches us at every point. Is there anything inadmissible in such a theory, anything repugnant to our reason? Assuredly not; on the contrary, our reason tells us that it cannot be otherwise. But, it may next be asked, what becomes of the doctrine of future rewards and punishments, if we rob them of their special localities ? In replying to this objection, we must pause to remark that incredulity, in regard to those rewards and punishments, is ordinarily provoked by the fact of their being presented under inadmissible conditions; and that, if instead of such conditions, we assume that souls carry their happiness or their misery in themselves, that their lot is always determined by their moral state, that the union of good and sympathetic souls is a source of felicity, and that, according to their degree of purity, is their power of penetrating and discerning things that are still dark to souls of lower degree, all difficulties disappear, and the grand idea of our continuous existence becomes comprehensible and acceptable. Let us assume, still farther, that the degree of each soul's elevation depends on the efforts it makes for its own amelioration during series of existences that serve as the means and tests of its progressive purification, that "angels" are only the souls of men who have attained to the highest degree of excellence; that all can attain to that degree by effort and determination; that those who have attained to that degree are God's messengers, charged to superintend the execution of His designs throughout the universe, finding their happiness in these glorious missions. And we surely attribute to the idea of our future felicity an end more useful and more attractive than that of a perpetual state of contemplation which would be only a perpetual state of inutility. Let us assume, yet farther, that "demons" also are no other than the souls of wicked men, not yet purified, but who have the power to purify themselves like the others, and it must surely be admitted that such a theory is more in conformity with the justice and goodness of God than the assumption that they were created for evil, and predestined to a perpetuity of misery. Is there, we ask, in such a theory, anything opposed to reason, anything, in a word, that the most rigorous logic, or plain common sense, can find any difficulty in admitting?
The souls, then, that people space, are what we call spirits: and spirits are nothing but the souls of men stripped of their envelope of gross terrestrial matter. If spirits were beings apart from ourselves, their existence would be merely hypothetical ; but, if we admit that souls exist, we must also admit that spirits are nothing else than souls, and, if we admit that universal space is peopled by souls, we must equally admit that spirits are everywhere. We cannot deny the existence of spirits without denying the existence of souls.
 

3. All this, it is true, is only a theory, though one that is more rational than other theories ; but it is something to possess a theory that is not in contradiction with reason or science, and if, moreover, this theory is corroborated by facts, it must be admitted that our position has the double sanction of reason and experience. Such corroborating facts we assert to be furnished by the phenomena of spirit-manifestation, which constitute the irrefragable proofs of the existence and the survival of the soul. With many persons, however, belief ends here; they readily admit the existence of souls, and consequently that of spirits, but they deny the possibility of holding communication with them, because, they say, " immaterial beings cannot act upon matter." This denial proceeds from ignorance of the real nature of spirits, about which the world in general holds exceedingly false ideas, erroneously regarding them as abstract beings, as something vague and indefinite; which is a great mistake.
Let us, in the first place, consider the spirit in reference to its union with the body. The spirit is the principal being, because it is that which thinks, and which survives the body, the latter being only an envelope, a vestment, of gross matter, that the spirit throws off when it is worn out but, besides this material envelope, the spirit has a second envelope, which is semi-material, and which unites it to the first at death, the spirit casts off the first, but retains the second, to which we give the name perispirit.
This semi-material envelope, which has the human form, constitutes, for the spirit, a vaporous, fluidic body, which, though invisible to us in its normal state, nevertheless possesses some of the properties of matter. A spirit is therefore not a mathematical point, an abstraction, but is a real being, limited and circumscribed, and lacking only the qualities of visibility and palpability to show its resemblance to human beings. Why then should it not act on matter? Is it because its body is fluidic? But is it not among the most rarified fluids, those which we call "imponderable," as electricity, for example, that man finds his most powerful motors? Does not imponderable light exercise a chemical action on ponderable matter? We do not understand the precise nature of the perispirit but, supposing it to be formed of electrical matter, or of something else equally subtle, why should it not have the same property of action as electricity, when under the direction of a will?

