Relativity has its limits: in mathematics Pasta, any repository is valid in principle. But as soon as it enters the concrete, Noodly Touch muddies. As if sciences Påstås all repositories are equal, there are nevertheless more equal than others.

For rent: in fact it is the Earth that falls on the Apple. But if another Apple falls at the same time at the other end of the Earth ? Well two apples fall one towards the other cancelling respective falls of the Earth toward them : "Aaarghh... no but !... nothing at all ! Seriously (hum!) all Imploding, it is just that the mass of the Earth slightly slows its implosion (due to its mass and/or his movement), is therefore relatively grows from apple (and mutually), and is therefore going to meet them. It is imperceptible, but that's enough to give the impression that apples fall, while it is the Earth that swells (revelation is here, the time is grave, because the gravity is that !).

Il y aurait donc bien des centres de référence relatifs ( Car on a toujours pas trouvé la centre ultime ), Souvenons-nous de notre spationaute voyageant extrêmement vite : Il revient plus jeune que ses congénères (bon, ça aurait été prouvé lors des sorties dans l'espace). Mais en le prenant comme référentiel (comme la pomme) ce serait la Terre qui aurait voyagé plus vite par rapport à lui, et donc ses congénères qui devrait être plus jeunes... Alors quoi ?

Et bien, le temps a à voir avec la masse des objets : Einstein avait trouvé que la masse courbait l'espace-temps. Comme dans les rotations, c'est l'objet le plus massif qui bouge le moins (dans l'espace, et donc aussi dans le temps). Il y aurait donc des centres de gravité du temps (lié aux masses en présence). Ce qui repose la questions du centre ultime de l'univers ? Souvenons nous de l'image en anneau de l'univers

And well, the time has to do with the mass of objects : Einstein had found that the mass knocked the spacetime. As in the rotation, it is the more massive object that moves least (in space, and therefore also in time). It would be centres of gravity of the time (linked to the masses in presence). What is the questions of the ultimate Center of the universe ? Remember we image the world ring.

In the universe, the centre of gravity is in the centre, eh Yes! (and both external)

Repository change : imagine that the universe implodes not at the speed of light, but explodes at this speed. well indeed, it is neither one nor the other, but the two at a time : it is just a matter of point of view to map things. See therefore our 2 objects expanding ++ :

All is in all, and nothing is in nothing... What !?

In Nomine Spaghetti, Secula Secularum                           Râmen

perdu ? la carte aux trésors

compteurs  

.

Well, well, well, let us go into high gear ! Our current vision of the universe looks like about that (by extrapolating what could exist after the "end" of the universe :

As we saw it previously, suppose that after the big crunch the time is inverted (in red). But if this time is reversed, why it would not return to its starting point so : this would be a vision of our disasterist conception of the universe which would perish periodically before to be reborn of its ashes.

But human being is egocentric : if he sees disappear his universe on the horizon, it is because he is annihilated. While it is Our Noodly Monster which hides it to us by The Noodly Touch.

So when we see a star we say that " It shines, even when it has can be disappeared since thousands of years. Conversely we consider that stars do not exist because we do not still see them, even when they are since millions there of years (but their light does not still reach us there).

 Let us try to see the previous figure as a perspective : we see then a ring. Let us imagine while that the black hole, perceived as a bottleneck where the universe would disappear, either that a 3-dimensional effect, and or by way of the width of the universe, without shrinkage, not at all. The black holes observed here would be in fact of the width of the universe, which would be in itself a black hole with constant size (seen in house) : without collapse thus. What would give this :

Seen in house, the universe would be then stable (thanks to the wearing of pirate's dress). It would be only a whirlwind : the big merry-go-round of the life, with its four seasons. Well ! Critical analysis of a text : an object (A : our galaxy for example) turn at the speed of light. Instead of falling towards the center under the influence of the centripetal acceleration, it would turn in the course of the universe under the influence of this acceleration. We shall note that the more an object is distant, the more its speed adorned us to stretch (speed light gets on here : did not forget that the light is immovable with regard to the objects which move in our reference table).

I explain : we have difficulty in estimating the speed of an object which moves rather far in the same sense(direction) as us (except Doppler effect, not obvious at first sight we saw it). But the more its movement turns compared with our, the more we are to estimate its speed. Well, it is rather muddy that, but we are in the schematic shortcut, not in the complexity of the reality. And quite logically Pastafarist : " more it is muddy more it is sure, it is like that the Faith. "

The light observed by this object stretches with the distance: it turns to the red, it is maybe the observed Doppler effect (but I prefer the previous hypothesis, the mud for mud) ; thus no expansion of the universe, where from no original Big Bang by going back up the time. In fact, it is an effect of the Noodly Touch. Ultimately when the speed of the observed object is perpendicular in our movement, it seems to us to move at the speed of light... That is on the verge of our perception : would the light reach us if the received object goes away at the speed of light ? It thus appears to us as a sort of wave, immovable in our reference table (c = 0). Beyond, the time is reversed with regard to us, we shall say that it desappear of our horizon of perception.

Please note : in this representation, which is only illustrative, we advance in the time, but we see the past of the universe, because we go to meet immovable undulatory tracks left by the material behind her.

If we indeed want to look at it, it is necessary to us to cross 4 "horizons" to return to our starting point : except that obviously our "horizon" moves with us, and there is no precise horizon : no obstacle to be exceeded, such a black hole which would be only a visual effect. And rather than to speak about the age of the universe, it would rather be necessary to us to conceive it as the duration of a cosmic season in the alder of our horizon of perception. We are in a black hole, we say a hole without edge (boron in Pastafarian). Whitch from we speak, for this horizon of "genesis" of perceptions, about dawn boreal (it's more explicit in french) : in the "edge", the material seems undulatory. Rather than to see Big Bang we would see rather a continuous arrival of material, abore there swindle becoming clearer in ake and for measure.

De facto the Flying Spaghetti Monster would have created the world 5000 years ago, But would not it be 5000 universal years in fact ? That is 5000 rotations of the universe on him even ? Of 260 000 (13 billion years to see Big Bang) in 1 480 000 billion years (if we add it the 57 billion years which would separate us from the big crunch) : vertiginous ! That HE can be roguish all the same... Well let us remain serious, it is really a question of earthy years : égocentricly speaking, the Sun turns around the Earth at the speed of the universe, let us see ! How would it be possible otherwise ?

This says tiny black holes (on the scale of the universe)exist ; but disastrous peculiarities by the bottlenecks show themselves, by their small size, which they present to their entrance. And after all our universe can arise from it finally, in which case Big Bang would have taken place well. The difference would be in the fact that the universe would have fallen, such a meteorite on the Earth under the influence of the " gravitation ++ ", instead of turning under its effect as the Moon. But... But maybe that both are compatible... That would so take place : 

But then, we would never return to our starting point. It is also logical, when the Earth made the tour of the Sun, it is not in its starting point, the Sun having migrated in the galaxy meanwhile, and the other planets are not any more on the same place : their years not being ours. (I like this kind of explanations " cock to donkey " (in french), of an obvious report of causality).

The question of the "thorough noise" of the universe stays. Which was spotted as being the residual noise of Big Bang. That no & no ! Our Thunderstrike Revelerity simply made a noise of hell during His geneticist boozing. They are only echos of this popular waltz of all the devils.

More simply, matter in our field of perception, then appearing as waves, is akin to the "noise". But Einstein and others draw improbable plans on the comet. So will ask a specialist of the "speed of light" that it is exactly :

perdu ? la carte aux trésors

compteurs 

.

Interview of Superman

Yves Forban : hello Superman. You travel at the speed of light: how's that takes place?

Superman : That Its Noodly Appentage touches you my Yvounet. Well, it is little as in Stars Wars, without rays of light are much more vague in fact. In this speed we can get through objects as through a diffuse bright fog. And so I can see through the material: I put myself in "mode" vibrator at the speed of light.

The problem, it is to slow down: we risk then to return to collide with objects. I had to equip myself with a " Super GPS " (under my black headband on the eye) to find clear zones of "landing".

YF : Yes, that has to hurt?
SM : No, it is not the problem for me, indestructible, that would tickle me rather, but I have to avoid returning to collide with objects, for them.
YF : Have you already met the Monster in Flying Spaghetti?
SM : Naturally! IT became a friend. At the beginning I believed that it was a dish of huge spaghetti (laughter), and I wanted to eat IT. "Finaly IT introduced me to lasagnes, after my noodly touched.
IT is a nice chap, really! Always leaving for going on a spree. "Mais IL makes a din of the thunder of Zeus there height, with the reverberation on the celestial vault. We even had to make a petition with the league of the Great Hero to have hours of Super tranquillity. The Super job, it is is rather testing, you see. We need a small siesta from time to time.
But we can not be angry agains IT (hungry maybe), "IT" is "épastant": always loan to give a hand, the heart on the hand.

YF : "IT" does not ever get angry?
SM : Ah well, yes! "IT" has Its surly character, but that is a part of the character: it is the kind which "IT" gives itself but IT is not nasty in the bottom. Nevertheless, it is better not to speak ill of pirates: that does IT in one of these grumble! But we tease IT with that.
YF : Did you see the volcano of beer?
SM : Well yes! But is better to approach it not too much: when we enjoyed it, it is difficult to come back from the Paradise, you know... It is too good! Deeply the pension!
YF : and does Xenu, of the Scientology, exist?
SM : Nôoo... It is stories which the MÔnster tells us in the evening in the corner of a great nova, to frighten us: Xenu blows up the volcano of beer, we have a nightmare there. It is little as the tales of the thousand one at nights, which... But later, that cheers up us in our fight against the Nasty.
YF : Were you for the borders of the universe?
SM : Yes, the universe is as an immense plateau, and in the rear it has a big hole there. But how say? It is a hole without edge: an immense "béance". But in fact this "béance" is everywhere in the universe: it is even in each of us. It is rather complex...
YF : That is?
SM : Well! It is Its Savourety who introduced me to that. Learnt a lot "IT" me. But it begins to make thirst: if we were going to discuss it around the volcano of beer? It is no maid there ID (idée in french) that! (Laughter) You will understand better.
YF : On it, my good dear auditors, I thus leave you: I have questions of theological order pastafari has to deepen with our friend.
Goodbye, and Then may its Noodly Appentage touches you...                                                         

perdu ? la carte aux trésors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Râmen...

compteurs  

.

Our Noodly MÔnster is roguish regarding sciences, IT manipulates scientific experiments to persuade us that it exists. But to remain credible, IT mixs the truth with the forgery: Ying and Yang.

Any scientific truth thus contains the truth, It is a question of point of view, relativity.

Bébert Einstein very almost uncovered the mystery of this quoted(esteemed).

Small reminder on the subjectivity of points of view (see dialogues inter religious, and epistemology of the religions).

To understand better, how we can think of being right, the other one also, to have at the same time twists and reason, but to need the recognition from the point of view of the other one to dread the reality which hides behind appearances.

See you, please, this volume in three dimension : it has a circular base(basis), surmounted by a cone the summit of which is not a point but a right segment equal to the diameter of the base(basis). (Said like that it is tremendously more clear !)

A person who sees it of face will say that she sees a square, and will think of it such. Other one of quoted(esteemed) will see it triangular, and the third down circular.

These three persons can skin each other to know who has twists or reason without ever agreeing. Nobody will have twists or reason, but the complexity of the object will escape each as long as they will not envisage that each cannot detain that a part of the Ultimate Truth which escapes them in all three individually. That it is possible to approach the truth only by holding(liking)

Albert Einstein

Bébert had so discovered that our perception of the reality thus depended on the place where from we observed it.

His most famous example was the one of a train running to a speed close to that of the light (uniform movement: neither bends, nor acceleration, nor slowing down). And to differentiate 2 points of observation of the phenomenon. An observer in the train (Anastasia), and the other one on the bank observing it crossing (Bernard).

He wondered if we could see itself in a mirror in this train : indeed moving forward at the speed of light, his image conveyed by the light should not reach the mirror in our logic of Newton.

But finally yes!

Two postulates in his conception :

1/ The person, Anastasia, in the train cannot know if it moves without looking outside (Postulate Galilean)

2/ Where from: the speed of light is the same for all.

For this person, Anastasia, the light behaves in the same way that in the stop(ruling) : she sees no difference ; and cannot know thus if it runs or is in the stop(ruling) (it is a spacial train and there are no jolts due to rails).

For the observer of the bank, Bernard, he sees things quite otherwise ??? Arghh ?!

Two small plans to understand : the passenger (Anastasia) lay down under the ceiling light of the car :

For her (Anastasia) things take place normally (so as long is that it is normal to lay down under a ceiling light of train spacial approaching the speed of light !) :

But for this on the bank (Bernard) this is what it takes place:

 The distance crossed by the light is bigger for Bernard. Logically, we could think that the light was faster for Bernard.

But Our Sly MÔnsterosity passed there! IT lengthened the perception of the time of Anastasia for Bernard, and de facto the light crossed more distance for him but in a longer time, the speed of light thus remained the same that for her seen from the outside. A billionth of second for her is one second for him.

De facto a cosmonaut travelling in speed approaching the light, will return younger than his congeners stayed in "Earth". He will have lived on one year in the space, whereas his congeners will have aged of 10 years.

Also, if doors back and front of the car are equipped with a system of opening as soon as the light reaches them (when we switch on it the ceiling light : Einstein is incredible in his illustrative capacity) : for Anastasia they will open together ; but for Bernard, the MÔnster will show him to open the back door before the door before (the light having more distance to be crossed for him towards the door before because of the movement).

Bébert had almost understood the principle of the Noodly Touch.

That has the simple air(sight) like that, but it is fundamental. In social sciences, it is major : we are dependent on the point of view with which we are connected. A conflict in the average east will have no same analysis if the observer is Jewish, Arabic, western or Chinese. And we shall see God differently as we are Buddhist, Pastafarian, Muslim, or Animistic.

It is an illusion to claim itself neutral in the analysis of a situation of which we are actively involved more or less from part our point of view: it is a relativist datum of any scientific experiment.

There is no neutral point of view scientifically speaking, and it is better to assume our biases (and the distortions which they infer) that to claim itself wrongly objectives, in which case we deform the reality without reporting it to us even. There is no scientific objectivity, Our Roguish MÔnstruosité the watches it by giving us different points of view to each.

In physics we call that of the reference tables: one chosen one, among the simplest to understand a problem... But it is not the only one.

The example most obvious is our representation of the universe. At the beginning we considered that the earth was the immovable center of the world, and that the sun turned around us. Then we considered that the sun was the center of the world. But it was necessary well to suit that it turned around the center of the galaxy, and that it even moved in a heap of galaxies, etc. such of the Russian matriochkas which fit the some into the others. In fact, there is no center in fine. Any reference table (point of view) is valid itself : simply, the mathematical equations (and cosmological conceptions) will be simpler to land under certain angles of perceptions, following what we give subjectively to solve.

If we want to go on the Moon, we can take the earth as reference center. If we want to go on Mars, it is better to take the sun. But when we can go to the other planetary systems, it will be necessary to us to take the galaxy as reference table, etc.

Towards new Cosmologies of the universe

Attention ! Already, the relativity of Einstein is a bit puzzling for our poor spirits humanoids, but we take off here towards still unexplored abstract parts of conception ; fasten solidly your seat belt, that is going to waltz seriousness.

Keep good in the spirit the idea of reference table (point of view), to hope to keep a vague understanding of the disastrous abstract shake-up which are going to follow: pirate's dress is deeply advised.

The human mind is egocentric, it thinks from its place (central !) in the universe, we are used to still thus thinking in term of material, because we are made by material.

The material thus would not move (or so little), and it is thus the light and the waves that would move compared with it.

But thus let us change reference table. And let us imagine whether it is the light and the waves which are immovable, and whether it is the material which moves on their meeting.

. . .  . . .  . . .  ? ? ?

Oouûûhhh theere !... It is mentally ill, I grant it to you. Impossible ? ! ! ? ? !

Exept ! Exept ! To consider that the material either, or expanding, or in implosion at the speed of light! ?

. . .  . . .  . . .

The simplest would be to consider it expanding, but to tell the truth the idea of the implosion seduces me more (after all it is just           * a question of pure reference table : We considered that the electric current went of the positive towards the negative, while in fine it is the opposite, but the theory works very well back to front all the same).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . * ( White: just man White, here black, leaving of a black hole)

Thus let us consider that the material implodes in a astronomical (++) speed (= at the speed of light) under the influence of a gravity which remains to define and to reappoint (the gravity which we know not being able to be while a vague evocation of this new notion of "gravity ++" infinitely "denser". But thus that the escaping waves in this "gravity ++" remain on-the-spot as a "memory" of the previous state of the material.

