Se ha denunciado esta presentación.
Utilizamos tu perfil de LinkedIn y tus datos de actividad para personalizar los anuncios y mostrarte publicidad más relevante. Puedes cambiar tus preferencias de publicidad en cualquier momento.

The Origin of the Spiritual Monkey - The Man-

107 visualizaciones

Publicado el

The Origin of the Spiritual Monkey - The Man- EN

Publicado en: Ciencias
  • Inicia sesión para ver los comentarios

  • Sé el primero en recomendar esto

The Origin of the Spiritual Monkey - The Man-

  1. 1. "Polarising Science", Says Top Scientist After Minister's Darwin Remark NDTV NewsJan 21, 2018 Junior Education minister Satyapal Singh's statement questioning the evolutionary theory of Charles Darwin has been sharply criticized by influential voices from the scientific community, including a former president of INSA (the Indian National Science Academy) the top body of scientists in the country. Minister Satyapal Singh has said Darwin's theory was "scientifically wrong" since there are no witnesses to humans evolving from apes and it should be removed from science books. Today, Raghavendra Gadagkar, the former president of INSA, told NDTV it was "politically polarising science and scientists" which is "the real danger we must guard against". On basis of facts, the statement is untenable at many levels, said the Professor of Ecology and Evolutionary Sciences at the Indian Institute of Science. "At the most elementary level, all evidence indicates that humans diverged from our closest living relative (the chimpanzees) about 5 million years ago. Therefore our ancestors did not have the privilege of witnessing the event and recording it in their scriptures," he added. Biocon chief Kiran Mazumdar Shaw also strongly criticized the minister's statement, saying it is an "insult" to his office and to science and scientists. "For a junior minister from Ministry of Human Resource Development to make this statement is troubling. It's an insult to his office," said Ms Shaw, one of the pioneers of bio-technology research who founded the Bengaluru-based pharma giant. The minister "has insulted scientists and the scientific community across the world. As a biologist I don't know what to say," added Ms Shaw, who has been named by Time Magazine as one of the 100 most influential people in the world. Former environment minister, Congress's Jairam Ramesh, has dismissed Satyapal Singh's comment as "nonsense". "The BJP is the fountainhead of scientific nonsense and obscurantism. Not the first time this gentleman has come up with an outlandish statement... Of course, the Prime Minister is simply not bothered," said Mr Ramesh, who holds degrees from Mumbai's Indian Institute of Technology, the prestigious MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) and the Carnegie Mellon University, a technical research institute in Pennsylvania. Satyapal Singh is standing by his statement, saying he is also a "man of science" and Darwin's statement "is being challenged the world over now". "Darwinism is a myth... If I'm making a statement I can't make it without a basis," the minister told NDTV. "I'm not coming from Arts background... I have completed my PhD in Chemistry from Delhi University," the minister added. [source: X]
  2. 2. The text hasn’t bigger resemblances with the base literature: it’s a political angle, of which there aren’t bigger logistical implications than intimidating a professional in the ambit of the ideas: because hypothesis it’s what one has on hands, in the sense that ‘Adequate yourselves to a pseudo-truth structural’: you may find that this is foolishness, but the History it’s replete of passages like this one: to the point, woe, of a scientist changing of opinion, because… there are interests involved: and wherever there’s interest, there’s money: and wherever there’s money, there’s power: now… indeed, it was something that no one, in sane conscience, since mythological societies evolved to a scientific mentality, will accept a fundamentalism without base: the organic passed to be the solid of that which was called the base anchor of a rationality. In middle to my explanative arsenal, isn’t the theme, but, I’m always showing this kind of thing happening, where uniform movements and constants are questioned: and that, that which was left of the Science, do not have the technologic and sustainable effective capacity of supporting economic growth compatible with the standard Humanity: and this has to be taken with careful much more than the faith, because the Humanity depends of these assertives of the to its existence, much more than the American Senate. Let’s think: 60% of the world energy today still is combustive fossil, a technology of the Neanderthals: and this is almost affirming that the homo sapiens didn’t go beyond the fire: I say this because, that which was burned was also an entrave [obstacle] to the development: even though angling such questions be impossible in the plain of the post-coming, the unity, in its base axioms, tends to reduce its own understanding, because the understanding