HOME | DD
gothdevil — God
Published: 2006-02-02 07:17:51 +0000 UTC; Views: 249; Favourites: 1; Downloads: 7
Redirect to original
Description
Heart to heartSoul to soul,
Heaven to hell,
Dust to gold.
God, if your real.
God, if your there,
Don’t even do this,
Don’t make it unfair.
You touch her
You die
You hurt her
You’re mine.
This love I have
Has more power then you,
You take her from me,
Your rain will be through.
If she has to suffer,
If she goes through pain,
I’ll beat you so bad
Your ass will be insane.
Higher then heaven,
Deeper then hell,
You cannot touch me,
If you try, you’ll fail.
She is perfect,
She is great,
I will not allow you
To mess with her fate.
In the Book,
It says you’ll never see defeat,
If you mess with this girl,
You will bow down to my feet.
My heart to her heart,
My soul be given to her,
Forevr she will live,
God, you’ll lose to this love.
I love her.....
Comments: 45
There is actually a powerful, completely true Guideposts story about this exact sort of thing (I may get a couple small facts wrong, please forgive me):
A mother's 3rd child was afflicted with some fatal disease (I think it was cancer) and the mother absolutely refused to let him go. She went utterly berserk-she ran a massive fundraiser, posted stories all over the Internet, founded her own website, and spent-literally-millions of dollars on all kinds of medical treatments.
It was all futile: the child continued to slip away, and the mother got very angry at God, for exactly the same reasons as the boy in this poem. Finally, as she sat by her son's gurney, holding his hand, he said, "It's all right, Momma. The angels are all around me. It's time to let me go." The mother argued about it, but her son was unusually adamant. Finally, she kissed him goodnight, left the room, and sat down on the bench outside, waiting for the news that her son was dead.
As she sat there, she started thinking about that old cliche: "If you love someone, you must let them fly free." So she started talking to God. "God, I realize that though he may be my son, he is not my possesion-I do not own him, and if it his his time to die, that's between you and him."
Morning came, and the nurse in charge of the son's care told the mother that her son wanted to speak with her. She walked into the room, and her son looked more alive and awake than he had in weeks. "It's all right Momma. God told me I didn't have to leave yet." The mother was confused. "Are you sure about that?" "Yes Momma, he said I had another job to do."
Now the mother and her son live happily with the rest of their family, and though the son still struggles with his cancer, he's in no fear of death or crippling.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
THIS IS SOOO ******************* I HATE IT!! I'm a believer. no one can beat GOS
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Um, you wrote this really well, but I got one problem. Maybe that was in God's plan for her to be taken away. All bad things happen for a reason. And, you can't beat up God, he can look at you and blink and that will be the end of that.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
"If she has to suffer,
If she goes through pain,
I’ll beat you so bad
Your ass will be insane"
This cracked me up. Right on the button!
Nice workin'!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I do like it, crude poetry, but it gets the point across. I hope your life is going well, mines failed me so far. I am no longer with Jon, my love from from away. Though he is trying to get back with me, pleading for me, he made his mistake, now he must fix me before he can come back. I do not believe in a god either. I lost faith when I died inside so long ago...
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I'm sorry to hear that your notdoin so well. Life can get to be that way at times, hell I was goin through the samething you could say that you are. It sucks. I'm glad you like tha poems. Yea it does get the point across, and for this one thats all I was tryin to do. In my opion, it's not my best one, but all I really wanted was to get my point across. However the girl I wrote this for, things are gettin better in someways, and I'm glad that this poem doesn't fully fit her. It was wrote to the point like this girl was dying. And I have lost my fath in god to do the fact of all the bad shit in this world.....
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Higher then heaven,
Deeper then hell,
You cannot touch me,
You can't touch me I'm the ginger bread man!!!!
sorry I had to...sitting here at Epic and that just amused me when you said it!!
I like...but can I ask who is it about?? how abou the new girl you are dating?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
if you must know, after you told me about that one prob, i wrote it thinkin of you.
i'm not at home, i'm at the hotel.....
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
oohhh ok..... if you will email my pics (if you can) I will deviate them myself.....
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
i can do it if you want me to it's no big deal, but i will if you want me too? up to you.....
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I told you it is up to you it doesn't bother me one way or another
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
that's really good i like!
sry i'm not much of a critic. never have been.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
lol its ok. Thanks.....
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
The 'god' (small 'g' 'god') is a myth fostered by the church to keep us in line, just an idea planted in us like DNA thousands of years ago by our ancestors, a rule-by-fear thing. I am not about being ruled and not about fear. Like Alice In Wonderland, 'god' small 'g' is just a deck of playing cards, the real one is no fear and all love.
Technically this makes me an atheist because I will not kiss the ass of the Old Guy With The Beard. Sorrry, freedom is our birthright and shouldn't be stolen by us from us in the name of fear and ancestors thousnds of years dead.
Your poem rocks with the power of that knowledge, I just say it (much differentl) Vive la difference!
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Exactly.