Please note: if all the material implodes in the same speed, and the universe also, all the proportions and the internal movements are respected and thus "a priori" imperceptible in-house there.

a little schéma :

So if my neighbor and my environment implodes in the same speed as me, the distance between objects and I also implode, and nothing allows me to perceive the change. Idem for the nearby planet, etc.

But that would indeed explain this annoying tendency of the material to swirl on her even at every level, such the water in siphons.

If we thus take an object (which collapses on him even) We collapsed with him and towards him. This is what it would take place:

The blue observer would go to meet the yellow object, and would cross the space occupied previously by him (in yellow dotted line). But the yellow object would have left behind him tracks of this previous state in the form of waves (bright e.g.) immovable (dotted lines). And the observer would perceive them by collapsing on him at the speed of light (here the speed of collapse = speed of light). QED.

This speed of collapse would be constant, but relative: constant compared with the size of objects at the moment "t" about is this moment. But it would slow down according to time proportionally in the collapse of the universe thus.

NB: if the light is immovable, it explains that its speed ( = 0 ) is constant for all, because it is them who have a speed not the light..

To what that is of use all this: in the first place, there would be no ether in which would propagate the waves, it would be the material which would move. And then that makes the good do the shambles in the scientific certainties. It is the MÔnster which asked to me for it.

That also allows to have a presentiment of another cosmology of the universe.

For example to see Big Bang otherwise.

At some point, the universe should contract in inverted Big Bang : the big crunch.

Then all the material of the universe will be condensed in a pinhead. We imagine while it would re-explode in new Big Bang.

But let us imagine that this concentrated of "material" (which would not look like then what we know) is reduced to its most solid and most elementary particles in their most ultimate envelope (-> boson ?), hyper concentrated in the point not to be able to any more concentrate more, but always under the pharamineuse pressure of their own "Gravity": because the situation is "grave" then.

We can imagine while these ultimate envelopes burst as soap bubbles, and while has this moment there this concentrated universe finds itself again almost empty: these "bubbles" being almost empty in itself (as atoms). Then the universe would again begin imploding finding no more resistance in its collapse.

Let us imagine while it is not so much the universe which implodes but also, in the movement, all the particles which also compose it. In fact rather than to burst, bubbles would implode. Seen by the inside if bubbles implode faster than the new universe under the influence of their gravity, it can give the impression of an explosion (inflation of Big Bang) "in house" (change of reference table!).

Because seen by the inside of this implosion (the new universe) as everything would implode almost in the same speed, taken place the first moments by the disastrous implosion, nothing would allow to realize this implosion in situ.

It is for that that I privilege the reference table implosion. And then as Pastafarian, I bet on the mutual attraction rather than on the aversion (expansion at the speed of light, but nothing would prevent from choosing this no more mentally ill reference table "a priori").

So, it is collectively admitted that our universe is expanding faster and faster because the Doppler effect. ATTENTION ! We stay in an internal vision of the universe: a relative internal expansion infinitissimy slower of the implosion that we have thus just evoked. But would not the Doppler effect be due rather to the fact that our speed of implosion (seen in extern here) would slow down imperceptibly? Where from the distortions Doppler? (The more the observed object would be distant, the more our perception of this object would set of the delay, and more it would seem to go away from us)

 And there (in house) nothing would more be sure on this expansion, and thus on original Big Bang! (We shall return there)

Because, my good dear consPIRATors here is a proof that the universe does not arise from Big Bang, but good MÔnstre in flying Spaghetti, HIM even stemming from primitive Pâsta.

Râmen

perdu ? la carte aux trésors         > HERE < une page qui propose cette vision alternative de l'univers en implosion.

compteurs  

The Space-Time

Well... You're still Here ?

It was the "hors d'oeuvre" : the serious things begin. Tighten your belts: Run & rock & roll youth ! It's the big shiver !

Let us note that there is no fixed point theoretically (immovable) : Know you whom the Earth turns around the sun in km/s 300 ! As for the Sun, it moves in the galaxy has a vertiginous speed. It is just a question of reference point. When a radar takes us by car, it measures the speed with regard to the ground, not to the sun.

In fact the speed defines itself compared with a given point ; and in logic of Newton, if we move in a uniform way, we realize nothing because, after all, we do not move not report to one even (Relativity of the movements).

Thus let us remain egocentric persons, we change speed compared with another Reference table : an individual, the Earth, the Sun, in the galaxy, etc.

Actually, say that we would approach the speed of light is an aberration in itself : with regard to ourself, we do not move, we move compared with something else.

In our implosive logic, if we move compared with another object, we set of the (temporal) delay compared with him in its implosion. Stick you, please : we always implode in the same speed with regard to one (at the moment " t " for us), But we are not any more in the same progress of the temporality as our congeners. Remember you of the cosmonaut living on one year, whereas his congeners age of ten years.

Well, in the relative speeds ridiculously low (/speed of light gets on) in which we usually move some with regard to the others, this phenomenon is imperceptible including the astronauts (in some microseconds near), and it came true during the spatial journeys where the watches of the astronauts took a little of delay.

In theory, imploding more slowly (with regard to an immovable observer) finds itself in time "t-1" for him, and should seem bigger, the time lengthening for us (with regard to the Other one always: in his time "t-1" our dimensions were wider and the longer time : he perceives us more slowly) : did you notice as the short-distance runners on their podium looked more hurt and more sturdy than the common and how we see them crossing the finishing line in slow motion ? Without laughing, Bébert says that our mass increases, but in fact the other one always perceives us in its temporality (with a time of delay which compensates for the perception), that is always in them even proportions, it is a paradox on which I shall not dwell now. (Already rather tiresome like that!)

What changes on the other hand, it is that more we approach the speed of light (relatively) more the other one perceives us as a wave. In the limit in the (relative) speed of the light, he would perceive us as a bright wave, or other (beams "X", waves radio, neutrino, etc.). The opposite is also true: the traveler would also collect the immovable observer as a wave. Paradox more we seem to go fast in house more we approach the speed of light in extern (=0, seen from the outside by the implosion, the light does not move lets remember you. Moreover the in-house observer perceives our time as lengthening infinitely, and thus would eventually perceive us as immovable: thus as the light!)

Actually, it is the secret of the invisibility of Our Timeless Monstruosity, which could cross the material such beams " X ". It is moreover in passing " The Creation " of Michel Angelo in the beams " X " that we discovered Its Image in transparency : all Beer and no taters.

Différentes temporalités, définissant différentes tailles de l'univers : Une petite vidéo illustrative sur les fractales :

trippy fractal zoom - Watch more Funny Videos

Would we do can go faster than the light to this reference system ? We remember that the speed is only relative, for the traveler : he remains immovable with regard to himself in his temporality which is  other.

The objection raised in our former conception is that would be needed an infinite energy to exceed the speed of light. But lets we remember that the temporality is not any more the same : at the approach of the speed of light (relative always) a billionth of second for the traveler would amount to billions of years for the immovable observer. Thus the energy which it would be necessary to mobilize during billions of years for the observer  (immense), the traveler could mobilize it in a billionth of second. De facto, the energy would be also a relativist value.

Thus we could, "a priori" (at first glance), completely exceed the speed of light (with regard to a reference table). Exceed the speed of light would mean in fact go to rebour of the implosion that is enter an expansive dynamics (/reference table always). What is true, it is that we would escape mutually our respective perceptions one to another. What would be more just to say, instead of claiming to be able to go faster no than the light (more to implode but to enter expantion, to leave the temporality of the reference table to go back up(to raise) the time - while perceiving our appropriate temporality of the same way), instead of it, to say rather that it is impossible for two observers to perceive themself mutually beyond an upper difference of speed at the speed of light : More not to be able to perceive themself mutually means that the fact is impossible, but simply to say that there is impossibility to perceive this reality!

Thus that we would escape then our mutual fields of perception. Attention ! We would not fall over to another dimension, we would be simply off-camera. As well as beams cross "X" to us without we perceived them at first glance, we are probably crossed by going objects, for us, faster than the light, without we have the slightest means to perceive it. In fact, it is admitted that we do not perceive 96 in 99 % of the mass of the universe !? The paradox then would be that energy faster than the light for the Other one, we would go back up the time for him, and conversely (but without perceiving ourself mutually.

An common idea (ID)  is that with a powerful hyper telescope we could see Big Bang, which is not sure as I showed it higher, we would see it if it exists, but especially if it is situated in our field of perception. In the logic of the implosion at the speed of light, it would mean that the light goes back upraises the time (of the implosion) faster than the implosion it even ; that is the light goes faster than the light ! In fact, we should see "things" which look like more and more waves more we shall move forward in the distant (and distant past). This until we reach the limits of our perception.

In fact I bet on a relatively stable universe. This says Big Bang exist maybe, such them hyper novaes ; but as a relativist event, following the example of earthquakes. For the big crunch, I thus recommend pirate's dress in case, who only allows to return to the state of primitive Pasta, passes wall, because timeless (relatively speaking)...

The black holes: universes ? See lower.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

I was not able to resist the joke.

It would be if for example our universe was a black hole in extern. We do not speak about stars to neutron where any materials would be crushed by its gravity there. But of very enormousim black hole. Let us imagine that their center is not the material hyper compressed, but really a hole filled with "dark matter", invisible and impalpable there because in another temporality.

I explain : from a certain attraction, the masses sucked up by the hole would take so speed that they would exceed the speed of light, and de facto would change direction of temporality escaping our perception (which from : black hole, where from the light and the waves even do not return to our perception). But lets call back we that for the traveler who exceeds the speed of light, it is only compared with a "immovable" said observer ; for him even he does not move. Its time and its space stay even for him : they change only for The " external observer ".

How the time and the space of the traveler they would be even while it would penetrate into a black hole which sucks up so many materials, which should thus disrupt this space-time : exactly by an implosion where the concentration of material would not be noticeable, because imploding there in a coordinated way.

The inversion of time, the time he even in itself, would thus be an implosion such as described in the basic premise.

I grant you that the approach of a black hole is at first glance at high risk for the material.

At first, the strengths in presence are so violent that the erratic disorders engendered in its approach should create disastrous collisions. Besides, the difference of attraction between two spheres moved closer at the approach of the hole risks to be such as the head of the rocket or ten thousand times more attracted than its tail, and is disrupted, thus. In fact, what we perceive black holes, it is rather this kind of apocalypse. But also indeed they are only small black holes, peculiarities, whatever very common.

Let us imagine that the black hole is so massive and immence that its attraction power are smelt so far, that the material reaches very gradually the speed of light well before its center, to see so far from its center, that the béance is such, that the inhaled material has all the place to rush without clash, without considerable difference of attraction from head to foot during its long approach, thus without real perceptible change there. Then yes ! The traveler could even not realize as he leaves fields of perception where from he left: it would always be for him in the same universe. The change would be for the outside observer who would see him disappearing ; and still this "disappearance" could be very progressive, such an estompage of the perception of the material towards the undulatory vagueness (and conversely).

It is moreover maybe what we shall see, by looking at the origin of the universe : an undulatory gradation. But once again, Big Bang is not excluded, but I would hold it rather then as a disastrous peculiarity of a small black hole the too narrow neck of entrance, creating a collision in this entrance. The last matter, the universe was created 5000 years ago for the Relativist Fusilli Monster * , but its temporality is not doubtless ours.                                                                                      * "IT" fuses

May Its Divine Sauce rains on you such a beam of light in the ambient scientific obscurantism.

Secula Seculorum             Râmen

perdu ? la carte aux trésors

compteurs  

.

___________The Origins :____________

 To fight madnesses and religious nonsenses is a fuzzy concept, difficult to define exactly. So certain atheists consider that the simple fact of believing is a nonsense, even a madness in itself.

How to define them thus rationally without falling in the sectarian excess ?

We saw on the page " is the pastafarism of religious nature? " How the sociology defined the religion.

The Monster is sly and inconsistently drunkard, we know it, and it created a heap of weird cults, from which the reach escapes us. Thus let us see how HE transmitted us a knowledge pataphysics through His scientific Noodly Touch in the sociological works:

Brief reminder and introduction :

• The religion is the demonstration(appearance), by the construction of a totem identifying the group, Of the will of this group to want to exist and to perpetuate itself. It is The metaphoric figure of the soul of the group and the individuals who compose it, of the power superior than the moral values (even amoral) of the group practice on the individualities.
• In it, the definition of the monk exceed a narrow conception of the monk limited to the only religions "officially " recognized as some. The science, the atheism, the democracy, the secularism, and any social movement training(forming) identifying totems (the reason, the tolerance by examples) work exactly on the same model as the official religions, both in their genesis and in their sustainability. *
• Results from it that a religion symbolizes the group which defines itself by its totem, and especially that there is a hierarchy between the religions (including secular as the atheism).

Indeed, the totems of Lutheran, the Calvinists, the Mormons, the Anglicans, the Catholics, the Jews, the Muslims, the atheists, the Buddhists, etc. represent only their community.

On the other hand, religions such as secularism, democracy, science, humanism, etc. include under their authority and moral values all these gathered(combined) communities. This way they are religions of superior value, in the sense that their values are imperative upon all other communities. The taboos and the obligations(bonds) of the first ones(nights) are imperative only to its restricted community, while those of the seconds stand out to all.

We shall thus dismiss back to back atheists and believers in their claims to want to impose their values in while appropriating sécularisme and science in their profit. The atheists and the believers do not have to take advantage of the science to impose their views(sights) to the others. The science cannot either confirm, or counter formally god's reality... Moreover the sociological science would give rather reason half to the believers onto this point: if god would be only the metaphoric representation of the group which worships it, god exists well as real metaphor and concreet of this community, nevertheless at this level with minima,

Two exemples :

• The atheists having for totem the reason can claim that this totem being common to all, this would confer on them a superiority superior to the other worship. But not, sociologically their values has theists stands out that to their restricted community. Because count believers think of being able to always reconcile reason and faith. Just the atheists can aspire, and only aspire, that their values are more solid than the alternate religious, and will eventually stand out later.
• Pastafarians has for totem the secularism, but even if this totem is common to all, all do not adhere to the pastafarism which thus remains a restricted community, subjected to the common tolerance inter-community of the secularism, which they recognize moreover.

 Also let us note certain number of "trans-religious" cults such as sports and the others cultural activities, the followers of which can also be of any other religion, political or philosophic sensitivity. This cults raises more from the sensibility than from the intellect, and focus more on the report of the individual with its animistic gregarious need, its report with an imperceptible collective soul. This cults thus trains(forms) footbridges between the various cults "reasoned " and structured intellectually, and especially question the infulence of the intellect about the " collective faith " by advancing highly-rated passionate of this last one: even in the most rational cults there is a passionate dimention, and this cults allows to investigate this dimention by freeing it of any idea of rationalisation prerequisite. This cults are often imperceptible moreover in the short-lived character, but nevertheless necessary, of some.

These last ones not incrivent not so much in a religious hierarchy in term of categories of polulation subscribing to it.

* Please note : whyever this sociological conception of the religion, including the communities of type secular as religions, does not it thus stand out in the public opinion ?

Because let us be clear, Durkheim and his(her) following ones demonstrated well that these social phenomena "seculars" were indeed catégorisables in religion by their phenomenologies.

Simply because the "official" religions are not absolutely anxious to see decreasing at the level of simple social phenomenon, and their prégnance on the social allows them to impose their former conceptions of the religion. Also the rationalist and the other scientists (whatever for some of these last ones?) are not more anxious to see assimilating to archaic social movements, for them, and have just as much of social weight to block the road to this abstract generalization. Furthermore that would place them directly there concurence nun with the official religions while it would dethrone them of a certain elitism on the religions, so as to consider that some are religions of upper order.

How to embellish with images this aspect: in the Australian and Amerindian totémism there are usual animals there totem, crowned, but for all that they are crowned only for every clan, remaining vulgar for the other clans. Every animal totem thus has values has another time sacred and vulgar for the whole tribe including all the clans.

Mean that an animal cannot be categorized as animal because it is dedicated by such or such clan is a scientific heresy, because an animal remains scientifically an animal for the biologist about is the sacred value which imputes it ideologically such or such group.

To say even that a "secular" religion cannot be classified in the same category as the "official" religions because it would "be vulgar", while the science confers it the same phenomenology as on these "official" religions, participle of the same narrow-mindedness, very little noodly.

Let us get to the heart of the subject : Origin of the religious nonsense.

In the Australian totémism, in the clan of the totem of the kangaroo, the members of the clan consider as lived by the soul of the kangaroo which they worship. But to be kangarooes and regenerate their soul kangaroo as such, it is necessary to them to sacrifice an animal regularly to ingest it together and recapture so this soul in them.

Problem : to kill their animal idol is taboo... Ouch !

It is thus necessary that members of the other clans, not subjected to this taboo kills it for them and their offer in sustenance, in return. As a matter of fact the Australian polytheism offers one an exchange of friendly services mutual processes to every religious group, and it is admitted as such.