isn’t basically scientific, but politic: ‘Ora, politic, what’s this…?’: Results, there isn’t an owner… . You may say, ‘you are not a Christian, the India as well, there are yet the North Korea and the Islamic Countries…’: but this is misunderstanding that the Capitalism has a Father and a familiar-managing: and entering in these matters it’s something that I don’t do anymore. In mode that “the Religion It’s Science”, it was what affirmed Pope Francis: Hall of Popes Friday, 6 December 2013 Dear Brothers and Sisters, I welcome you and I cordially greet you at the conclusion of your Plenary Session. I thank the President, Archbishop Müller, for the words which he addressed to me, also on everyone’s behalf. This meeting gives me the opportunity to thank you for the work you have accomplished over the last five years, and to reaffirm the importance of theologians’ ecclesial service for the life and mission of the People of God. As you underlined in your recent document, Theology today: perspectives, principles, criteria, theology is science and wisdom.” [X] This Archbishop Müller the spokesman of Pope Francis until 2017, which mission was being basically redo, modify and correct the thinking of Pope Francis, was fired, and was then stepped away the Roman Senate (most of the Vatican’s Cardinals), and now Francis follows, doing the correction of Paul and Christ. Obs.: Müller had asked Pope Francis to ‘stop speaking shit, and put a team of Cardinals to spoke in his name, on the understanding of Humanity, much more than Christianity’: Francis understood this as a
  3. 3. golpe-de-Estado [Coup], and this was the motive of the demission. It’s something conflicting in the personality of Pope Francis: he is Jesuit, but, doctrinairely, Benedictine. The misery don’t have how to sustain the faith anymore. The Theology it’s not Organic: point. The current understanding of the Vatican, independently of being I or II, because indeed the binning exists, and the why of this binning indeed it’s not had, is that the Genesis of the Christianism it’s 1Corinth15: or be it, an hypothesis: “if there exists marine horses, indeed there exists terrestrial horses”: and this is the unique proof of the existence of a spiritual body: the existence of a terrestrial body, where the nature it’s the unique rational angle possible of an expected spiritual solution: Christ was seen, independently of being body or spirit, cannot be separated of his human atom: the object in question was a body, possessed defined form: the body it’s the definition of an image… unless someone has a photography of a spirit: spirit it’s not a body, and therefore, cannot be seen in the lens: in mode that, the Theology affirms having a spiritual-body: and this is affirming only that God proves the existence of the spirit in Christ, the Man: this doesn’t changes the status of the question, the Spirit it’s not Organic: and therefore, cannot be Science: the existence of spiritual bodies doesn’t alters the status of the question of the procedence: and in this sense, Adam would have to be, obligatorily, as biologic as Christ, because the Conception it’s an Hypothesis, it wasn’t found yet the original-clone…the LUCA… as original as Christ, and in this sense, it cannot valid in the Scientific world. It would be rational suppose then that both Christ and Adam had a natural death: the organic immortality isn’t proved scientifically [some animals in the nature are considered immortals, such as the Hydra magnipapillata , in the sense that in the nature there are beings that live more than the human being, the proof of this is a star..], neither lesser yet a Resurrection: in the same form, the Rise Theory of Paul [yet in 1Cor15], the Resurrection of the Mind, isn’t physical: it’s mental: because indeed, Paul didn’t answered the mystery, neither to himself, neither lesser yet to the Pharisees, which questioned even the nails of Christ, just as the stigmas in the hands, blood and flesh lost in the Cross[…] Christ could be the same, in the maximum, in relation to the birth of the belly of his mother: but his parity with God, independently of his return, it’s relation it’s of resemblance, and not of equality: the same thing refers to one thing that is and isn’t at the same time: because this is the human understanding of the nature, differently of God, which is one thing only: in mode that God would never be natural: the Sin isn’t natural, it’s original: but the death it’s natural: and in this sense, affirming that the nature of the Paradise one day was Organic, would imply in disaffirming the nature, primarily, and not simply play of denying it: “it was like this, but after, it stayed of another way, but now the proof cannot be founded because it disappeared”: this isn’t Science: and in this sense, be the explanation of the why that the genetic material of Christ disappeared: as if the Sudário [Shroud] were the explanation of the Spirit: this would be only proving that indeed God cannot be and never was Human: and it’s coherent, this is the affirmation of the Torah And in this sense, the wisest is that the Theology removes itself of the front, independently of the wisdom of the enemy. What the author complains it’s the same thing of which I come complaining, and woe, the scientific world as well: the phylogeny wasn’t a relevant question: not that it wasn’t indeed, but after Darwin, Newton, Einstein, James Cameron, Jorge Lucas, Steven Spielberg and others, it was believed that the Theological understanding was indeed solved, or at least, very close of a Scientific confirmation: that ‘the nature indeed it’s a unity’. As it may be seen in the Material of Base, the CERN finished the question of the possible axiomatic problems decurrent of the biologic and chemic universe of the question: there was a favorable scenery,