Nice way of putting it, falls in line with my views.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I just added you...umm, PM me when you get a chance, please? Just picking up on "pop physics" books about alternate universes for Real Good Reasons (Fred Alan Wolf among others).
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
k.
DO those books have any of the math in them?
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
No, they do not; they're written for non-math heads like me! Thus the reference to "pop physics" books. However, the one I'm reading now has a decent bibliography with the appropriate journal articles to consult.
Also, you might - but I use the word "might" with an emphasis - want to check out the following two guys websites; they are both physicists but both were consultants to the film WHAT THE BLEEP DO WE KNOW...which even I have had some problems with:
[link]
and
[link]
both are physicists and have shown considerable interest in the (local) ramififcations of other universe other dimensions.
Ya know something? I'm gonna PM you about the rest of this.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Go ahead, I'll check out those links later k?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
XLNT
In the meantime I found a less-polemical, more straightforward intro to quantum for folks like me, THE QUANTUM WORLD by Kenneth W. Ford, published by Harvard U Press.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Okay, you seem to be interested in Physics....
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yes I am, but the reasons for my interest may seem like an agenda 
If I seem to perceive you correctly you are one of those folks for whom the math of Einstein, Bohrs, Schrodinger, and Feyneman is as lucid a the light now coming in my window. I am one of THOSE for whom it is NOT; and I am attempting this year to make at least some headway in learning at least the rudiments math-wise, which means picking up where I left off in Algebra 101 forty years ago in high school. In the last few years I have discovered, both for myself and in others, that when something SEEMS incomprehensible it is because I am not paying attention to something very basic about the subject at hand. I'm sure you have had the misfortune of explaining something, not necessarily about math, to someone and have them reply either "yeah but" or just look at you with a cow-like expression. In either instance, the person wasn't listening to you. HEARING you, yes, but not LISTENING.
Generally when a person (I'm a person) doesn't make headway in learning they / I am not listening. So thus my new approach to getting this down.
Now for my agenda - uh, reason. Since we just met here at DA I doubt that you know that I am a channeler, that is, I make claim to be in mental contact with beings in other dimensions. Some people who are too grounded in a materialist / reductionist viewpoint react by trotting out the usual schizophrenia / psychosis labels and attempting to paste them on me. I have had therapists pronounce on what mental problems I have / have had, and they include rage, depression and narcissism; but not psychosis, schizophrenia, DID and the like. I hasten to add that the information I get from the sources which I allege have helped me see my real problems in a good perspective wherein I have been able to do something positive about them; I am NOT being instucted to get a rifle and to start picking off the locals or anything like that, not at all.
Having dropped that one, I have been aware for a good number of years that people like myself usually turn to occultist literature in attempts to sound logical or scientific. This is like trying to take satellite pictures of the earth and attempting to use them to prove that the world is flat. Further, any "science" that occultists use is little more than Neo-Pythagorean harmonic theory; this is good if you are atempting to build a violin or a good concert hall, but the "science" is at least 22000 years old, and if pushed bck to Pythagoras himself, 2600. I would not wish to cross the ocean in a boat that old, nor would I wish to be treated by a doctor whose medical practice is based upon the Four Humours of Aristotle. The boat would sink and the doctor would likely kill me.
It is a precarious thing to establish PSYCHICAL fact as PHYSICAL fact, and the person who tries risks much foolishness. However I find the idea to learn at least a little of physics, post-Feyneman, in which there are multitudinous universe and / or dimensions, appealing. As an excuse I put forth that physics since (say) Planck and Bohr's time has disestablished much of the materialist / reductionist philosophy that Spencer pushed so hard in the 19th century as the working model for science. What I find cool is that while some minority opinions may go unheard in scientific circles, they are at least able to be published and, if the impetus is there, to be subject to peer review and independent trial and experimentation. Whether or not I succeed in "proving" what I say is not the point, I would be more than happy if some quadrant of physics would ALLOW that what I claim MAY BE SO. I've no desire to make people believ me and have no pathological desire to be right. Russell once commented that if someone chose to disbeliev Socrates, he would shrug and walk away; but if Jesus' listeners didn't believe him, he was ready to call down fire and brimstone on them. Don't know about you, but I'll shrug with Soc. (Hey! That sounds coll! 'Shrug with Soc!')
I usually don't go into such depth about this stuff, and you are certainly allowed the virtue of making up your mind about all of this! But if I haven't scared or annoyed you away, do hit me back!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Here's the hit back, :hit:.
You are absolutely right about the comprehension bit, and also the fact about the 'hearing' and the 'listening'.
I would say that science is about as old as you have stated from the point of view of the humans themselves. This is because it is us who our science apples to.
So, you are catching up on your physics, are you.... well then, if you have any problems, feel free to share them with me, so that I may ponder with you.
I would also like to point out that physics as humans see it is useless without a general idea of basic philosophy. [Not going any further].
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
*with a broad smile*
I smile because of your very last words, [not going any farther] - well that among other things. Science of any stripe cannot help but be androcentric, I suppose, no facts exist in a vacuum; well, they might, but we have a habit of making them fit somewhere, or do something.