4. The existence of the soul and the existence of God, as consequences of each other, being the basis of the edifice of spiritism, it is necessary, before entering on the discussion of this subject, to ascertain whether our reader admits that basis. If to the questions:
Do you believe in God? 

Do you believe you have a soul?

Do you believe in the survival of the soul after death? 

If he responds with a negative, or even if he simply says: - " I do not know; I should be glad if it were so, but I do not feel sure of it " (a reply that would be usually equivalent to a polite negation, disguised under a gentler form to avoid wounding what he may regard as respectable prejudices), it would be as useless to continue our present argument with such a one, as it would be to demonstrate the properties of light to a blind man who did not believe in the existence of light: because, spirit-manifestations being neither more nor less than effects of the soul's peculiar qualities, it would be useless to reason there upon with one who denies the soul's existence, and who would require a totally different line of argument from that of the present work. We therefore take it for granted that those who read this book admit the existence and survival of the soul; and if this basis be admitted, not as a mere probability, but as an acknowledged and incontestable fact, the existence of spirits follows as a natural consequence.
 

5. There still remains the question whether spirits can communicate with men ; in other words, whether they can exchange thoughts with us. But why should they not do so? What is a man, if not a spirit imprisoned in a body? And why should not a free spirit be able to hold converse with a spirit in prison, just as a free man can converse with another who is bound in chains? If you admit the survival of the soul, is it rational not to admit the survival of the soul's affections? Since souls are everywhere, is it not natural to believe that the soul of one who has loved us during life should come near to us, should desire to communicate with us, and should, for that purpose, make use of the means in his power for doing so? Did not his soul, during his earth-life, act upon the matter of which his body was composed? Was it not his soul that directed the movements of his body? Why then, after death, if in sympathy with another spirit still bound to an earthly body, should he not borrow an earthly body in order to manifest his thoughts, just as a dumb man makes use of a man who can speak to express his wishes ?
 

6. But let us leave out of sight, for the moment, the phenomena which, for us, render this fact incontestable, and let us admit its reality simply as an hypothesis; and considering the question from this point of view, let us ask the incredulous to prove to us, not by mere negation, for their personal opinion is no law, but by arguments based on reason, that such communications can not take place. We will place ourselves on their own ground; and, since they insist on judging of spiritist facts by the laws of matter, we invite them to draw, from the arsenal of physical science, some demonstration, mathematical, chemical, or physiological, and to prove by a plus b (always, however, keeping in mind the principle acknowledged, viz., that of the existence and survival of the soul): 

1st. That the being who thinks in us during life will no longer think after death; 

2d. That, if it thinks, it will not think of those whom it has loved; 

3d. That, if it thinks of those whom it has loved, it will not desire to communicate with them; 

4th. That, if it has the power of being everywhere, it will not have the power of visiting us; 

5th. That, if it can visit us, it will not have the power of communicating with us; 

6th. That it will not be able to act upon inert matter by means of its fluidic envelope; 

7th. That, if able to act upon inert matter, it will not be able to act upon an animated being; 

8th. That, if able to act upon an animated being, it will not direct his hand, and make it write;

9th. That, being able to guide a human hand in writing, it will not be able to answer questions, and transmit its own thoughts to the questioner.

When the adversaries of spiritism shall have proved all this, by reasoning as incontrovertible as that by which Galileo proved that the sun does not turn round the earth, we will admit that their doubts are founded. But as, up to the present time, their whole argument may be summed up in words such as these "I do not believe these things, therefore they are impossible". They will doubtless tell us that it is for us to prove the reality of the manifestations; to which we reply, that we prove them both by facts and by reasoning, and that, if they admit neither the one nor the other, if they deny even what they see themselves, it is for them to prove that our reasoning is false, and that the facts we adduce are impossible.
 

The Medium's Book by Allan Kardec, chapter 1