  4. 4. studies of the decade of the 80’s until the beginning of the years 2000, studies made based in genome, which contemplated assertives macro and micro, the science walked to a unification: but since 2010, the scenery changed completely: and the scientific theories, one by one, started to fall: and one of them was the one of Charles Darwin. In the crime-scene, these questions continued to be treated in immersive, but currently, even to the simplest understanding of the question, one by one, the tables were broken: and the man created by God lost his natural ballast: this may have caused some mental embarrass of Pope Francis, that since 2013 started to defend an understanding way beyond his own understanding: that the Science were indeed Religion: Not having had a support, a technical assisting, that the Theology was losing and not winning a scientific ballast with the Theory of the Creation. In mode that, I founded curious the word ‘polarizing’, a word that I use in my texts, which refers to the concatenation of actions, sentiments, in the angle of the value, in a rationality not very usual, for not being dialectics, but ‘clacissist’, where rationalizing isn’t judgement: but it’s something that must be thought: judgement and rationality aren’t the same things: this may be aggressive to the Theory of the ToM, but the reflexion of the senses it’s also something very few known. In mode that, polarizing, yes, it’s something that must be done: because one depolarizing was made previously, ridiculously corruptible. The Nature it’s uninterruptable: it was something that the own Charles Darwin criticized in the final of his life, in his understanding of the gradualism, the changing and the mutation in the nature. It was thought that the phylogeny could indeed be proven, because the phylogeny it’s the lowest that one may go in a table, a box: for being the unique able to answer the most terrible theological conception: The Unicity. The anteriority it’s the point: if one doesn’t have, any affirmation will be doubtable: It’s the proclamation of whom affirms that possesses a base, at the same time on which affirms that this base it’s dead: it’s the resemblance of proclaiming the nothing: the Vatican cynically, in its Canonic understanding, affirms now that the death it’s natural: that the death of all the Saints were natural: insane protestants, the evangelic ones, in a mentality of the Woodstock, affirm that God it’s the nature: ora, God cannot be the nature because the nature it’s a version of God, and therefore, an image: the understanding it’s based in Pauline affirmations, of which there aren’t any scientific parity… Ora, ‘there exists fire in the earth, so then there exists fire in heaven…’: everything in the nature it’s perishable, and the scientific understanding it’s that the universe will end up, that the last star will fade off, and with it the parity with God: ora, God it’s a spirit… the property ‘spiritual body’ comes from ‘natural body’, that whom dies, that whom ends up, that whom fades off…: Christ didn’t prove exactly the resurrection of the body, but the existence of the spirit, the spiritual body… How good that Paul be right in his hypothesis, because, what would it be of the belief if there weren’t spirit… there wouldn’t be God… but what would it worth the existence of God if this were also perishable, equal to the nature…? Ora amigos, equal cannot be … the resemblance exists in function of a recommencement, of a continuity: it’s where the Creationism closures itself with the Evolutive model, the Sin it’s a condition to the human existence… A relation of which the Love could not be overwritten… because the Love was something defined by Law, and the Law excludes the enemy. And in this sense, would be affirming that God is as natural as the man… In mode that dying would never be natural. ‘But Anne, it was something that existed…’: yea, it cannot be like this, ‘the spirit created the body’: this is not scientific: and in this sense, Science cannot be equal to religion: The Science studies the nature, not God, for if so it wasn’t, the Science wouldn’t be Organic. The Resurrection of Christ proves that God isn’t equal to the man, for this, the resurrection of Paul could only be Rise: in mode that, affirming that the death of the man it’s natural, it’s invalidating the Resurrection.