Hmm, philosophy now, hmm. *scratches head* In the course of 25 -30 years I read a lot, with the notable exceptions of Kant and Hegel; after plwing, or should I saw plodding through Sartre I realized he was taking 55 pages to say what could be said in a apargraph, thus muddying his own pond. I gave Lyotard a whirl, Baudillard more or less killed philosphy for me. What I find myself reading these last three years is Nietzsche, and that English fellow (can't think of his name) who has done some excellent analysis of him; damn, the name won't come, but the one book has the word Viroid in the title. In Nietzsche proper I always wind up in the pages of Zarathustra.
I often claim to be poor in rigorous analytical thought, tending more to lyrical and poetic expression, which is fine...when I am being poetic. At the same time I learned much from the philosphes, especially the linguists of the day. Condorcet and ummm....well, after the Enlightenment came von Humboldt, who was kinda ahead of his time in linguistics. But if I have any critical ability it is from reading Voltaire, among others.
I'm actually getting somewhere with Ford's book, he introduces some very basic stuff - like Feyneman diagrams - and if I find myself losing my way in the (simple) equations he has, I just go back over it again.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I'm getting straight to the point about analytical thought and it's expression.
I'd say there's not much of a problem there, poetic expression is fine, as long as the content hints at a seemingly hidden context which may or may not be logically, or analytically planned out, as long as it allows the listener, or reader, or receiver [as such] to think, and expand in their own terms. However, a form of restraint would most certainly be required, or else the idea may change completely in the due course of translation. What do you think?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I think you've illustrated not only the problem that people have with poetic / lyric expression but a problem with language as a whole. I think it was Plutarch who said that words are like water in your hand, the more your press them for meaning the faster they run out of your grasp.
You seem to have a firm grasp that human language is at best a balancing act between saying / writing what you mean precisely and the saying / writing of it colorfully. An excess of lyrical expression has lead to the transformation of most religions from what their founders intended to what they are today. It's probable that the Buddha, Mohammed, Moses, Lao-Tze and Jesus would be shocked to see what their modern followers have made of their pronouncements and writings. But this is what happens; as individuals have a particular phenomenological bias when it comes to understanding conversation and text, a distortion of what is meant - especially in texts is bound to occur. If I say "red" you may think of a particular shade of crimson while someone else may have in mind a deep rose or red-orange, that sort of thing. Someone once wrote that it was amazing that the Catholic Church didn't talk itself to death in trying to define what it was that they believed.
Interesting attempts to refine the use of language were made by a poet and an analytical philosopher in the early part of the 20th century. The philosopher was Ludwig Wittgenstein and his work was the beautiful TRACTATUS LOGICO-PHILOSOPHICUS; it's actually quite lyrical and expressive! The poet was Laura Riding, one-time gf of Robert Graves; she began a massive POETIC DICTIONARY with him and continued it with her next guy Schuyler ?Thomas? and it is an exercise in close analysis of the use of words from a phenomological standpoint.
I've done with Ford's book on quantum, btw and have started rereading it so's it'll sink in better; I found that I've made some headway and what confusion I have is not having fully absorbed the basic structure / terminology that physicists use in describing their work - like the Feyneman diagrams. But I'm having a good time in a subject that used to make my head spin!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Hm.... this is too late for me to reply to this, are you done with that book yet?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Ummm....I haven't been here much in the last month.....hmmmmm.......the one about physics? Yeah, read it through twice, our member Yvgeny seemed to have a knack for understanding and explaining both the numbes and concepts. (He moved to another Community like ours. In some ways, like ours)
We found a wenbsite run by a fellow named John K. Harms, he is something of a maverick but his ideas about the basis of matter and anti-matter seem right on.
At any rate, it's good to hear from you. I just haven't been around to hear from anyone in quite a while, I went back to work (dammit) and it seems that that is all I've been doing! Hope you are well and at pea me back!
Roy (Amanita)
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Hm.... I see.
Well, my exams are on, and it doesn't seem like I'll be responding to comments in a while [again], but it's good to hear from you too.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Has an oddly familiar ring!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
lol thanks. I really never have thought there was a god. No one in my family thinks there is. I would have to say you would be an atheist gor that one statement. But hey that's ok.....
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Most of my life I thought I believed in god. (But thought, with the capital "G.")
I do not believe in god because it (god) is a contradiction in terms and an insult to the intelligence and integrity of the worst human being on the planet, never mind the rest of us.
That there is Something?Someone?Somethem? whom I have experienced while in exalted states I am not in doubt, but I am one person among billions of other people here. If we are evolving, so are They. No ass-kissing involved.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Glad I seem to be making sense!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Your rain will be through.
it should be reign shouldn't it?
reminds me of some personal stuff.
I felt this way about my love, who loves someone else [I think, and I'm probably right. He loves her too, she doesn't know of my feelings]. It's just that I didn't bring god into the picture.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
yup i'm goin through the same, all difference is like you said, I did bring god into it. THIS SHIT SUCKS. but hey its life, what can we do about it. ( NOTHING )
👍: 0 ⏩: 1