In the modern "official" worship, the worship is practised in the form of unique thought, excluding from quite other religion - even if schism can appear between diverse communities of the same group, the Christians live nevertheless as globally Christians, and the Muslims as globally Moslem, subjected in even taboo fundamental thus-.

The essential taboos thus remain taboo for all, and the malpractice of the taboo, was by another cult, is lived as a mean action there in itself.

Let us take Christ in example. without its initial sacrifice its worship would not have been able to develop : It is the center of the development of the worship. At the same time, it was taboo for the first Christians to sacrifice their god's own representation, although Judas, " the traitor ", participated in it. Godless Jewish and Roman were needed thus indeed the help of to bring to a successful conclusion this dirty work so that the worship originates and continues.

Except that this malpractice of the taboo by the other clans, which is considered as being obvious, and necessity, to the Australian, is lived as a mean action by the modern worship. The help of the godless is thus lived there in a paranoiac way: other one, foreigner in the worship is decked out by the role of the miserable, rather than by that of assistant there normal and necessary.

The responsibility of the community which calls of these wishes this exogenous participation to the foundation of the worship is in kind denied in its legitimate necessity by demonizing this intrinsic necessity in external fault to the group. This way the Judaism, in the sacrificel myth.

What forget the modern religions, it is thus highly-rated metaphoric of the role of the miserable, that would thus be treated(handled) like a theatrical direction, more than to take literally.

The dogmatic reading of the role of the miserable is thus the first perversion of the deep sense(direction) of the exogenous sacrificial necessity by the foreign clans. In fact, the religious foreigner is necessary for the ritualisation of the worship, thus the polytheism is necessary in itself there, and without exaggerated demonization of the other cults.

This negation of the positive role of the exogenous malpractice of the taboo (which is not one because exogenous) by demonizing it calcifies the collective by highly-rated paranoiac sound. And naturally this hardening is attributed not to this negation, but to the malefic role of other one so introducing a mortiferous vicious circle, because paranoiac.

A mortiferous cult : Patriotism

The mortiferous consequences of this negation is perfectly illustrated by the patriotic cult of nations in Europe, which found its logical conclusion in the European collective suicide committed during the first two world wars.

The cohesion of nations so built there on the idea as the miserable it was the foreign countries which it is necessary to fight. To create this cohesion in front of internal dissensions due to the negation of the responsibility sacrifficielle, the systematic bias was there to be threats external to fight.

Two examples:

Republican France assumed its internal dissensions brilliantly, but in a a little aggravated way. Having settled(adjusted) only its dissentions, it thus was only answering the attacks of the other patriotic nations. Expantionistes aims in Europe were the object only of its emperors, no republicans. This said it is necessary difficille not to sink into the collective madness when it arises and France was not the last one in patriotism. But let us remain patriotic, the miserable it is German obviously, it is simpler seen like that.

Germany, split at first, and profoundly divided between Catholics in the South and Protestants in the North, no batit its unity that on an aggravated patriotism so hidting its internal dissentions.

A cult rather successful : The democracy .

In democracy, various political clans are in confrontation.

It is rather taboo to criticize the essential values of its own camp: its totem in kind.

On the other hand the opposite camps, not subjected to the same taboo, try by all the means to shoot down its ideology, its totems as a matter of fact. Making it the so broken taboo allows the attacked(affected) clan, not only to defend its totem by reaffirming the values concerned to its totem, but also "to digest" by ingestion of the so shot down totem the relevant criticisms of camps opposite, bringing a revitalization by updating of its own values which would lose of their vigour if the others had not killed it by their criticisms.

The digestive communion is possible only by the death of the totem operated by the opposite clan. And, actually, it is the democratic tribe in general that is globally revitalized, by the vigour generated by these respective ritual killings of the totems of every clan.

In fact, every totem needs to be killed regularly, and alternately, to be reborn each of its ashes such the phoenix. It is why the democracy is condemned for the political alternation, and we see very how much a democracy such as Russia calcifies in the nepotism of party by the lack of alternation.

Let us see this under another angle.

The cult of the revival of the nature

The Australian aborigines celebrate the revitalization of the nature in the rainy season.

But at a closer look, it is of the another revitalization question of which it is. At the same time ceremonies ritualisent the communion of the clan which revitalize by ingesting its totem, and also associate it the initiatory rites of the young generations, so marking the revitalization of the clan by the contribution of " new blood " within it. In kind the cult of the revitalization of the nature is only the metaphor of the cult carried in itself in its regenerative values of the group.

But we can also say that if the rainy season marks the revival of the nature, it is good with regard to another element which is its decay during the dry season, which symbolizes the decay of the group due to the lack of faith in the community.

Always the same symbolism: the totem has to decay to be reborn of these ashes, thus well die to be so offered to the communion of the clan (food of the animal totem is sensible to have virtues regenerator on the population of the animal totem, and the aforementioned animals prosper effectively upon the arrival of rainy season, that falls very QED).

The dry season is thus so essential in the cult as the arrival of rainy season. If it did not exist it would be necessary to invent it. And it is that happens under diverse forms in the oppositions of the strengths of the good and the evil (gods and devils), ying and yang, cycles of lives and deaths (weedings births initiations deaths), of the political alternation, etc...

Other example of successful cult :

The cult of the sport

A rested cult is celebrated to every sports team by its own supporters. The interest is here that the cult is totally absurd but and melts again all the same every clan. Little in the style of the totemic clans, the interest is not so much in the totem who to be few only an insignificant bird, or a not aggressive species of ants, it has value that in the fact that all become identified in the common totem so establishing the community. A weak team can even if to be proud of having defended well itself in front of a strong to undo it : the important is to defend its (totemic) colors and not so much to win. To mark a simple point is a victory in itself. And as usual a dry period (without point) is necessary for the revitalization brought by the arisen of some later points. Loser or winner, what matters is more the celebration of the tribal sport thus, as federative cult, as of the cult of the supported clan team. 

In Bouthan, ritual competitions of archery are organized between rustic communities, once the year. The one who wins the competition is sensible to benefit from better harvests for year to come. It is so important that we hesitate not to cheat by putting rags soaked by menses in trees covering the access path of the rival teams to weaken their luck. Then we do not know if the winners benefit from better harvests, but a matter is sure, the winning community is proud to have won, and each of his members claims of this clan with all the more fervour ; the revitalization of the clan and at least assured for lack of revitalization of the nature. 

Bouthan sends archers' team to olympics, and some claim that the stakes which they put it is of another nature than other teams... But is it so sure as it ? 

In short

• The first religious and social matter madness and nonsense consist in denying the peremptory necessity for the diversity of the difference, and especially that not to subscribe all to the same taboos… What scleroses the capacities of rejuvenations of each clan by defending nozzle and nail the totem, which needs to die to reappear of its ashes to be réintrojecté positively in the collective.

• In the second nonsense rises which consists in taking with the foot ground the taboo of sacrificial criticism of the totem in imposing it to the other clans, rather than to take this criticism exogenic like an essential component and necessary to the worship: And demonize the role of malicious, to do it rather in a literal way than in a metaphorical way dramatized and lived like such.

Difficulty of Pastafarism

We can estimate thus better so the stakes in Pastafarism.

It is a question of participating in the sacrificial rite of the other congregations (for us too the secular or laic but in each its investments). What thus means so much trying to remove them, for what to try to make them resourcer by developing them by attacking lethally (by the irony) their paranoïac sectarian dogmae. This to allow them to reach a more metaphoric vision of their cults, more respectful exogenous faiths by not imposing them their own taboos in particular those to criticize them from the outside in a constructive way.

The major difficulty lives(lies) exactly in the paranoiac propention of these congregations to demonize every exogenous criticism, who tenderait to confine us in the role of the "miserable" in a literal way. And the difficulty and not to sink, let us mousaillons, in this literal role that they would like to impose us.

It is a question for us, at the same time not to abound in the sectarian refusal of these congregations which demonize us (and of their part and ours also thus), but also while staying in the necessary sacrificial critical aspect of their paranoiac dogmae. But this aspect has to stay in the metaphoric plan: we owe réafirmer constantly that the criticism does not as long aim at demolishing the other congregations by the criticism that to free them of their paranoiac sectarian faults, who can only make them better them so by getting fresh ideas.

Then to stay in the playful, light plan, it is a good matter: it remains difficult to take itself seriously this human comedy when we play the clowns, and to be crucified in return, is'nt it my Monster ?

And can the Efesmism be criticizen ?

And what else ? How we could manage to find a criticism in front of such a concept of immense purity ? Finally if there is who have time to lose, why not?

Godless religious in false idols say to us that they serve us to test our tolerance, our propention to refuse the religious metaphoric necessity (it is the hospital which messes the charity), and our claims consider just taken from the thigh of the Invisible Pink Unicorn. The non-believers want to make indispensable with us by criticizing our guilty indulgence with worship in the strange myths as much as improbable (strange... you said strange... ?). What allows us effectively to notice that our faith is strong, because we are right and what they have all twist... Yargh !

V perdu ? la carte aux trésors :
.

Or more exactly between "ancient" and "new" world.

 Further to the religious wars, Europe stands out in religious spheres of influence mono confessional stemming from the advent of the Protestantism in front of Catholicism. These zones of infuences are so often the resultant of wills of the sovereigns of period to want to free themselves or not from the guardianship of Vatican.

 The countries where the bourgeoisie had a certain influence, which wanted to free itself from the guardianship of the nobility, knighted by the papal power, opted generally for the Protestantism. It is generally countries which evolved towards an elitist bourgeois democracy. So the mountainous countries which offered to the Protestants a more safe refuge in the wars between religious, where the democracy of the people will be established more naturally.

 The countries of the South, which were closer to Vatican geographically, stayed under its influence. In spite of they were closer to the Islamic world and needed a certain unity in front of its hegemonism. So the nobility was more prégante there, and saw in the Catholicism, which knighted it, a good means to consolidate its dominant position on the populations.

Ideologically, the South remained attached at the idea of a social structuralization where the material and spiritual life was determined by the good will of the elites of the monarchic and spiritual nobility. While in the North it established itself on the free personal interpretation of the fact that had to be the spiritual and material life thus.

The essort of the capitalism was for many there: Vatican condemned the business of the usurers, the prototype of merchant banks. The middle-class persons thus preferred the Protestantism which offered them better perspectives of development.

England was a particular case where the monarch frees himself from Vatican by establishing a kind of Catholicism of state. Nevertheless the bourgeoisie eventually imposes it its power to the monarch.

Tsarist Russia also had its orthodox sense of identity, or the tzar reigned over the contingencies material as the church reigned over the spiritual life, a kind of monarchic secularism. Napoleon, stemming from the french revolution will get back the concept by taking his emperor's crown of the hands of the Pope, come (summoned) to crown him emperor, to put himself his coronne on the head: he so meant that his crowning was not an allegiance to the papal power.

Historically the United States of America were also an earth refuge for all the persecuted of the religious wars. Many of European migrated in Europe to lands where their confession was there largely majority. But ideologically United States corresponded to them better: a piece of news is in hiding for a new religion. So numerous minority religions had no land of welcome identified in Europe. De facto the USA is a country theist.

The secularism enters "ancient" and "new" world

The precursors: France and United States

France is not a country theist, but rationalist by definition... It would be inconceivable that the head of state throws a war in Iraq, or somewhere else, under God's banner as Bush for example. The French secularism includes not only the religions but also the philosophic currents such as the atheism. And the state does not have to immisser in the religious affairs, except when it disturbs the law and order.

De facto the atheists and their thought are established, and are very infuents (34 % of the population) there: they speak of equal to equal with the monks. The relationship is not any more for a long time of dominating in dominated, the time helping the debate is there more serene, whatever inevitably tightened (inevitably stretched out). It is the French-style secularism. We have a special word for it : the "laïcité"-sécularism). To see even the monks tend to consider the secularism as too favorable in there free thinkers to their detriment, although it guarantees them their freedom of worship.

So a nuance, the American secularism dates the independence, The Anglicanism recognized king of England as head of the church. The independence broke any link between the official church and the political power by guaranteeing it, so by attracting all the monks persecuted by Europe and moreover. It is a society pluri religious or the religion is not lived as source of power, but as source of emancipation with regard to the " old world ".

In France the revolution tried well to establish a constitutional monarchy, independent from the church, but the monarch tried to run away abroad to get back better the power by the strength with the support of the other European monarches. Actually, the Roman Catholic Church claim to have to knight always catholic monarches under its authority, who held their legitimacy of God thus. They was enough for the Americans to free themselves from the britain crown to be independent, But French had difficulty in freeing themselves.

The religion (essentially catholic) is thus lived there as a threat of subjection, and not freedom.

Let us note in the passage, an important theological nuance in the piracy: in Seas remote from colonizing states, there was enough ilslands except controle so that the piracy blooms freely, but in Europe no port been able to offer to them of safe refuge. So the pirates made corsairs (privateers) there by concluding agreements with states at war perm between them. The deal was that these states offered them the security of a port of registry as long as they attacked only enemy ships, for a discount on their fixed prices. The most malignant decanted a part of their booty on embarquations girls in the wide to claim not to have made big booties during their exit (release), and to underestimate so their tithe to the protective state.

In United States when a moralizer Pastafari preaches in the street, we say ourselves " It is beautiful the freedom to believe in what we want ", in France it would be rather " In which yoke he wants to enslave me that one " (certainly in collusion with the state).

Thus theological nuance, for us the religion is bad in priori, not in term of faith in God in itself, no, but as institution capable of compromising with the political power to enslave us better. So the tea poisoning agnostism is not lived as threatening: this theist abounding in a "official" religion, and especially in no precise dogma which he doubts in priori, does not risk to get closer to the political power to impose his point of views which it doubts himself, but in the limit to protect itself simply its freedom, and thus that of his neighbor. What suits well enough in most of the atheists who ask only for a matter, it's that we do not impose them lifestyles and politics inherited from the religious thought. Later in each to impose upon himsel the religious rules, or not, which suit him.

What does not prevent the debate moreover: we shall sometimes try to convince the believer that he will not go to hell if he breaks his rules, as we shall try to convince the superstitious that he is not afraid of nothing to cross the road of a black cat, but without any more, with sometimes, it is true, a headland of pity for the one who offends the piracy.

The mistrust to the religions is thus more marked in countries historically catholic than Protestants, not as long thus face to face religious faiths in itself, that face to face religious organizations which head them by exercising their lobbying machiavelliques thus.

Please note: the Catholicism is not a handicap as a majority religion in the "laïcité". Certainly its lobbying is there very powerful in France dividing between 29 % of Catholics and 34 % of atheists (30 % of agnostics), but at least the religious pressure is not scattered there: the interlocutor is clearly identified with it. So when the Pope takes a fundamentalist position everybody falls him above, including of numerous Catholics who do not recognize there, and abound then in the secularism. Also in many countries more mainly catholic the secularism allows the believers to take their distances with the religious dogmae.

In Protestant country and more specially in United States the interlocutors are more diffuse, and thus connections between politics and religions. The sécularisme defends itself there as intrinsic value, and not as opposition to a public philosophy of life clearly identified religiously.

The secularism eventually imposed in Europe by the development of the capitalism, where the faith in the rationalisms "bizness" and especially scientist got the upper hand over the faiths theists, relegated then in the background. Making it, the northem protestantism and the French-style secularism eventually moved closer in the dévelloppement of the atheism and the agnosticism there.

V perdu ? la carte aux trésors :
.

Many French pastafarians are atheistic or agnostic converts (see of established confessions: Jewish Catholics a Muslim etc.).

To understand indeed how they arrive there there, it is necessary to replace them in the context.

At first French come from the Catholicism, mainly, but as time goes by the catholic theology seemed more and more absurd, and many Catholics left the official church to become independents: only 5 % of the Catholics continue to go to the mass on every Sunday (2 % of the population). They did not join the Protestantism by distrust to any schools of predetermined thought, also an old rest of the religious wars between Catholics and Protestants : there is a refusal of the religious sectarianism leading to the war, the sectarianism thrown back both in the Catholicism and in the Protestantism. The anticlerical distrust is very important since the French revolution there.

It is necessary to say that, in the soundings most say themselves nevertheless still catholic by tradition, even if they widely set outstrip them with Vatican. So they are 51 % to refer to the Catholicism, but among them 29 % doubt of the existence of God, and 9 % downright declare not to believe in God!

Actually, in France since the revolution and 1905, the morality is affair of citizenship more than religion. The mysticism is politically a personal affair which does not have to disturb the order public.

This idea of the religious personal feeling brought it to pass in the background : we content with trying to be a good person by managing its very ground affairs, and it should be enough to agree the indulgent glance of a certain deity.