  5. 5. ‘The Vatican is a crazy, then..? it as affirms the death as denies it…?’: yes, because, it’s something that must be better understood, the death since the Beginning, possesses two justifications: the hand of God and the hand of the Man: the spiritual angle cannot be the Nature. The understanding of Pope Francis is that Christ was human, and not exactly in the Trinitarian standard, and be understood more in the Pauline standard: Paul died in the flesh, but his latu sensu it’s spiritual: he did not accepted dying in the hands of the enemy: Paul committed suicide, this is the truth, it’s in 2 Corinth 12 and 13: Paul was going to tell a story, about a man that he had met 14 years previously, and the story disappeared: it’s that whom encounters himself in the condition of burden: it’s a path without coming-back. Christ didn’t die in the flesh because he didn’t have sins when he died, the ‘rise-death’ it’s not biological, in mode that Christ didn’t have a spiritual death: for it not may be angled in the latu sensu of an obtention: it’s from where it comes the interpretation of ‘the same’… In mode that the death of Christ isn’t natural and in this sense, God cannot be the Nature. Christ was never human indeed, and treated himself of a spirit: it’s what Paul affirms: the “all have seen” changes the status of the question, where the image closures itself with the vision: and in this sense, only the image has the explanative power of body. Christ wasn’t natural, and in this sense, cannot be angled as the solution of a Scientific problem. What one wants with this it’s an ambiguity in using the nature to affirm that which she is and in that which she isn’t: and follow ahead with a stupid rationality that, ‘to the human understanding, the death it’s now natural’: In mode that, the understanding of Pope Francis it’s analogous to the one of Paul: that there won’t be the resurrection of the dead ones, that what happened to Christ will not happen to the human beings: the humanity evolved to the point of ‘no longer believing in silliness, as that which happened in the Paradise, and that Christ indeed didn’t multiplied the breads, that the human spirituality possesses the perfect understanding of the why of all this, but that the world and its functioning, and everything else which we love, answers perfectly to the judgement: we exist’: otherwise, the existence wouldn’t be possible… : Are difficult polarizations and demands a lot of reader, in Biblical knowledge, something that the scientists seems not having, because their bodies evolved to spiritual bodies… they are alive because their bodies move in the action: the scientists seem not to know exactly what they look for much more than knowing that with which they cannot be in disaccord… because, ‘dominate the nature’ was how Your Divinity the Use – the primordial action of the human being – appeared: God isn’t the nature, the Science cannot prove such thing: it’s admitting that God possesses weaknesses, defects: a sinner: yes… these were the sentiments of Christ as well… there was some kind of impurity in the flesh.. Paul affirms that Christ was the image of the death and of the sin, a natural body, according to him… Paul doesn’t have an attributive capacity, rationally considered valid, in affirming that the body of Christ goes beyond the limitations of the nature: In the X of the question, what’s known indeed it’s that Christ died, that he didn’t wanted to die… : not only a weakness, but a displeasing to God: Christ vacillated in affirming his action: this is a quality of the defect, of the mortal body: and in this sense, the understanding of Pope Francis is that Christ died: but that his death was not Spiritual: because Christ in that moment had reached his condition of coming-back, the state of spiritual resemblance with God: and per so saying, pure, and immune to the weaknesses of the flesh: the understanding of Paul it’s basically this: Paul described himself as the first fruit, of an angle-seed: the spiritual understanding of Christ, the ‘Arrival’: and in this sense, Paul was affirming that he had arrived there: in mode that, in Christ, all die, but it’s in Paul that begins the recommencement. What does Pope Francis wins with this…? He gets to maintain the affirmation that the death it’s natural, he affirms that God it’s the nature, that the entire Bible may be torned, because the human being attained
  6. 6. the current status of existence, of which the possibilities and the objectives would have conditions to a reality where the virtuality creates conditions to a complacent reality, almost merciful: the acceptation of the disease: the human being finally understood that he is a sick one, and that the fixing it’s that which moves the humanity, in the sense of purpose, of straight-line: the purpose it’s that which makes grow, at the same time on which the defect it’s that which feeds: in mode that the judgement doesn’t goes beyond of affirming that the Sin it’s the coin of the forgiveness: the common latu sensu is that there wouldn’t be work if there wasn’t reward, and functioning would already be the existence, which would be the such contemplation: That the world exists, and this is already the proof of God: because this world, if arrived to such condition, the world told in Christ and reborn in Paul, it’s now Spiritual: that the world finally accepted the death it’s natural of God: the human being loses the Resurrection, assumes the concordance of Paul: it is Rise: but, even though the spirit be questioned, the human being gains God: ‘It was really Him that created the nature’: and this be much more than a hope, but the motive of existing: it was God that wanted so: and in this sense, all the explanation would have been given to the Divine Creature… You may ask me, ‘Anne, what does this has to do with the monkey…?’: ora, if it was God whom created the nature, what’s the problem of the procedence of the homo sapiens being the rhesus monkey, or of the Chimpanzee that be, since he’s cutter…? In mode that it’s plain that the Science, in a certain form, ceased to be the enemy, and that the unification of the theories may be possible, staying only God without procedence… it would be a releasing [libertação] of the human conscience, of scientific bottle-necks… much more than violations of the judgement: as I’ve already said before, the question it’s of thick caliber… judge the things like this is a dangerous thing: even more to a beginner, with his random version of the problems, in contextualize the current historical context: so, think in the difficulty of the question: separating Paul of Christ, and both of Pope Francis: as I’ve already said, Pope Francis it’s an ideology, a doctrinaire thought inside the Vatican and not exactly a character: and in mine understanding, his thinking it’s right, I mean, coherent with that which he defends, the Humanity, and not exactly the love in Christ: ‘there existed a creature, this creature became man, and this man became humanity’: Christ and Paul aren’t as relational, as one thinks, to the world on which we live in: and in this sense, if firstly the story of Adam and Eve was the engineer of the Jews, and Paul and Christ are also the engineer of the Christianism: questioning which’s the engineer of Pope Francis ,wouldn’t be questions so relevant anymore, because this world ‘was created by God, more yet, it’s God’ : what I’d say is that the limit of relevance is that this isn’t more than a boot in an operational system, doing its upgrade once more: That the mechanization of the idea and of the human sentiments have leaded to a thinking on which the machine doesn’t needs of a power-on anymore, that the system self-installs, it auto-corrects itself, and replicates itself: and that it doesn’t needs of necessarily a body anymore, because this body was already made: and the ideas, funded in a mental unity, already come indeed happening: excepting for some unwarned ones, basically, the unique animals that were left, the language have indeed happened, and the humanity be indeed talking in languages: it’s as I said, this thinking it’s dangerous, even because, the Theology cannot proclaim itself as being Organic: in mode that, my concordance with Pope Francis is that be show what which he has on hands, even though because, on the lights of this understanding be that he be doing his jurisdiction, and that he may even go back behind in his scientific understanding and of his understanding of the naturalness of God: but this would be dumbness, would be going back behind on what he said, much more than taking a shot in the head of a protestant, which really needs of the cure and all the presets of Christ. As I’ve spoken before, the humanity deals with a difficult moment: and orient my reader, much more than disorient them with the stories, isn’t indeed a theological work, which isn’t