In this context, the helping rationalism, God appears to it more and more as a distant creator not getting involved too much world affairs, a vague mentor in moral subject which questions the individual consciousnesses. It is the symbolic figure of the morality, that does not moreover need to have a real existence in fact. More and more people declare themselves so agnostic. Only 36 % of the French tell to believe in a life after the death. The fact of believing or not appears as a secondary question, and personal, of the life. This movement also meet among the Jews not followers, and to a lesser extent the Muslims also.

In other end, atheists have difficulty in defining themself as such in the soundings : an atheist would so be a not believer who militates for converting the others to this not faith, but thus not simply the not believer, in mind of people. And the atheists effort to recognize in this militancy which sends back to the religious wars : to live and let live, without being allowed walk on feet, such is their philosophy.

But by recutting the data, a last sounding gives 36 % of certain believers in God, 30 % of agnostics, and 34 % of atheists. We always note a decline of the faith for the benefit of the atheism, the agnostism remains stabe but serves in fact as major route.

The secularism manages all this small world, but the problem remains the catholic lobbying which still tries and always to have its entries with the politicians who are not very clear on the question. I would say almost fortunately, in Czech Republic or in Scandinavia, people do not ask even any more the question to know in what they so believe that does not have importance anymore.

Pastafarism

The Flying Spaghetti Monster thus joins in this context.

The French distrust to the dogmae push more and more people towards this questioning of the hard-line dogmae.

Half serious, half conic, this distance face to face of any fundamentalism becomes well to the general mentality. His only brake could be a too militant drift, sending back to the "spectre"(gost) of the religious wars.

Eight "condiments" may reject this tendency, the hesitating follower remains suspicious. Not as long as the pastafarism becomes fundamentalist, but as certain resentful reactions of congregations in position place them in aggressive dynamics. It is the challenge of the pastafarism not to be allowed entrainer in the provocations, while assuming his faith.

Having said that, it is real the refusal of the dogma which makes the pastafarian at first, but we register effectively that more and more followers who realize at the end the total relevance of Our Skying Deity , and so navigate in a bliss of the happiest.

U.S.A. : The atheists are the community who inspire most distrust, before the Muslims and the homosexuals: 

V perdu ? la carte aux trésors :
.

Our reporter, Gambetta di Bosco, succeeded has to obtain an interview of the FSM after long negotiations by the intervention of Superman with Yves Forban (See > interview of Superman <).

In the terrace of a shanty at feet of a volcano of beer and coconut palms, with waitresses very " maid café" freshly brought out of the factory, in front of the bay of the tortoises where comes to moor a schooner pirates of return of robberies, casually pushed by the soft breeze of the wide, while a gull come of... Ah shit!: 

Gambetta di Bosco : Yaârrrrgh !
FSM : Aâarrgh !
GB : I don't tell Thou "May the Pâsta be in Thou", ridiculous, or "May Thou touch Thou with Thee Noodly Appentage"...
FSM : Whatever I like to touch me from time to time (laughter)
GB : Realy ?
FSM : To you to see...
GB :  H'm not thank Thou... Thou art not easy to contact ...
FSM : Listening, I was quiet I was easy, known that of some Masters Pâsta most wisely madmen, and some captains pirates, until I send Bobby to reveal my existence. Since I am harassed by paparazzi, who tell everything and anything on my account. I just grant you this interview to cut court there. I like my intimacy.
GB : A heap of questions crowds in my mouth about what we tell on Thou:
That is It of Pâsta Primitive? Of Thee claimed sibship with a  a Flying Pizza Monster and the Others, Thee Twin brother, the Pink Invisible Unicorn, of the genesis and so many other things?
FSM : Hola ! Ship's boy! You want to pirate my intimacy, and I recognize very there your fervour, but I like my secret garden. Besides, that would be the Faith without a part of mystery? I distil more or less right and real information to try your Faith, following the example of the scientific proofs.
GB : All this would thus be false?
FSM : Not inevitably my rat of hold... All that you have to know, I revealed it to Bobby, The rest is a part of the initiatory route of The Just and Real Faith: the road towards the Truth matters more than this one finally.
GB : What Bobby revealed us is thus word of Thy Immense Greatness. But "antipasti" claim that Thou wouldest have entailed him in a drinking bout in the volcano of beer during Thee Revelation, and that all that he said would be approximate?
FSM :To you to see where from comes the wind, the landlubber... I am almighty, and if you irritate me, or if the envy take me during a cooked, I can redo the world in my sauce, or return in the time to change the story of the world at my convenience, my official current truth is the one of Bobby, but that can change when that sings to me.
And then not of " Immense Greatness " between us please: I receive you, no fuss. Finally, make as you feels it...
GB : Saddened, it is not easy to find an attitude in front of The Creator, The Holder of The Ultimate Truth. The Quebec thus have twists not to pronounce Thee Name, so much It would be Holy? How do we have to call you?
FSM : No, they do not have twists: it is the effect of Spaghettification. I am well conscious that my enormous attractiveness with the fellow can have a devastating effect on him... The Ultimate Truth does not approach so easily for whom inherited my false revelations to test the Faith of the human beings. It is often necessary to introduce a certain distance into a first approach of The Ultimate Revelation. The theology is moreover made for it: stand back not to be blinded by the misleading appearances: too "enlightening" "at first sight" in the point to generate a big confusion both in the global perception, and details. It is necessary to be rather strong and supple to be able to manage this initiatory confusion. But a good means of there landing is effectively to cling to false passing certainties, rites of remote stake, before being able to approach the confusion of the spirit and the senses which it involves. Thus call up I, and think I as you feel it best at the moment, I can say to you not better.. But know that The Truth cannot approach (to stubble, one thousand one billion one thousand scubbles!) at once: it is necessary to get lost along the way to find it. " The Truth, it is to think of bullshit, and to go on the contrary ".
GB : Ramen ! But Thou art serious, there?...
FSM : In your opinion, gallows bird?... Well! Belgians included well all this: when you ask them for your road, they always begin to say to you the roads which it is better to avoid: " you take right up  to the church, then you fork to the left up to the temple, you make the tour for... But it is complicated, set rather to the right towards the City hall, and right towards the cinema... Whatever it would be simpler of downright etc. ", and at the in fact you remain vague on the good way there, but at least you have a heap of information on stumbling blocks to be avoided, Later you take the road which seems to you the most understandable. I also like the Norman with them " maybe although yes, maybe although not ": they understood everything in the Real and real Science.

What you name the Truth, it is your quesr of the Good in fine, your well-being in fact. The road of the truth should you bring to a perfect world exempt from "evil": but while hidting the bad one removes it. Notice, that the avoidance of stumbling blocks can eventually be the purpose, to see your wandering, if you see imaginary stumbling blocks. Want to reach a purpose why not, but what's the use if it is in the pain? Whatever? Each the road... But to clock(point,stick) stumbling blocks allows you a more comfortable journey, you are here and now (but because I say it to you, finally!) In journey and not in destination. Then live here and now while waiting for. As well, by avoiding stumbling blocks, you will eventually lose(eventually get lost), and to find a harbour in an unknown port, which will be convenient for you better than your initial purpose, because imaginary... But I say to you about it too much there! Name of a sperm whale of the thunder of Zeus! It is really necessary everything to say to you, at the very moment when you already know it.
GB :Very yes! But the world is not so simple to decipher  ...
FSM : It is sure: not easy to land the confusional stage my nanny-goat ...
GB :But in the rear comes the light... Râmen.
FSM : To you to see ...
GB : Thou meanest that there is no truth at the end of the road?
FSM : To you to see ... Having said that, the Truth is on what I decide on it at some point, that depends on my day humor: the truth does not exist, including this one. A matter is sure it is that the current reality is without the road which I did not draw for you, it belongs to you to discover it: the truth it is, or not, the road that you draw and I would not make it for you.
GB : Ramen : May I write that?
FSM : Write you that you want my small father, to you to see ...
GB : Well...I who believed to obtain definitive conclusions. It is almost more philosophy than the Theology Thee trick there?

FSM : When I was young, I wanted to be a philosopher, a novelist of adventure, and before even adventurer, pirate: God? That was never really my trick. One day I am to intoxicate and I created a world: I assume as I can.

GB : By speaking is the Good, the Human being good according to Thou?

FSM : Have you that has to look around you. Of most finely altruist, in most abominably deprive, all the human beings are completely human. When a human being eats of the duck, happens the good and is good for itself: is it good for all that for the duck? But to answer more exactly: having tasted 5-6 times the human flesh, I can say to you that it is really very good, but everything also depends on some sauce and on the cooking....

GB : Well! I do not ask Thou any more if Thou art serious even there... And what recommendest Thou face to face false divinities which preceded Thou?

FSM : Taratata ! They are false only because I so wanted it. The world was not ready to see me as it is, then I disguised as time goes by and civilizations to make me more approachable to their understanding. But it was very too early: most of the time, Spaghettification made its work and you understood only what you indeed wanted to understand, by defending you from my real messages (in particular on the pirates whom you systematically censored). But it is your Pâsta... To you to choose...

BG : But thus that's it, Thou wast always indeed a Flying Spaghetti Monsteri, there it is sure..

FSM : Obviousssly, my soft dreamer, at least until I decide to change everything since the dawn of time)...

BG : Thou meanest that even the image which we have at present of Thou is not eternally Real? ...

FSM : Ventrebleu! Because I say to you that I am almighty finally: I make what I want! And I shall not be allowed lock into a some shape, under pretext that I liked it always until then, and especially not because human beings would not support that I change it if that took me! Like that would have said to you if I had appeared as a monster in seaweeds of Alpha of the centaur (which are with Dough): you would not even have known how to recognize of what exactly I was made, ignoring that you are of the fact that are these seaweeds so strange.

BG : Thou wouldest be the same dough as the seaweeds of Alpha?

FSM : Aâarrrgh ! That it is hard for you the metaphoric sense: it is a full of imagery example... Whatever? The real nature of things cannot put itself in human words: I can only pass on to you things under metaphoric shape: to you to walk from it, another Faith.

BG : I begin to understand.

FSM : Houlà ship's boy! But look for his board to shark there, the "olibrius!" It is when we believe to understand, when we begin to get lost. But it's good, while getting lost in the Reason one can find the way of the necessary nonsense of things...

RG : Râmen... What is that all this MUST be taught in class?

FSM : It is your affair, but it would be effectively more illuminating to put it all the false theories in balance: the Truth would be there only more striking. Having said that, there is not to make a religious war: I liked that in the time, until I realize that it was not a video game for the Human beings. It is kind to try to distract me but that does not amuse me any more. But if that still amuses you, you (I made for you so after all), really, I'd realy rather you do it in the form of Doing a pastiche game..

FSM : It was already between the lines of 8 first ones. Ouh but it is not all this, it is that it makes thirst: another beer, Lol - ita San! And move you, please, the back train for our guests!... 

BG : Art Thou any one can hard there? Euh, forgiveness...    (pour le paradis cliquez sur l'image)

FSM : Occupy you, are you for the Paradise: that goes out directly of the Factory, and what please you, that pleases her.

BG : I have not still the habips...

FSM : houla ! Write I fast your article before the ethylic confusion wins you, later we shall say that was too much filled to you so that all this is true.

BG : By the way, as I am going to bring back to the world Thee Very Holy Words delivered by me, that makes of me a prophet thus...

FSM : Eh ! It is because you would begin to please me, small pirate go! I invite you to drink a beer to cut court in every these paparazzi who speak on my behalf by taking itself for Bobby, and here you are already ready to pirate him his place, low hat! Go, I appoint you " Paparazzo d' Honneur of Saint Ordre of the Big Gossip " (the french obviously) if that pleases you.

GB : Too much honor and thank Thou, Great Mamamouchi Evanescent, and goodbye to our dear readers....

Well, I try to summarize: you should not believe in paparazzi (whatever?); The official, but not necessarily definitive truth, is not that that delivered by Bobby but in each to exaggerate freely all around, to clear itself the road towards the illumination. And the shortest road is sinuous, to see fooled?... 

Is it good that, Thee Saviourity ?

FSM : HAâaaaarrhhhh . . . t is Great Fresh this beer, that do you say Superman about it?

SM : Sure! It is Divine  (Laughter)... The real Revelation...

BG : Hips !... Bradabaum !

FSM : Eh Well ! here he is wallowed the ship's boy !... Say, you believe that I was a little bit credible on this blow there ?

SM : In no way!

FSM & SM : ah ah ah aha ah ! ! !. . .

FSM : HAAaaâââaaaa.... Ssssûper..... men (re-laughter) Go put back lungs in one Lol-ita -san !

SM : You always settle to have the last moût...

FSM : Ah it is very good!.... This beer... Old villain, go ! ...

... And that lasted up to the early morning and the worst it is that it was a period without morning in the Paradise: a real hell, I say to you not.

perdu ? la carte aux trésors 

             Râmen.

compteurs    

.

( For the greenhorns let us specify that God is a Flying Spaghetti Monster, it is now turned out. The paradise contains Volcanoes of beer (and of chocolate in what it seems), and factories in stripteaseuses and chippendells (with sales of chippendells both months).)

The human being is languishing to arrive at the Paradise ( Pasta): he tries to deceive his boredom by ersatz. Here are some some:

Striptease

Before undressing, it is advisable to have got dressed beforehand. The idea of the stiptease appeals at the idea of a mischievous malpractice of a taboo. It is thus advisable to establish the Taboo before to think of by-passing it. AND it is what what set most time for The Mônster: it would have looked like what Its factory to Strippers if there had been no taboo on earth?

This message appears as a stiptease: we begin dressed, by revealing the contents in to make and for measure: everything is in the expectation...
   

 The primitive tribe can live in a Town Hall, the children can sometimes have a premature shared sexual activity, in Ghotul in India for example, but it is frequent that the adults isolate themselves outside of the Town Hall to make love, without moreover that the motivation of this isolation is inevitably identical to the common definition of "modesty". It is also frequent that the children go nude but that in the adulthood or after the ceremonies of initiation of the teenager, the wearing of the loincloth or the garment becomes the rule.

From Greek and forme, Gauls in the western culture.

The Gauls have a relationship in the nudity, in the sexuality and in the eroticism different and the concept of modesty, will settle down only much more late. Moreover during the antique certain Greeks and Gauls fought nudes.

In Europe of the Middle Ages we bathed nude and without complexes in the sea or the rivers, we slept nude with all the household, and often in the same bed understood servants.

The revival marks a social order of the modesty. The morality wanted that only a person of an upper class could show himself naked without complex in its flock but not the opposite: King in its flock, the bougeois to his servants, etc....

 But with the Inquisition , and the return of a religion which wants to hide the sexuality, to on paintings and frescoes where chaste veils are added to hide the sexes.
In the Moslem culture, the word awra indicates any thing stayed openly or any part of the body which the human being hides by modesty and being a part of his private life, because the modesty is considered as " a branch of the faith ".

Nobody can say exactly who made the very first striptease, nor in which country it it is produced. But a matter is sure, the word " striptease " was introduced by the brothers Minsky in New York in 1916/1917. Here is the story of the comic (burlesque) and the striptease …

The Dance of seven veils has its origin in the myth of the goddess Ishtar and the god Tammuz  which belong to the Assyrian and Babylonian faiths. According to this myth, after the death of Tammuz, the lover of Ishtar, the goddess approached doors of the hells and wanted at all costs that the guard ouvrît. The guard let her penetrate into the underground world, by opening only a door every time. In each of them, Ishtar had to deprive of a garment, so that she met naked having crossed finally the seventh door. Of anger she threw herself on Ereshkigal, goddess of the Hells, but this one imprisoned Ishtar. After the descent of Ishtar towards the lower world, any sexual activity stopped on the earth. Papsukkal, the god-messenger, brought back the situation to king of gods, Ea. He sent an eunuch called Asu-shu-Namir towards Ereshkigal to demand her the bag containing the water of the life. Ereshkigal could only give up. Asu-shu-Namir splashed Ishtar of this water, what brought her in back to life. Ishtar redid then the inverse road by way of seven doors, (without her lover regrettably) by receiving a part of clothes in each, and she was completely dressed when she crosses the last door.

We shall notice in the video below and the following ones, that the undulation of the body and the members is an evocation "hardly veiled" by the undulation of the appendages of Its Undulatory Tentacly Saviority .   

The Bible makes reference to the striptease in the gospel as the dance of 7 veils . Salomé undressed in front of king Érode, the tank and asked in exchange for the head of Jean-Baptiste his best friend.

The striptease takes its roots in the most former(ancient) Antiquity(Antique), at the Egyptian or Assyrian courtesans, then in the Greek cities(estates) revering Aphrodite and its Roman equivalent that is Venus, and the rooms(parts,plays) of Aristophane or Plaute already abounds in staged undressings.

It will be necessary the christianization of the West so that the exhibition of the body is banned, In the second half of the 12th century, sensualism and eroticism make their appearance in the fashion of the ladies of the Court(Yard)..

The oriental dance (Tradition gypsy) (which is reducing because in reality all the body works) or baladi (term used at the Canadians-French) is a dance native of the Middle East and the Arab countries, danced essentially by women, but also, more and more danced by people worldwide

In Arabic, she is called Raqs al sharqi (literally:danse oriental) and in Turkish Oryantal dansi, which gave the term of oriental dance. She(it) is recognized as one of the most former dances of the world especially in the countries of the Middle East (Lebanon, Egypt, Turkey, Syria, Iraq) and of the Maghreb (Tunisia, Morocco, Algeria).

We think that the origin of this dance goes back up to the former(ancient) rites of fertility, associated at once(at the same time) to the religion and to the esotericism. Very few valid sources of information are accessible on the subject, that's why there are so many myths around the origin and around the evolution of this dance.

In the broad sense, the term indicates the oriental dance under quite

The French people discovered the oriental dance when the soldiers of Napoléon landed during the campaign of Egypt. Coming from a relatively puritanical society, the slightest nudity was then collected to them as the aphrodisiac powerful. By seeing these women's ponds swaying hips languishingly, and these sorts of generalized shivers - While the Church of period considered the dance as a mark(brand) of the devil they made an error of appreciation and assimilated naturally the oriental dance to an invitation to the prostitution, even if on any account, it is not a part of this environment.

The Bayadères (India and extrème east) or devadâsî - literally handmaid of the divinity - girls dedicated to the temple from their youngest age were, they were considered as wives of the divinity. Originally intended in the service of the divinity, they were removed from their family and received an education been looked after during an initiation - called bottukatal - which could last very for a long time and during whom(which) they learnt, in particular, to master the dance - it is these practices of dance that were of use as model to the bharata natyam,

The ballet dance of the South of India - By following the teachings of Natuvanar or dance teacher, as well as the kannada, the Tamil, and the Sanskrit, the language of the sacred texts. Certain important temples, that from Brihadesvara to Tanjavûr, welcomed several hundreds of devadâsî which participated in their reputation by the quality of their art. They were authorized to dance in front of the divinity only having not

They were classified, traditionally, in seven categories:

    * Dattâ: those who had chosen to give themselves to the temple,
    * Vikritâ: those who had been sold to the temple,
    * Bhrityâ: those who dedicated themselves to the temple following a wish,
    * Bhâktâ: those who danced by pure worship bhakti ) in the divinity,
    * Hritâ: those who, orphans, were confided(entrusted) to the temple,
    * Alankarâ: those who were offered courtesans, with dowry, in the temple by a râja,
    * Gopikâ: those who were dancers by family tradition,

Devadâsî enjoyed an advantageous position, they received a remuneration during their training, then benefited from certain privileges, and had sexual intercourse against silver offerings. However, in time, under the influence of the Islam which demonized the body of the woman and advised its confinement in the family closed world, their status knew an evolution which transformed them into prostitutes without social consideration; their status of sacred courtesans was violently denied them with the abolition of the system of devadâsî by the British colonial Empire in 1925, in defiance of the Indian culture. However, we consider that 250 000 girls were dedicated to the temples of Yellamma, Hanuman and Khandoba - an aspect of Shiva - in Karnataka and the South of Maharashtra between the independence of India and on 1982.

The first sense of the colourfully striped word, resulting from Portuguese bailadeira, is synonymic of devadâsî.

Seemingly improper, the existence of a cleanly feminine service in the range of mainly male offices justifies itself for religious reasons ; We know, indeed, that the gods in sanctuaries express the sovereignty and that, mutually, the kingship is glorified in the divinity, the effigy of the cella being treated(handled) in the style of king, whereas this last one is him analogically to a god . Gold, the daily interview(maintenance) of a divinity calls women who carry out(achieve) on Earth what made for the paradise ( svarga ) Apsara to serve and amuse the gods . And the list is long of these " comings of waters ": Rambhâ, Ourvashî, Mênakâ, Tilottâma, Adrikâ, etc., who heighten of their beauty the luxurious divine stay, of these nymphs full of grace(favor) and charm, magnificently beautiful, called Sourâganâ (" wives of the gods ") or Soumadâtmaja ^{( "Loose women") who are the celestial models of the handmaids of temple and the courtesans[1]}.

In his work in kannada language on the cultural aspect of the Indian registrations, Chidanandamurthy indicates that the effigy of the temple required two sorts of pleasures to satisfy. The " enjoyments of the members (of the body) " angabhoga ) assured(insured) by baths, the unction of pastas and perfumes, the offering of flowers and undulations of the flame, and the " enjoyments of the scene of the shows) " rangabhoga ) in which provided the singings(songs), the dances or the played dramas [ 1 ]. Now it is exactly the satisfaction of these made desires flesh which dêvadâçî personifies^[1].

The GEISHAS

   , The geisha girls are the result(profit) of the evolution of taikomochi(太鼓持, taikomochi^?) or hōkan (幇間, hōkan^?), equivalent to Japan of the clowns of the Middle Ages in Europe. So, first geisha girls were men(people), from whom the work was mainly to amuse, by singings(songs) and of the music, the customers of the houses of tea [ 7 ].

At the beginning of their integration to the geisha girls, in the 1750s, the women were called onna geisha girl (女 芸者, onna geisha^? geisha girl? Literally: woman geisha girl), or geiko (芸妓, geiko^?) to Kyoto. They quickly became more numerous than the men(people), who took the name of otoko geisha girl (男芸者, otoko geisha^? Otoko geisha girl? Man geisha girl) to differ from women. From 1800, all the geisha girls were women ^[7].

,In 1779, the Japanese government officialized geisha girl's job(business) and created a stamp duty office(検番, kenban^?), intended to list(count) the geisha girls and to make respect the law. This one indicated that only the licensed prostitutes could have sexual relations with their customers, and not the geisha girls.

In 1842, the reform Tempo banned the prostitution and made close the districts of pleasures, but these reopened in 1851. In 1886, to keep(guard) the control over the activities of the geisha girls, the government fixed an official price list(rate) for their activities.

Till the beginning of the XXth century, the geisha girls were considered as in the forefront(at the tip) of the fashion, so much that with the westernization of Japan in the years 1920-1930, we live to appear geisha girls dressing and dancing to the Westerner, nicknamed dansu geisha girl. But many of them opposed to this modernization and settled(arose) in guards of the Japanese tradition, what is always the case at present.

Maid Cafés :

In the current time, an adversity of the Geisha girl re-appears under the shape of the waitresses " Maid " in "Maid" coffees(cafés) (restaurants, lounges of massage, nightclubs, etc.). Quite straight ahead taken out of mangas and Japanese cartoons, the waitress " Maid " would be a nice and clean teenager, very short dressed, full of spirit, wise but in taken with the first emotions of the adolescence.

Rules are strict, Even if they are sexy in devil, it sometimes come to stock you to the street, the flirtation, and the got(touched) are formally banned. We rather are mothered there, in a sexy universe "Wald Disney": creams and sauces are served in front of you by means of feeding-bottles. The costume is rather standard (and sometimes the spirit is not there), but declines so often in the infinity: :

In fact, there is always had a certain confusion in the role of the women dedicated to the divinities and to the arts which it implied: to the women artists by extension, in a world dominated by the patriarchy, between artists - handmaids and courtesans. It will evolve with the dilution of the patriarchy, by the introduction of chippendells: the male finding a more and more seductive, and not so much more conquering (dominant) role.

This "Ambiguousity" needs that the separation is constantly reactivated. The striptease is essentially of the order of " the ignition ", the pure seduction without consumption. Hey per che? Do we really speak about sex here? Or of its necessary symbolism. That is a feminine partner for The Man?

She is "his half " as it is said; what would miss him to be complete: a perfect being who is self-sufficient to himself. But we feel at once the swindle: there would have to have symbiotic fusion to do it. But this fusion is of the order of the imagination, not of the reality.

It thus has not to join the reality so that it keeps its imaginary potentiality. A "consumption" would confront brutally the illusion of an idyllic comprehensiveness with the frustration of the reality on the opposite page. For the Man, the female genital organ represents this absence of comprehensiveness: the "absence" of external genital organ at the woman, coupled with menstrues, returns the Man just like a "castration" (we are in the imagination there) Castration which is in fact a frustration: the idyllic comprehensiveness does not exist... It has never existed, is will never exist!

The symbolic figure of this frustration is the gorgo - "jellyfish" screw: the figure of the "Jellyfish" represents the female genital organ the fleece of snakes of which is there to underline exactly the "absence" of yard snakely. The "man" in petrified, " dumbfounded " rest, compared to its embodied fundamental "lack".

The striptease consists in firing the imagination of a fusion full of promises purely fantastical, and thus not writable in the reality as long as we wish to keep the illusion.

Fantastical comprehensiveness? Not completely! It will not have escaped in distinguished Pastafaris that the image of the Gorgon(Gorgonian) was too talking: it is enough that aforementioned ' Jellyfish " Môns-trique touches us of Its Magic wand so that we covered immediately our lost plenitude. We shall notice in the passage which the strippers of the Paradise Pasta takes out of a " celestial factory ": in other words that they do not recover from a Reality in ground terms, but a lot of idyllic complement completed in each - to the taste of each - is specified well! The question to know if there is promise of consumation appears to the ultimate stage of the magistery Pasta.

N.B. : Les geishas entrent dans la cathégorie des femmes idylliques inaccessibles, mais le Harem n'entre pas dans ce cadre (Quoi que ça puisse faire office pour ceux qui n'y ont pas accès, et sont condamnés à le rêver (à l'instar des occidentaux).

Mais poursuivons notre quête historique du Sein Graal perdu...

In 17th century, the ideal gluteus is plump and soft, rather as pure as the driven snow.

In 18th century, an inescapable accessory of the ladies of the court is the range(fan), which confers them an at once sensual and mysterious haughtiness..
Here is which really begins the history of the comic (burlesque) with in London " British fair " who were pioneers of the comic. They occurred not in long dress but by sticking … They also bring the comic in New York which asks for more of it immediately. But the show amounts not only to undress in a sensual way it is a show of humor, dance and theater It would seem that the first dance show where the artist undresses completely took place in 1890 in a restaurant of the Missouri. 

In 1893, the French cancan makes its appearance in Paris in the Moulin Rouge or the dancers raise the leg to let thighs show itself at times in a rustle of underskirts and bloomers.

In 1894, it is the birth of the complete striptease and that takes place in the Divan in Paris (It is moreover in the "divan" that Freud will imagine its stake in naked of the human soul by the psychoanalysis). The first steps of the striptease in the United States are difficult, perturbed by the Puritanism.

The beginning of 1900s is very stiff on the contrary and would not know how to tolerate so openly these "degrading" exhibitions. The oriental fashion was going to bring of the revival in the music hall, the dances of veils or belly dancing. By crossing the Atlantic Ocean, this new fashion is transformed and becomes a kind of more American show, the comic (burlesque). Voluntarily vulgar and exaggerated, comic American quickly pleases the general public. The belly dancing gets closer more and more to the striptease and becomes very popular Hootchie-Coochie, who was going to be imperative in all the comic shows.

Most of the sources agree to say that the pole dances would have been born in Canada in the 20s. Hoochie-Coochie began to use bars of support in the center of the scene as the support, before integrating it into their dance, creating a more entertaining and spectacular show. The profession of naked dancer will seem for the first time only after it

The show will last hardly because the striptease and the comic are formally forbidden in New York in 1939. The striptease becomes popular in Montreal from the 40s in Gayety with Lily Saint-Cyr. 

The 50s integrate the striptease into the popular culture. The striptease is more than a job, it is a vocation. It will be officially considered as an art in 1955, date in which opens an Academy of the striptease in Paris and In the USA a senator declares that " the striptease is a purely American art and a noble institution ". In the 50s, the striptease always markets more and becomes one of the pillars of the industry of the rapidly growing sex.

If before the striptease was reserved for the women, it is not true any more since about twenty years with the appearance of the naked dancers. The performances are there more captivating (ah... the Noodly Touch Nouillu! To see the laps dances this below)

Finally! What of better than a pirate?

The 70s, with the sexual liberation, will see the shows becoming more and more sexualized … The dancers to sucker give in little by little to the charms of the plastic surgery, beginning the running in artificial breasts. It is only in the years 70-80 when to include the pole during the striptease becomes popular. From then on, the main facets of the striptease are in position and will change hardly until our days, if it is not for some evolutions of direction, as the lap-dance very popular, or the dance is almost made in the physical contact, being similar to Noodly Touch. It appears in Montreal at the beginning of the 90s but will be considered legal only in 1999. (We shall note below, the symbolism hardly disguised by the Noodly Appentage under the appearance of the albino snake, & too the 2nd guitarist, pirate wearing as mexicano).

Salma Hayek > Lap Dance (HQ) - (RedTouch) envoyé par beepbeep44.

But since it for years on 2000, the women have the taste of erotising their couple by practising the striptease at the house with accessories such a chair, the bed, the walls, etc. A way pleasant to keep her man for the house and to restore its letters of nobility in this mythical art that is the striptease … And soon the men...

Aerobic, Strip-Tease avec Carmen Electra envoyé par imineo.

Voucher... Practical class: (we shall notice at the end of video, a discreet appearance of the Monster)

Clip censuré - Koreus

And then for these ladies who were not too much spoiled by the historic narrative, a little "resucée" (forgiveness).

This says the idyllic "plenitude" for the Woman can join in a slightly moved way: a Faith was encircled, it forms only one with its Foetus. The Man can represent as much the idyllic complement, as a "instrument" to reach it by falling pregnant. This says the Man can also fall under the charm of the paternity: the Child representing, for both, this complete being, female and male union of the concepts in a single person, that they will never become neither of them. It is The luck(chance) and The major difficulty for the child. The luck as far as it is Its guarantee to be invested by his( parents; ,its difficulty as far as it will be necessary to him( to assume eventually (later) not to be this idyllic being. He can be helped because he is sexual, becoming identified then with the one or other one of his parents; from the fact as well as the idea of plenitude inherited from his parents is appreciably different from it for both of those this: He cannot be both in the Faith

It goes of the enfantement as the striptease there: they owe stay of the realm of imagination at the level of the physical and thus psychic fusion(merger). The umbilical cord must be symbolically cut (both face to face the mother and sometimes also the father).

It will not have escaped the distinguished pastafaris that Noodly Touched is the only means to find this idyllic plenitude: the appendix nouilleux is obviously this worn-out umbilical cord which reties, by restoring us this lost comprehensiveness...     In nominé Spaghetti...  RAmen...

Symbolically the male genital organ, as much as the umbilical cord, are symbolic metaphors of the Noodlic Appendix  for lack of anything better. The physical fusions(mergers) have a term, which nevertheless leaves a back divine taste of plenitude. The nouillesque got(touched) keeps a permanent effect beyond the initial contact: he(it) is of the order of The Revelation.    ReRAmen...

Ultimate in the Pâsta Paradise consists all the same in be spent for one or Stripper of the Paradisiac factory.

For that purpose, it is thus advisable to entrainer: where from " once the week, to Undress languishingly in front of your alter-égo, you will make " (each the ballot)

Small reminder nevertheless of Its Tentaclely Sensualism :

4. Really, I would like enough that you avoid degrading behavior for you, or your free will, but also in the consent of your partners of age legal AND mental maturity.

8. Really, I would like enough that you avoid making to the others it you would not want for you if you were in things hummm, with quite a lot of leather, lubricant, petroleum jelly... If the other person is there inside, however (according to N ° 4) take like that comes, you movies, and for the love of Its Cosmic Lechery make, go out covered! frankly, it is only a rubber piece. If I had wanted that that can restrict your pleasure when you conceived it, I would have add pikes or the others there. (Lolwut) 

Warning: I translate with machine translation systems scientist, which make a mistake thus inevitably. Usually, I try to correct, but these errors are maybe the work of His(Her, Its) Sly Deity, who tries there to free(deliver) us the sense(direction) hidden from things. And I did not thus correct here.
De facto(Actually) the subject is also the mistranslation of the divine thought in reducing human terms.... Thus!

May the Pasta be with you... You go to need it...
I remind you that you cannot really claim to reach(affect) the control(master's degree) of Pasta that in the term of the triple complete reading of this blog, and the reading ten times repeated by certain messages, of which that this.
I know : The life is a long Calvary of rose petals, of which we do not go out alive of surcroit...

Well, it had been able to be the message of excess, too long, too much searched. I tried to put myself at the level of the creationists aping the scientists, in an effort to be readable(legible) on a Muslim site. Ben I almost arrived there and I was almost frightened. But for those who are interested in the question, there is of the seriousness and the Pasta: some beer and Pastas. The complexity of the document likes its esotericism; the Ultimate Revelation of Any Things supposes a detailed décriptage of the history(story) known in term of senses(directions) hidden behind too simple appearances to be the true.