  7. 7. more than scientific: in mine understanding, both things are bugged: And this generated as well a Biblical misunderstanding: A correction of 1Cor15 was made and will be posted, just as stories of the sequence The Prisoner, which gives support to which was spoken in this article, because, if you don’t have a Biblical understanding, you really won’t have how to understand what was written. Most of the people indeed don’t have it, and you may say that it doesn’t matter, that it’s a garbage… and I say, amigo, you don’t have indeed the understanding of the world on which you live: the world it’s controlled by Christians, few matters the GDP of China, the China will become Christian as well, it already is Christian: and you say ‘Where that the China it’s Christian?’: you only need to function to be Christ: if you are in the world, you are Christ: and if Christ it’s in you, it’s because you are a dead one: you may think on moving yourself, but the actions aren’t yours, because the thoughts aren’t yours: I’m not in the world… I come to the city to post my articles… I’m in the middle of the Amazon forest, aside of the Atroaris tribe… it’s not a very accessible place… I’m not a thief of the nature, neither an impostor liar pretending himself passing himself as God, not only because has the grace but the understanding of the Holy Spirit: ora, Donald Trump maintained the Concordat that Obama signed, just as the most of the democratic countries: there exists a financial capital in the world, in the same way that the big most of the medias are protestant: you may misunderstand the command of whom controls the base institutions of teachings, and the middles of communications: if you go work in a Company, its chief will be Christian: be it a government chief or a director of an important multinational, the president of a bank, and even a business-man: if you didn’t knew this, consider very important what I write, for it will help you a lot in the understanding of the world, this on which you live in and misperceive not being you: and in these conditions, remove yourself off the world, because nothing of what I write will make sense to you. it’s my basic procedure: suficientemente forte para não agir, suficientemente forte para não pensar: deixarás este lugar: estás na terra, passarás: e passando, não habitarás: In mode that, in this sense, I’m inservível. To the good Christian, by his turn, on ready this article, it’s laughing, because, he knows that this won’t work nothing, just as him, you will not get out of the world, because just as him, encountered facilities: for otherwise, educating would be impossible: to these, I say to not stop reading, just because Satan sprayed wounds in your ears… because the science stayed in the table… and the wisdom of the flesh maybe be important, because, the wisdom of the flesh may not be exactly equal to the nature one. This is the understanding of Pope Francis, woe… : understand, if God it’s the nature, his it’s perishable. But to Pope Francis, this doesn’t be a burden, but the realization of an impossible dream… an acquisition, the buy of the universe couldn’t cease to be a negotiation, just as the marriage or any judicial contract, and this depends on the enemy’s concordance: and in this, Pope Francis would be overwriting Paul, that the same Law of the Flesh it’s the same Law of the Enemy: and to Pope Francis it be ‘yes, I can’: ‘it’s in the hour of God accepting the guilty, and rewrite the woman: the family depends on this to the perfect understanding of the love…’: in mode that the love of Paul and the love of Christ weren’t exactly in the humanitarian standards: why would God have an enemy, why a second action in the universe, if all comes from God and God it’s everything, why wouldn’t the nature be? Why would there be something cosmical, metaphysical or even really, spiritual, that it wasn’t exactly God…? Pope Francis defends the state of a rationality, and in this sense, it’s human thinking like this: In mode that, erasing the Mythological past be the path to be followed, much more than supporting Theological validations: yes, shaking the hand of the enemy it’s the proof of the love of God that was lacking in the Book. In mode that once more I affirm that it’s correct the Pope Francis, in wanting to put end in the metaphor, and remove the ambiguities of the Book… and redefine the allotropic values of God… the relation between the insane and the just, and the sacrificed-one and the good-one [o sacrificado e o bondoso]… I write in the light of the events, it’s something that it’s happening, and not