Published(Edited) at first on a Muslim site of inter-religious discussions. Not to crease(offend) pointlessly, the prejudice here was Doctitude every creationist) claimed at the end of document.

How it is too serious (the seriousness is a trompe l'œil), I sometimes reshape him(it) taking away him(it) from the original text! !

Introduction :

Let us be clearly, the Islam is a world a little bit difficult to encircle for me which had a Christian and rationalist education, and the reading of the Koran seemed to me rather abstruse.

My rational quoted(esteemed) often urges me to take an analytical, sociological recession(drop), in the approach of the forms of thought which offer themselves to me. Where from the proposed theme.

The genetic epistemology is a shape of study of the genesis of the thought in its historic and sociological context.
To understand(include) us it seems to me essential to see in what our respective stories(trouble) congealed our spirits in forms of sometimes hermetic thoughts the one to the other one. To understand(include) it can bring us to build some footbridges in our fundamental misunderstandings.

Before to explain to you Pastafarism, its development of the Christianity and the Rationalism, I need the ressituer in its historic genesis, otherwise we shall discuss in different languages(tongues) in spite of them even words.
I could so rock you the first truths Pastas without the other forms of explanations, it will be of the Chinese for you. Also, you can rock me Suras, and each will stay on the positions by thinking that the other one is only a hermetic psychorigide.

I shall propose you my vision of things, so much in the genesis of my shape of thought, that in the one that I imagine of yours, and there I shall doubtless be far from the account: I shall ask you for a little of indulgence my inevitably heretical thought at first, to see blasphemous for you. To you to contradict me in a civil manner to come along more relevant elements of understanding.

You are free to reach it or not obviously.

I THUS BEGIN: attention, the genesis of the religious fact

Notre Fêtardité Antédiluvienne Thus made act of creation by getting plastered conSCIENCEsement the mouth, and this world is not completed, far from it. Actually, The MÔnstre put a little sheepish, and tried to persuade us, by got(touched) nouillu on the experiences(experiments) of our budding(in the blade) scientists, that lon world was completed.

Furthermore "IL" was not beautiful in spite of his(her,its) perfect forms: the Hydro-carbon complexes cannot understand. Where from an inclination has to show itself under other forms more "pleasant"("kind") to our understanding.

Needs to say, the Human being is not more smart than HE, he is an egocentric person, and admits only what his report(relationship) in Things allows him(her) to understand(include). So when the Chinese found too early the bones of dinosaurs buried by His(Her,Its) Omniscient Naughtiness, they understood(included) nothing and attributed(awarded) them to dragons.

Sa Chafouinité Pragmatique thus showed herself as time goes by in the alder of our faculties(powers) of understandings. Where from a beautiful brochette(bunch) of worship(cults) in truncated divine images.

Then the Human being, by making only for the head, forced the line(feature) up to the caricature, and often fell in the caricature of The Divine Revelation until the fundamentalism sometimes.

Only some Master(Teacher) Pasta and Pirates had the Revelation of Any Things. They put under cover compilations of the knowledge Pasta after the fire of the library(bookcase) of Alexandria, which saw number of these documents leaving in smoke. They were kept(guarded) for the secret in the Greek monasteries of Météora and Mount Athos, where still in certain Tibetan monasteries, etc...

They developed in secret Pastologie: ancestral divinatory Arts.

As for the Pirates, they buried their knowledge with their treasures; cards(maps) in treasures are there often only documents coded by these knowledge.

But let us not put the cart before the horse, here is the analytical history(story) of geneses of the religions until the True Revelation of Any Things.

I  Spirituality and Reports(Connections) in the Nature:

According to Konrad Lorenz, a éthologue studying the animal life, animals would be subject to superstitions, close to a certain mysticism. In other words that the Human being would have been a mystic being even before human being. Many primitive Religions associate the human soul humaine To his(her,its) double(copy) - Animal, Gods are often at the middle-human being the middle-animals, and the protective Totems are there so often animal. De facto(actually) before killing an animal, it was necessary for it to apologize for this necessity with the soul of the animal to protect itself from its post-mortem wrath. This worship for our Nature bound(connected) to the bestiality re-appears scientifically through the ecology: if we leave disparaitre the natural animal species on earth(ground), it is because we do not see in what our world becomes intolerable (including for us eventually(later)): the Nature " will take revenge " for our attacks!                  Hamster in the middle of a crisis of mysticism

But we can date the refinement of this mysticism when the Human beings (hominids) would have begun to bury their deaths with objects accompanying them in their death(dead man) in him(her,it) beyond.

Then, we were able to decipher certain Religious Faiths of peoples " said primitive " discovered by the explorers, giving us a vague idea of our Religious prehistory.

Actually, the first big Religions appeared in the settlement of the populations by the passage of a lifestyle of " more or less nomadic Hunters-gatherers " in that from " Farmers-Breeders home-bodysuits ". The human groups crossing(spending) then some tribal scattering to the sedentary grouping, unifying their Faiths there.

Actually, the first big Religions appeared in the settlement of the populations by the passage of a lifestyle of " more or less nomadic Hunters-gatherers " in that of " sedentary Cultivateurs-Éleveurs ". The human groups crossing(spending) then some tribal scattering to the sedentary grouping, unifying their Faiths there.
It is also the passage presumed the Animism, in the relation privileged to the Gods (Polytheism then). The Animism recovers from a Faith in Mystic strengths foreign to the Human being: the "Hunter-gatherer" being totally dependent on hardly mastered forces of Nature. "Farmer - Breeder", him, negotiates with the nature to master her(it) better, and thus has a report(relationship) of relation privileged with His(Her) Gods. HIS(HER,ITS) because the first unified Religions were doubtless a patchwork of the diverse faiths of the former(ancient) unified tribes, it is the age of the Tower of Babel. These faiths were in schizophrenic sorts. But the schizophrenia looks after itself by the integration progressive diverse personality in the only one: where from the forward succession(advent) of the Monotheism. We are not there still at this moment there.

It is also the passage of the Matriarchy in the Patriarchy. Before the Human being considered that "Mother Nature" gave birth to the life of which we took advantage (Hunters-gatherers); the first testimonies of listed(counted) Divinities are moreover statuettes Of fertile Women (giving the life). Henceforth the Human being considers that he puts his seed in "Mother Nature", and that his fruits belong to him(her): the child is not both the one any more of the Mother, and especially that of the Father who planted his seed (Farmers - Breeders).

There will be moreover cohabitation one time(weather) of both "Systems" in the Polytheism. At the Greeks, at the beginning was (the the) Chaos, then appeared Gaïa ( the Earth) and Ouranos ( the Sky), which(who) engendered Stopwatches ( the Time(Weather)), when we see good how distribute the roles: God " the Father " is in the Sky, whereas the mother remains quartered in the ground contingencies. And the fruit of their union, the Temporality, begins to take place: it is the invention of the writing, the History(Story) accurately dated with a Big "H". Let us note that (agricultural) culture rhymes with Human Culture (knowledge), because they ensue one of the other one.

But also: the scientific revolution of the discovery of the DNA, and the new division(sharing) of the male and feminine responsibilities in the genesis of the Life. And exactly it intervenes at the very moment when the Human being realizes that the (feminine) Earth is not any more an exploitable field in thank you by the male "Man", but that It has a word to say:  A "Human" overexploitation which can eventually(later) exhaust its fertile power. It is henceforth necessary to him(her) to compose with "Her", otherwise we risk his(her,its) wrath which would deprive us of Its Fertility... The Human being is male, the World(Monde) which it fertilizes is feminine... You will note that I mean almost systematically the Human being rather than " the Man ".

II  Vanity of the Religions:

A first analysis is imperative(leads):

If God exists. No panic, the analysis requires that all the hypotheses remain opened at first. I also say that for my friends Agnostiques and Atheists which, I hope for it will also invite each other in the debate (I was Agnostic for a long time and I respect: my former(ancient) Christian faith considers them as lost sheep, nevertheless of the herd).

If God thus exists, we see that He imposes upon our narrow spirits in the measure of what we are capable of assimilating, at a moment of our route(course), towards the knowledge of Any Things; this in it we conceive of our reports(connections) in the Reality.

Such the wall of the cave of Platon, the Reality is the wall screen on which falls the shade(shadow) of the truth which comes from the outside {beyond our field of perception(collection) by got (noodly touched)}.

Of our Animal initial nature, then Hunter(Fighter), then Farmer, then of " Human being in front of limits of the exploitation(operation) of the nature ", God's Idea evolves in our souls clouded according to the development of our understanding of the Reality; screen but also deceives the eye of the Real Nature of Things.

Thus if God's Idea would be distilled to us by Him according to our poor intellectual abilities of assimilation, we can emit(utter) the hypothesis that He(It) still reserves us some developments for the future, to see even fundamental turnovers if our intellectual maturation allows it us... And Each, Every people has no same maturation: primitive Cultures still remain in front of the triumphant Civilization.

I invite moreover our readers not to throw back(reject) too fast these ancestral Faiths.
Indian Hopi considered for example that an event existed, and was dated kind, not of the day of its arisen, but when it was known, revealed: we make nevertheless of even when we say that a star shines (now?), while she(it) is maybe switched off for decades; and there is not more than the light which reaches us only!
The Australian Aborigines do not consider that we stole them their lands, because the earth(ground) did not belong to them; it was they which(who) belonged to The Earth: we are going to have to, exactly, reconsider the question according to our ecological reports(connections) with the Planet.

THE QUESTION WHICH IRRITATES! And there is not my purpose.

Finally (in order of appearance) Atoum ( Egypt), Brahmâ ( Indus), Enki ( Sumer), Pangu ( China), Yahvé, Ahrua Mazdà ( Persia), Dragon and Jaguar ( pre-Colombian Olmèques), Buddha, Ouranos, Jupiter, God, Allah, Agnostic Scientific Immanence, Pastafaray would be only adversities of the same "God", that HE would have inspired in his Prophets, according to the maturity of thought of each of the peoples to whom "IL" chose to show itself at the precise moment for them.

The same God? For "Yahvé-Dieu-Allah-Ahrua Mazdà" it is in texts.
To Hopis Au commencement the world was a formless fog of dust and air(sight): the dust settled below, and the Sky and the pure air(sight) brought out(loosened) at the top, the light appeared by breaking up darkness.
At the Chinese, The sky and the earth(ground) separated, the light of the darkness, the evil came down(fell) on earth(ground), the good(property) elaborated to the sky, the feminine and male principles separated... Surprising! No?
We find disturbing resemblances: in peculiarity the separation of entities opposite duelles. What the Greeks were able to have wind of Sumerian texts, following the example of the Jews, why no plagiarisms? But pre-Colombian and Chinese, it is absurd. It is apparently good the same God who expresses himself.

 Why such or such revelation for such where such populates? The Drawings of the Lord are impenetrable, as say the Christians. But we can have a presentiment that the forms of His(Her,Its) Revelations, at these moments there, to these peoples there, were the most the appropriate(clean) for booster these ends of Humanity towards its Intentions in a targeted way. We shall take the image of the staircase: if we are in the middle of a staircase and what we want to reach(affect) the summit of a jump, we are quite lucky to curl up below; God would show himself only there where we are, to show us only three next walk(work) to climb, waiting that we are more mature to show ourselves the next stages.

This way, we need a little of humility when in the conceptions which God revealed us of His Intentions: we are doubtless indeed far from the Supreme and ultimate Revelation.

And there is not there of what to boast of the order of his(her,its) revelations: Olmèques, Chinese, and Jewish lived in different abstract universes, on floors of different walking(marches). In each the revelation. The offspring of the revelations Olmèques on the Judaism augurs not at all their superiority: Olmèques was simply very late on Palestine in them reports(connections) in the "Reality-screen" of Things: in the floor of the Babylonians, previous to the Judaism. The Humanity is even now very schizophrenic with multiple "Personalities"... In each the road in Big Marche towards the Knowledge of Any Things. I wonder even if there is no message of Very Nouillu in these schizoid fragmented Revelations: maybe He Wants to urge us to have a dialogue (what we make here). At the beginning was the Chaos, opposite principles got free (feminine male among others), but of them opposite reports(connections) was born a child: The Time(Weather) which allowed in   . . .            Râmen.

And another Faith , (=And another once, in french : foi = fois . I like this play on words), you should not to spread(push aside) the education(teaching) of the primitive civilizations. In the bend of a fragment of their revelation, we can discover it things not revealed in more advanced grindings(versions).

III  The misleading Nature of the language :

Digression: there, it is necessary to burst the abscess, I know that I am on a Muslim site (opened but Muslim).
I claim it half words that the Islam, as any Religion, is called to be exceeded one day by later revelations. Heresy! Blasphemy! I hear(understand) back my keyboard... I grant(tune) him(it) to you, but we are not here to immortalize our misunderstandings by allegedly respectful unspoken... The real respect is to consider the other one as intelligent enough to study the other forms of thought that his, was only to throw back(to reject) them by a more relevant argument(sales brochure)... And I ask only to be convinced.

I thus aspire whether the Koran, also Saint Is, and as any Holy Book, not maybe The Ultimate Revelation of Quite Things. The Unlimitedness of the Divine Knowledge not maybe contained in a so small Book It Was one thousand times Saint. Even to consider him(it) as a seed called to develop as a tree in the heart of the Believers, the Tree hides the Forest of the Ultimate Revelation. There is there only what can assimilate our poor passing civilizations... Very insignificant towards the Infinite Wisdom of Any Powerful.

Claim that the thought of God are completely contained in the Koran (even in the form of seed), and even in everything the Holy Books of the earth(ground) adorned me with a claim, with a vanity, with almost Blasphemous and offensive Human arrogance towards the Infinite Holly Knowledge.

(Vidéo in Frensh) Bon, vous pensez que les pastafariens vont trop loin, essayons de voir ce qu'en pensent les agnostiques :

Stop being stupid! Become agnostic ! by Minerve-

And still it is very soft with regard to the atheists, who are not far from taking the mysticism for an insanity downright...
At least, Pâstafarisme includes Truth Faith of the inside, even if it considers the other currents as distractions; but also even consider that the distraction is an essential constituent of the Faith.

A detail, which you will consider doubtless So blasphemous, Mahomet is only a Prophet Human being, and he was The Prophet of the Prophets, he is only a man, a God was not able to pass on him(her) all its Knowledge. Even a superman not maybe at the height.

Mahomet was not a God (there is only ONE!), and as man, he(it) was fallible: doubtless he(it) badly perceived(collected) all the Infinite Complexity of what He(It) had to pass on, because He is not a God once again: the infallibility of Mahomet as Prophet, but nevertheless Human, rings as an inappropriate Deification, on the verge of the blasphemy. We are told that It was only The Feather of Allah, is but if Allah is a God its human feather is not it: so to translate faithfully Infinite Complexity of The Thought of Allah is not possible in term of Human language: the Human Language not maybe that reducer of a Divine Thought. The term of "Thought" is anthropomorphic: the Divine Thought has nothing to do with any shape of human, inevitably narrow thought on the opposite page.
Moreover as ex-rationalist, I found the extremely vague Koran, Allah forgive myself. We can often interpret him(it) in senses(directions) diametrically opposite from a Sura to the other one. So much that I wondered if Allah had not so wanted him(it) to incite us exactly to stand back with regard to inescapable(major) reduction of Its Thought translated into Human terms.
But there, I admit that I am totally Pastafariste in my approach: Pastafaray wanted farcical to avoid any attempt of recovery(recycling) doctrinaire of these rules in meanly human purposes contrary to its Infinite Wisdom. Pastafarien and Lacanien also:

The psychoanalyst Lacan said of semantics of the language, that she(it) was unfit to restore the reality of things. Thus experience: ask to somebody to be described an exotic city the culture of which you do not know, make you it an idea; then go to visit her(it), you will be surprised with the conflict with the idea stemming from the description. And we speak about tangible realities there. Then for God, Pastafaray or Allah! The genius(engineering) of a man was Big Prophet cannot be rather big for that. Moreover, the Human being invented a crazy guard when in the illusion of the language: the humor. Where what is said must be taken in the second degree: iBut a reminder(abseiling) to pay attention on the difference between the perception(collection) of things put in words (funny) deceiver, and the objective reality which leads(infers) misunderstandings, because the Human being had a presentiment of the effect emberlificoteur of the got(noodly touched).

Moreover the Koran forbids more or less of Him " to paint a portrait " picturalement, and it is normal: to represent God under the lines(features) of a bearded old man is of an inadequate anthropomorphisme. But at the same time the Koran raises(draws up) a "literal" portrait of Allah; there is there a contradiction, unless considering that Allah wanted to warn us by this prohibition against its portrait raised(drawn up) in the too exactly "Embellished with images" Koran so taken literally.

For Lacan, there are three inseparable spheres: the reality escaping our perception(collection), symbolism which is only a reconstruction very fragmentary nouillesque of the reality in our spirit (the paper is a part of this sphere), and the imagination which allows us to estimate the distance enters symbolism and the reality (the humor is a part of this sphere). Example: we say a day to an autistic in the swimming pool " not to go there because it has no more foot "; and that this to come out of the water to verify that he(it) still has his(its) feet. His(her,its) imagination was so blocked(surrounded), that he was not able to take the recession(drop) necessary for the metaphoric understanding of the language with regard to the reality. The fundamentalists of any edges which remain the nose stuck literally get lost in the same way.

Mahomet was also a man of his(her,its) time(weather), and chosen probably as that: Allah had doubtless chosen to convert hostile polytheistic masses, and he needed then a hard speech. I was struck by the hard dichotomy of the Koran with regard to the message of love of the Christ: was decadent Roman Empire more inclined to welcome with open arms this Divine Message? (His(her,its) flock, not the Empire in him even, let us not dream).

At the END of digression: I know we are doubtless in the years light in our ways of thinking. But if we are lucky on a million to meet, it is necessary to hurry to miss the first 999 999 attempts (very Pasta that).

Let us resume(take back) the thread of our genesis of the Religions, to understand(include) our distances:

The Genetic misunderstandings of texts :

The Judaism, 1st big monotheist Religion in priori, was freed(delivered) by Abraham to his(her) people, because these people were then the only one to be able to receive him(it) then. It will be necessary to wait 2000 years for the Christianity all the same. 2000 years beforehand: low hat, even if 2000 years are only goutes of water on the scale of the universe and the Divine Infinity. A joke defines the small size of our faiths on the scale of the Divine: a believer asks to God to give him(her) a Divine centime (who represents billions to the Human scale(ladder)), and God to answer him(her) " waits one second " (who represents millenniums to the Human scale(ladder))!

Any Divine Revelation can only degenerate in the reducing contact of the Humanity (without an illegitimate child maybe somebody of very well, it is just an expression, you should not become attached literally). So, these people in the forefront(at the tip) of the Religious Thought paid a high price for his(her) prolonged isolation of Chosen people. Of what to drive crazy: a God, Yahvé chooses a common people among the multitude to make the Only Elected representative for 2000 years: openly(frankly) of what to catch the big head.
Yahvé forgives me, but it is all the same the only "Racist" God of the universe, and the Jews paid a high price hardly this Racism in return: a Chosen people? A Heresy in Divine term: its Revelation, this Revelation there, was certainly distinguished towards the Jews at this moment there; but she(it) invalidates not at all the other Revelations towards the other peoples who are all brothers towards Sa Déicité Intersidérale (it is very Christian as conception: lost sheep).But there, doubtless this conception of the Chosen people was led astray as time goes by. Let us not forget that the Judaism was an oral tradition for 1500 years: his(her,its) written formulation would date 560 avenue JC. Doubtless the result(profit) was appreciably different from origins(background). Errare Humanum is said Romain.

De facto(Actually) the historic texts (Egyptian and Assyrian) suggest quite other history(story): two thousand years avenue JC it is fast said. As Mediterranean the Hebrew have a light trend(tendency) to be exaggerated on the durations, remember you of Methuselah agé of more than 777 years (ben let us see!).

In brief, it would seem that the Jews were polytheistic, with nevertheless a main god (Monolâtrie which we say), and it until 620 approximately, The idea is then made, which Yahvé ( main God) would have become jealous the other Gods, and would have concluded a pact with his(her) people: " Worship me as only God, and I would make of you " My chosen people " under my protection. The Hebrew of Samarie* had just taken a swill of the Assyrians and needed a protective God who is not also the one of the enemy (his(her,its) heart rocks(hesitates)). It is a constancy moreover: the refoundation of the faith after a misfortune, invasions mostly. The Muslims shall become fundamentalist only after the crusades, and the Mongolian invasions. As if previously, the religion was not so important, but the defeat would mean that we irritated the divinities by not granting(tuning) them enough attention. Where from the defeat due to the lack of divine protection, and thus a mystic crystallization "

* The "Samaritans" would have made outstripped(anticipated) by the Assyrians in the opening of the sales in Babylon: a real slaughter: the Samaritaine (Parisian department store) settled down henceforth far from Bagdad, to avoid the beginning of inconvenient sales of the competitors.

This exclusive, jealous relation, to see paranoiac, to God: you are the only one who exists for me provided that I am the only one for you (and what you make me invincible), license in the genesis of the Judaism is the caricature of any report(relationship) in the divine generally: paranoid Obsequiousness, feeling of any power compromising that of powerlessness(impotence) insécurisant etc. It is also what what explains the success of the monotheisms also (although the polytheism also proceeds but without exclusivity): the megalomania paranoiac of whom they proceed (Gott put some! We are invincible, and we are necessarily right), this makes more aggressive and gives the advantage onto the peoples less safe(sure) of their divine protection, and thus more careful; afraid would say monotheist triumphant.

Let us .Revenons in our sheeps(muttons) and them shepherds:

The Hebrew came from Sumer, them even nearby of the Persians.

But in the fact which was the religion of the Persians ?

Heirs of Mesopotamia and the Indus, the religion Perse* made a Breakthrough (where from the "Persian" word) by 1200 avenue JC towards the monotheism. The Divinities merged little by little into the only one around the divinity of the fire(light) " Ahura Mazdà " (another episode of badly perceived(collected) burning bush)..    * Sumerian and médique in the time(period)

Zoroastre was his(her) prophet:

His(Her,Its) rules are very Pasta:

  Although Zoroastre ( Zarathoustra) has never claimed to be a prophet, he(it) contented with giving directions(managements) of spiritual search(research). Zoroastriens considers that their god does not need a worship, not intermediaries' need, and does not play the ignorance of the peoples.

  In the doctrine of Zoroastre, every person answers of its acts by virtue of the nature of its "Fravahr", the equivalent of the Hindu karma. The doctrine amounts in a maxim: Humata, Hukhta, Huvarshta (" Good Thoughts, Good Words, Good Actions(Shares) ").

Zoroastre condemned the rites and the traditional sacrifices offered to the gods by the Persians, but he kept(guarded) the tradition of the worship(cult) of the fire(light). He(it) had realized that all the evolution of the world was based on " the action(share) " and " the reaction ", thus the answer to any charitable attitude appeared to him(her) to be the " good action(share) ". If in company(society), people devote to the kindness they will collect(harvest) only the kindness and

Zoroastre named(appointed) his(her) god Ahura Mazdà, creative strength of the world and four elements, water, earth(ground), fire(light) and air(sight), elements which zoroastriens worships and respect excessively because coming from the god.

He(It) also created the man by giving him(her) his(its) free will so that he can always choose what he(it) has to make between the good(property) and the evil. Actually, the religion Zoroastrique is not imperative(does not lead): she(it) chooses, and each is free of the choice.

Every man is the worker of the god to transfigure the world, there is only a way, it is the way of the "righteousness".

The zoroastrisme so prefigures the succession(advent) of the Christianity.

But has guided surement the Hebrew towards the monotheism also. Saint Paul, of origin Persian as each knows, will be the mentor and the discreet confidant of Jesus Christ, and will allow him(her) to channel the divine flows which crossed him(it) as son(sons,thread) of His(Her,Its) Supreme Divinity. We shall return there.

But let us return to the badly perceived breakthrough(percée) of the Persians.

Misfortune to the losers, Greek will raise(draw up) a mediocre image of their losers, who nevertheless had a far more spread, close(spread, plain,widened, close) empire, and so prosperous and cultivated than them... Until Alexandre. Finally they survived Greek, when these last ones were absorbed by the Roman Empire (then Bysantin), until the Islam absorb them.

Gospel are not the ones original: in 400 ap JC, there were more than 30 versions of diverse apostles when the Roman Catholic Church decided to choose 4 to engrave(burn) them in the marble, destroying(annulling) the others. The clearest and most coherent doubtless; the Christianity beginning to fall to pieces in diverse little compatible versions. But also these versions were doubtless the ones which corresponded best to the temporary Papal power of time(period) (As for the Old Testament for the Jews).
The temporary power is the worst enemy of the Divine messages, by the dévoiements which it engenders in its profit: he(it) was poignant to see Bush and Sadam Hussein to call upon God and upon Allah in their squabble in strategic purposes purely ground. The crusades were totally opposite in itself in the principles of the Christendom...

The Koran seems to be exempt from these drift. But Mahomet did not write it. Scribes are in charge of for Him there, sometimes by estimate leading astray the bottom of Its Thought. Exactly, he(it) is said in a very clear way, that there exists no original manuscript of the Koran: the Koran, was held(retained) by memory(report) by the first Muslims and noted by scribes on diverse supports such as pieces of wood or bones of camel. After the death of Mahomet, the first Caliph Abou Bakr ( 632-634 ) made note the "known" suras, by scribes as calligrapher Zayd ibn Thabit, Jewish secretary of the Prophet Mahomet who knew the Syriac and the Akkadian (the Jewish and Assyrian legends were so able to perspire(transpire) in his(her,its) retranscriptions to leave his(her,its) memories(souvenirs)) asking him(it) to chair copyists' compound committee(commission) of: Abd-Allâh ibn Az-Zoubayr, Sa`îd ibn Al-` Âs and `Abd Ar-Rahmân ibn Al-Hârith ibn Hichâm, 3 Qoraychites close to Othman. Later, the third Caliph Othman ( 644-656 ) Ordered the review of suras (chapters) in a book by means of four bigger scholars of time(period) in Koranic material(subject). The definitive version of the Koran, established in Medina in 651 and known under the name of Mushaf d' Othman, was declared only being a recognized authority version, cancelling all the others, ' with order to destroy(annul) the other written tracks which would have been able to remain in a way that there is only a version of the sacred text. 

In particular those of Ali and Ibn Massoud, who contained three times more verses than the version of Othman. were both close relations of himself Mahomet, to the point that Ali (protected, cousin, spiritual brother, follower and son-in-law of Mahomet: let us excuse for little) was indicated(appointed) first Imam of the Islam. Ibn Massoud was the first one to introduce the Koranic education(teaching), and its Koran would still roam under the coat three centuries after that of Othman. To follow, fragments of this Koran re-appear at the moment...

Incidentally, Othman (protégé of the last woman of Mahomet) was a real despot who did not support(bear) the contradiction, and sat(based) exactly its power by cutting cheerfully in the versions of the Koran the partisants of those who could carry(wear) him(her) shade. And was thus murdered by those who did not support(bear) this censorship, and its social tyranny (criticized by Ali). Ali succeeded, but will compose with the ex partisants of this last one, then was himself(itself) murdered by those who blamed him(her) for his(her) indulgence. Nevertheless the common(current) Shiite survived him(her), and considers Ali as the " holder of the divine secrets and the esoteric meaning of the Islam ", who would have been passed on to him(her) by Mahomet.

Of the fact, it is the henceforth hereditary dynasty of Omeyyades (family of Othman) which(who) took the power, by massacring the Shiites. They inaugurated definitively the Koran of Othman.

After all we see good that the Koran "official" was never that the result(profit) of a fight(wrestling) of influence for the ground power.

But especially it was possible to specify systematically in the infinity the bottom of Incommensurabilité of the Divine Thought through inevitably reducing papers in term of ground transcription (see Lacan). The Thought of Dieu-Allah gives to guess beyond the paper-screen-trunk the eye.

The literal is necessarily a treason. Every good (French-English) translator will never translate literally literally a text: he(it) will change the text to remain closer to the spirit of the initial text in the new language(tongue): the words have completely even no cultural connotations from a language(tongue) to the other one, and to keep(guard) the sense(direction) of these respective cultural connotations demands that we adapt the text to the new culture. Example, a Spanish poem speaks about brook: for a Frenchman, it is a brilliant place of greenery, a haven of peace, but for Spanish, it is a rather dry place where trainent snakes in search of fraicheur, place rather disturbing thus.

Then to translate the Divine Thought into Human terms is already is an impossible wager: the text gives to decipher beyond the words.
But to translate the Koran into foreign language it is another wager, not only in term of Divine sense(direction), than in term especially of cultural connotations. The western, Chinese thought, are in the years light of the Middle-Eastern thought in term of cultural connotations: the words have no same deep sense(direction). To stay in the literal is a treason, but the rigorous exegetes shall say to you that it is necessary to remain in the purest literal not to betray the initial text, but it is a delusion(decoy). Is the Koran thus exportable as is? Unless converting the world to the written Arabic, and still the words (brook by eg) have no same sense(direction) in French-speaking Africa as in France.

Gospel are so extraordinary in the return(restoration) of the cultural context of Satellite dishes(Parabolae) (not in spite of, it was Roman Empire with the cultural bottom which had got closer by the colonization). Jesus freed(delivered) his Satellite dishes(Parabolae) with universal character about the common(current) events of the daily life. But this wall-écran-trompe the eye of the pretext to Divine Message that are the daily pretexts to it is there explicit, and allows to stand back when at the bottom of the message.
The Koran is so difficult to arrest(dread) for Christian thus: the daily pretext in verses is only rarely restored. We imagine well the public to interpeler Mahomet on a ground problem, but the question of departure is evaded in the Koran, keeping(guarding) it only the Divine Conclusions. De facto(actually) certain Verses relate to very particular events and would have doubtless won in clarity(brightness) to be ressitués in their context. De facto(actually) the Koran appears very "mess" to a Christian, which(who) is used that we restore him(her) the context so that happens a more precise idea of the bottom of the Divine Thought beyond the context to get loose from it better.
Having said that, I do not spread(push aside) the idea whether it is also a difficulty for the Muslims as for the Koran, and produces some against sense(direction) in his(her,its) interpretation(performance). Moreover the the oldest transcribed Verses are hardly complicated to understand(include) in modern Arabic. Their writing was of the most unpolished: without vowel and without punctuation. Of the fact count words carry(wear) in interpretation(performance) (A vowel on the place(square) of the other one make a different word, and a different sense(direction) in the verse thus), besides the general sense(direction) of the sentences which can change as we decide "to punctuate" the sentence at a moment when in the other one.

Finally Mahomet, to suppose upper spirit, seized can be immediately the sense(direction) of the Divine Thought which had to seem to him(her) crystal clear (superiority or assumption? Well, yes what! To be chosen to be the Prophet of the Prophets has of what make presumptuous, to see making go off the rails). But the common run of people would have doubtless needed some additional explanations to arrest(dread) better the Divine Thought.
Certainly very learned mollahs is there to translate (superiority or assumption?), but mollahs is only men(people) bound(connected) to ground contingencies on the background of fights of influences. Their translation can be led astray by it, against their will mostly moreover. And there, the Shiites have a presentiment at least that it is necessary to be careful as for the senses(directions) hidden from the text.

If I may allow myself an outside opinion(notice), Gospel seem to me much more crystal clear. But it is true that its cultural connotations are there western. Let us note that Israel is more connoted as Westerner than Middle-Eastern as such.

But let us continue in our genesis of the Religions, which we are there also there.

IV  History(Story) and Religious misunderstandings :

The monotheist faith was quartered in people who by necessity had a little monopolized her(it). It could not be convenient for God. He(it) sent Jesus to spread(broadcast) the Good Word in Roman Empire, and beyond. But I think that God is rather pragmatic in his revelations to the world: HE(IT) adapts his(its) Revelations to the worlds which HE(IT) addresses, Roman Empire in this particular case even if afterward the Westerners imposed her by the strength on their colonies(summer camps) and in their ground crusades, which raised(found) more from the temporal hegemony than from the Spiritual: the message of the Christ had vocation to be imperative(to lead) in the heart of the Human beings, not to be imperative(to lead) intellectually by force.

Also I think that the Message of Allah addressed specifically a Middle-Eastern culture at first.

In the fights of influences in the Monotheist trinity, I understand perfectly that the Jews consider that Jesus, and Mahomet, are minor Prophets. When we say to them that Jesus is the Messiah of The Supreme Revelation, it is logical that he(it) answer: " thus say, we believed in God well before you, we know him(it) better than you, small young fellows in the Worship: Where were you in these first millenniums of the monotheist Faith? " And openly(frankly) they do not have twists to send back(to dismiss) to us in ropes at the level of the lessons of morality.

Also the Christians do not understand that the Muslims can sometimes want to impose them by the strength a God whom he has already adopted for a long time of their full will, besides; in spite of the cultural differences. Let us not forget that the Westerners arise from the Greek democracy and consider to be able to choose their fates. It is there even a rule of their God: we can be a "lost sheep" without being fustigated. The Muslim world arises from a harder world, where the ground and religious powers were imperative(led) by the strength. God frees(delivers) his Messages according to our capacities to be able to integrate(join) them. He believed the rather wise Westerners to adopt him(it) of their full will. Arabic were without doubts not ready for the time(period), and HE(IT) would have chosen a speech in their measure in the time(period). I remain persuaded that the Muslims are perfectly capable forward to choose (or not) their Master(Teacher) Divin, without having appeal to the pressure..