  8. 8. even everybody has the mind so plain to understand what’s happening… I have another understanding of the question…and this is very difficult in a world where the minds were unified and translated in a functioning. But to these, I say as well that if functioning it’s the guarantee of an existence, persecuting scientist it’s also imprudence, because, ‘if Christ was right, we were clever, and we’ll give ourselves well: but if Christ was wrong, then we are the most miserable ones, we played the clown’ : yes, you may quickly arrive to this interpretation that this is the understanding of Paul, that it’s being rendered by Pope Francis: Christ believed in demons, where the physical evil was a spiritual evil: Christ spoke more of the serpent than of God, and the base of the thinking it’s of the Seedline of Serpent, Jewish: and in this sense, ‘if Christ did not resurrected from the deads’…. Do not be so important…because existing it’s being God: ‘but a God that dies…?’: pois é… in mode that I’m helping you in your concordance, and that you indeed understand what you readed, or what you come accepting since you were born. I don’t know indeed how much this disturbs the studious of the issue.. I know that, for me, it was almost mortal. In mode that it isn’t as easy like this shaking the hand of the enemy. The nature doesn’t have the answers, and neither has the solution, because misunderstands the look for: and in this sense, valorize a scientist which raises himself against a structure, independently of the wisdom in question, be something human as well: and in this sense, may be evolutive as well: and this may be so understood as a manifestation of God, that the human conscience have indeed attained the such stage of self-reflection in dealing with the question and admit that sustained a lie, independently of being this the Humanity sustained by Pope Francis. And in this sense, that the Pope Francis be clearer in his affirmations, and not that scientists contrary to a structure of ideas be persecuted: this are the sentiments of this article: a clearing up: Much more than polemize or destroy patrimonies constructed: What I say is that the Law of the Flesh has to be the same law of the Spirit: The Law it’s one only and this is the unicity of the question. Not being so, the Theology and the Science will never have angle to solve the permanence of the humanity, as something strange to the nature. In mode that it’s plain and at the same time, honest, the affirmations of the PhD Satyapal Singh, that the evolutive concept of the tree of life of Charles Darwin, of which the Theology still breaths, for more than 150 years (and this overwrites five thousand years of History, because the such proof indeed never existed), it’s wrong: declaring that the opinion of the PhD it’s a crime against the Biology and the Scientific world, could only be the opinion of an idolater. I think so not being this the position of Pope Francis, in mode that I didn’t come speak neither of Pope Francis, neither of Paul and neither of Christ: I came to talk about another thing, that which isn’t the same thing and neither one unique thing.
  9. 9. The Origin of the Monkey it’s Spiritual: because it was God who Created the nature. The Monkey-Creature, fundaments itself in God as end, the end of the nature in the man, and that only for this the misery existed: and what one wants to affirm with this is that ‘the natural ceased to exist’, that ‘the nature it’s only a transitory sentiment in the will of God, and that whether the enemy doesn’t exists indeed, such understanding doesn’t affects that was the spirit that prevailed, because indeed it didn’t died…’: a evolutive stage it’s contemplated in the Theology of Pope Francis: God it’s an event, an action with creative power: and that its state of naturalness be one more of His allotropies, as a form of co-validating the naturalness of God through the man: these things won’t pass unperceived and this is also one more angle of my multiple clearing ups. This have been shown in Charles Darwin, this kind of cleverness of the reason, in angling two fixes, ‘the conscience of God’ and ‘the conscience of the Nature’ with two distinct procedences, and this explains even the why the Vatican doesn’t agrees with diverse affirmations of Pope Francis: and this is almost a footnote, because, this has taken me more time and unnecessary effort in going ahead with the stories which I don’t consider mines, the natural ones, of that which I came talk about exactly: where the spirit of the monkey will be better defined. The origin of the monkey it’s spiritual: the man. ‘If there exists terrestrial macaques, there must exist celestial macaques’ : Affirmations of Paul in the New Version of the Idea: the Divine Creature would have an anthropological past with God: The Ontology proves that this is possible: The Spirit: in mode that, God it’s that which will be: the result-man: he was natural one day: but now, it’s the spiritual-being.

×