Having said that, the Islam maybe saved the Greek democracy of the claws of the western medieval obscurantism: see a small digression on this subject here 

Proof is the development of the democracy in earth(ground) of Islam. The temporal power was there for a long time the privilege of the despots (in the coercive sense(direction) term). Let us note that the west also had of length episodes of the style: we do not have to look of lessons either here. And let us be clearly it are the Christians who invented the concept of ethnic cleansings and nuns in them crusades: to there the Muslims did not convert colonies, Jihad was reinvented in reaction to the crusades (well a small devastation on the occasion of the grip(taking) of a city, was of "maid" war, but without more). Moreover often, the democracy was paradoxically imperative(paradoxically led) by the brute force both in west and in east: French, Russian Revolution (the Soviets had vocation to be democratic at first), in Turkey, Algeria, etc.
And the Westerners can say what he(it) want of Iran, Pakistan and the others, they are democracies in its infancy : The French revolution put a good century to be imperative(to lead) so as to live her(it) serenely.
Thus Lebanon, Egypt, Tunisia, Morocco, and many others, quite slowly...

The cultural idea of the choice of its fate makes it more or less slowly its road... Culturally it should result in the idea of freedom of Worship(Cult). And so much the better. It always has been for me of the evil hear(understand) a Muslim to say to me since he(it) has the right(law) to question writings (In spite of: the reading of the writings of some). Where is his(her,its) deep and sincere commitment there inside? " There is no flattering eulogy without freedom to reprimand " ( Beaumarchais): correspondingly, there is no sincere commitment without freedom of choice. And I refuse to believe that God or Allah contents himself with a hypocritical Spiritual approach(initiative) because forced (if, Allah ephemerally, but not forward).

Let us pursue(continue)

V  Temporal and spiritual powers :

In west, the Church, become official, became allied with the coercive temporal power and corrupted there. From then on " the founding choice " was not acceptable there any more. Any interpretation(performance) of Gospel deviationist of the Papal power was severely repressed there. From then on, the freshness of the Christianity, the central charity, was transformed into repeated butcher's shops (Cathars, crusades, religious wars against the Protestants (of the Papal corruption), colonization of lands and spirits by the iron and the blood: where was the message of the Christ there inside??

Any Religious dishonest compromise with affable some ground power the Spiritual corruption, in its indoctrination in strategies of ground power foreign to the Divine. Churches often have the temptation to be recognized by the temporal powers, to take advantage of it to spread(widen) their distribution(broadcasting). But in fine it is them who eventually instrument (2nd Gulf War for the oil for example.).
The extermination of Cathars especially was the opportunity(occasion) for nobliaux to plunder the Cathar cities and to snap up their lands, also for the crusades, and the colonizations where the "evangelization" forced by the natives was especially a means to enslave(overcome) them.

The Muslims should meditate there above, even if from the beginning both were confused(merged): the first Caliphs exported the faith in them conquests, and the expansion of the Islam is more due to the conquests ground than in the distribution(broadcasting) in hearts as at the Christians. But to Want to impose Transported her(it) by the temporal power condemns them to compose with this last one. It is the dishonest compromise which can be eventually(later) expensive. But the Koran is effectively very near the social contingencies (too much?): It was doubtless indispensable originally in the turnover of life which imposed the new Faith in front of polytheism; but eventually(later) it is a poison. Let us let be able to him(it) temporal depreciate alone in his(her,its) mean actions without compromising there... And let us pick fruits of our independent purity...

In front of the corruption and the Papal dishonest compromises, certain Catholic did not recognize any more in the moral authority of the Pope. It is also the invention of the printing office that put the Holy Writings within the reach of educated people: the dichotomy between the Papal positions at that time, and the Founding Papers appeared in broad daylight.
The time(weather) had come from the Protestant reformation, but these last ones did not more know how to beware of the temporal power, and behaved in the same way in their colonial conquests, and worse even in the capitalist drift.

In certain sense(direction) the Muslims are more close to Protestants as far as there is no central power to define exactly which is the good interpretation(performance) of Texts. And they have in common the same rigorism with regard to the Letter. The Protestants can have each their own interpretation(performance), becoming emancipated of a centralized interpretation(performance), but also him(it) owe prove to themselves that she is the maid. De facto(actually) they remain Scotch-taped literally: the Catholicism following the movement to check believers'(regular customers') bleeding

Uncountable legends run(roam), who tell how the death, often personified by the Devil, comes to make a contract sign for the alive. The paper, the written contract, congeals things by codifying them, it kills in the egg any potential evolution, the Paper it is the Death: that we find in Gaston Lagaffe (Famous Belgian comic strip). Of Maesmaker comes to sign his(her,its) contracts; we have a presentiment that this is going "to restrict" the freedom of the company "by linking"("by binding",by being bound") her(it) by contract to the other one apparently important to whom we already make curvets in advance: forerunners of the renunciation to come. This death slowly announced is regularly put back sine dié by the lapsusaires blunders of our inconsistent hero. The paper kills things by locking them into a yoke.

Of the blow Catholic and Protestant did not any more try to decipher the sense(direction) hidden from the Text: the Satellite dishes(Parabolae) of the Christ gave nevertheless clearly to think that there was material(subject) with metaphors in the Message.

VI Not new Faith, the Rationalism :

 In their doggedness to want to take literally the Bible, they met in contradiction with the search(research) for the truth of the ground things. The genesis in seven days was a Divine Metaphor: the ground time(weather) not being the Divine time(weather)...
And there, the Monks appeared as carriers of lies, besides them ground dishonest compromises, and identified with the devilish fallen angel.

For example, in 16th century appeared the concept of the Virgin Mary, which was not blank(virgin) to there! A dissolve(fade out) of the Watermelon has of to ask question of the carnal filiation of Jesus, the Son of God according to Writings. Where from a fantastic logical enchainement of conclusions: Jesus is the Son of God, but also Marie, God it is the Father, thus the man, how to be safe(sure) of it: she(it) was blank(virgin) naturally, no contesting. In spite of, we see bad God passing after a man: I want the DNA of Jesus and God to be safe(sure)! A pile of bullshit which.
While if we admit highly-rated metaphoric of the text everything goes very well: Jesus came to acquire(to buy back) the sins of the Children of God by his Sacrifice. He(it) thus symbolizes all the children of God in Himself(Itself), carrier of quite their sins: he is the Child of God, the Son thus. We can admit whether by being a human embodiment, It is its human adversity, his(her) son in the sense(direction) of embodiment, and in the Spiritual sense(direction).
The metaphoric holds all the same otherwise the road that this literal bullshit on son's sense(direction).
It in remainder literally, we are in the stupid lie. And, there, the Fundamentalists push the Religions straight ahead in the wall.

A new Faith appeared: the Good(Property) it is the Truth, not the lie, and the Rationalist got the upper hand over the former(ancient) Faiths. But it is also a Mystic Conception of the good(property) and the evil, almost Religious.

The new Book of the Faith was not any more written by Prophets, but by very God: the Nature! That we could not make lie, Her(It). The Truth was in Her: God's Law was in the Laws of nature of the Nature. We would have twists to assimilate the Scientists Agnostics to pure Non-believers.

This way the Atheists are also sorts of Monk: they throw back(reject) the Religion only to the sense(direction) where It would be only lie in front of God's Book(Pound) that is the Nature. And they make a mistake, the Religion is only Divine metaphor which gives to see beyond The Speech screen "trompe l'œil:" A metaphor is not a lie, it is the tale which symbolizes Hidden Things. For the Atheists God would be only a purely mechanical universe, because demoralized by the fundamentalist obscurantism, which placed the Faith in an unreasonable literal reading of the Text... But they make the same thing(matter): for the " Ultras " God is in the Book, for the Atheists God is that the Book of the Nature, The Nature she(it) even, Full stop: this way they are good the heirs of the Fundamentalists Monk, and not less than them (against their will moreover).
They are Agnostics Fundamentalists as a matter of fact.

But there where Rationalist Agnostic are right, it is that the Religious Metaphors have to mask us no Real Book of the Lord, and HE Only without interpreter, that is the Nature.

De facto(Actually) the Rationalism is the child of the Religion : At first in the reaction to its dishonest compromises, but especially to his(her,its) Dogmatism. The Rationalist became Scientific only because they had to deal with a strong power which could not be dismantled by the first come quibble. The Rationalist thus had to develop an acute(sharp) sense(direction) of the Demonstration to hope to counterbalance the ecclesiastical, forward Power to invent the rigorous Science; in mirror of the Religious rigorism..

We could believe that Scientifisme is only a study of mechanisms without soul, But Einstein said laws of the universe " God does not dice ".

Example: the material(subject) is inseparable of the antimatter, the one turns(shoots) in a sense(direction), the other one In other sense(direction). By spreading(displaying) this whirlwind in the time(weather), we obtain a helix. Coupled sets(groups) they train(form) double one helixes: the model of the alive DNA!!!!!
We find this model in the sinusoidal waves, coupled in presupposed anti-waves (material)((subject)) (-) (antimatter). The galactic whirlwinds developed in the time(weather), coupled with the anti-galaxies idem. And everything is only revolution in the Universe: the cycle of the seasons, the life and the death, Etc.... Big Bang coupled with Big Crush repeating in a pulsation would be comparable to a wave....
As for their genesis: at the beginning was the Chaos, then elements broke up, the positive particles of denials, etc.: that does not call back to(remind) you anything?

So the nature would not be that a pure mechanics to make molecules, galaxies, life, intelligence, etc.... We have a presentiment that his(her) organization also conceals a shape of Message.

The Scientists are easily supposed to be for non-believers because they do not translate in succession this organization of the world into term of clearly identified Divine Message. In fact, their culture of the proof makes them very careful. They advance(move) only what They are safe(sure), and feel reluctant to advance(move) in risky theorizations on the freed(delivered) Message. " God's " natural Book shows itself infinitely more complex to decipher that the Books(Pounds) of the Prophets Human beings in term of humanely accessible(approachable) Message. They remain very modest on the question so much she(it) is difficult. And there, we thank them for it of this humble respect: how many false exegetes rocked us the allegedly divine first truths with self-assurance and arrogance?
It is necessary to say that these Scientists are battling against the infinity of the complexity of the universe (And Evanescent Nôstre Incommensurabilité of Noodles is Infinite), they inevitably realize that our existence is only dust on the scale of the Infinity of time(weather) and distances of The creation of God, and that necessarily that makes very very modest. Finally Religious conceited and arrogant steps for two sous towards the Infinite Complexity which offers itself to them. It as far as he(it) know the result(profit) of their experiences(experiments) led astray by got(noodly touched) .

LThe deciphering will be long, very long, infinitely long. And the classic Religions still have of beautiful days in front of Them to claim itself only holders of the Divine Message, nevertheless their refusal(discharge) of the Scientific approach(initiative) in the evolution of their thought plays on them hanging tricks: the scientific reality concerning God's Natural Book contradicted often their interpretation(performance) of God's Will: the earthquake of Lisbon was interpreted at the appropriate time as an anger of God. Now Lisbon was in the time(period) a city(estate) more pious than many the others: why thus to have decimated 2000 religious lovers under rubble of his(her,its) cathedral? The scientists offer a more relevant explanation to earthquakes, which are largely owed at random natural ground faults: the only "Fault" of Lisbonnais having been not to have known how to decipher these Natural Laws. God's message? :  " Worry you more Laws than I spread In my Big Book that is the Nature " maybe?

Moreover the humility of the Scientists compared to God's Book which offers itself to them push them not to claim itself Monk: questioned about the question, they say that the object of looks for to them is not of this domain... And those who venture on it at the moment are rather in the error in their haste.
They prefer to say to themselves rather generally Agnostics: " God? We do not know which(whom) HE(IT) is, where HE(IT) hides, nor even if HE(IT) exists in term of what we know today: one day maybe will know us, but not now. Now we can just say, where we see his(her,its) Intentions of a way truncated towards Lois de l' Univers there. And that creases(offends) the Fundamentalists who cling to their Literal Interpretations(Performances).

And already, it is a way of paying HIM(HER) tribute by denouncing(cancelling) there where his(her,its) Image is deformed by our superstitions: the superstition being a vision deformed by God by our excess big impatience to want to interpret its Signs. But we are condemned for it. Derived of Lacan: " if we cannot reach(affect) the Truth in fire of wing, we can nevertheless try to approach him(it) by limping, and to assume this slight limp as such ", and the scientists thus remind us that we limp in the approach of the revelation of Any Things; my father is called Claude, of Claudius (him(it) limping). You should not see them as enemies of the Faith, but as Guards(Guarding,Nurses) Madmen: and God knows that the madmen of pride teem on the question.

This says the Faith of the good(property) inherited from the Science was seriously turned down the corner by the atom bomb, Bhopal, the pollution, etc.
But as pointed out it an ecologist: the Science is neither good nor bad, it is what we make: in the service of the mercenary attitude she can be infinitely fatal, in the service of the ecology she is of a big help. It is always necessary to separate the Book of the manipulations made on his(her) behalf. To protect itself from ground contingencies is not easy thing(matter) so much the Power of the Nature is Immense!

VII  The Secularism (french here)

is not a religion, unless considering it as a Faith in the capacity of the human being to live reasonably! In Protestant lands, which were hard conquered by wars religieuses*, where the Believer was entitled to interpret God at her/his convenience, the succession(advent) of the Rationalism was relatively peaceful: the war of arguments raged, but it was almost everything. But in Catholic and orthodox lands, the succession(advent) of the Rationalism in front of the intransigence of the Powers écclésiastiques, brought extremely violent reactions: the Revolutions Frenchwoman and Soviet citizen.

Tired the crusades and the other Inter-religious, rationalist butcher's shops etc., France invented the Secularism. Contrary to the fact that think some people, the Secularism is not a "Rationalist" concept, it is a way of living peacefully between Rationalist, catholic and Protestant at first, spread(widened) to quite other de facto Religions.

It is the division of powers of the state and any religious or philosophic confession ( included atheism). The state has to remain not ingesting and thus neutral of any prejudice. Actually, his(her) administration simply has to watch that the order public is not disturbed by the one some of the parts(parties) without exclusive. To guarantee its neutrality, is forbidden to him(her) any proselytism of a highly-rated or the other one, and de facto(actually) let any proselytism be made in places under his(her) administration, at the risk of being taxed by collusion with proselytes.

Any "Patent" Religious sign is prohibited it.   To be more precise the port(bearing) of the scarf on the hair is not prohibited as such: atheists, Catholics, Moslems, can concern a scarf the head as long as it does not dress(take on) a Religious specific shape: the women in France carry(wear) gladly scarfs and hats: it is the scarf with shape specifically Religious to be recognized by it as such who(which) raise problem.
And still, discreet religious signs are tolerated there. That a Believer expresses his faith in the enjoyment by the discreet port(bearing) of small one golden jewels identified, nobody finds there to repeat that Cassandres: the discreet happiness is not a threat, as long as it is not proselyte. It is not one invites to be ashamed of its Faith as believe it (or pretend to believe it) some, but to be ashamed of his(her,its) bellicosity towards the other one, YES! 

That we indeed understand, Bush and Sadam brandished God and Allah as banners of warlike reunification, as an ideological weapon, against the other one (aaâh dishonest compromise of the religious and ground powers!). To brandish the banner of the Faith is for a long time a threat in itself: the faith is not to be instrumented by the state (and mutually).

This said there is an important nuance enter under administration of the state, and space public where each can express his faith as he hears(understands) him(it), to see prosélytiquement; ON THE CONDITION OF NOT DISTURBING THE LAW AND ORDER BY MAKING IT.

The Religious demonstrations do not have to strike compared to the history(story) of the Religious wars, exit the exaggerated provocations. It will be interpreted as a threat there to revive these wars: " my Religion has vocation to be imperative(to lead) in the social space, to the company(society) by extension in term of violence. " And that, it is prohibited.

To shake hands at first was a way to demonstrate in other than we did not hold a dagger hidden in the skillful hand, to Drink allowed to pay(pour) a drop(gout) of the glass of the dinner guest into his glass, and thus to show that there was no poison, chairs had full files to reassure the hosts about possible stabs in the back, etc.: they are pacts of  No - aggression...

The relative discretion is thus a pact of non-aggression, an indispensable politeness to live in peace together. It is a question of hiding the weapon ideologically warrior, and thus not the expression of its faith as such. The celebrations of the parties(holidays) of Easter, Aïd, the Day of Atonement are there naturally welcome.
But it is true that the politeness in west is very metaphoric following the example of Gospel (we do not stab nor poisons itself any more for a long time, but we continue to triquer in the cheerfulness). Our cultural references are not even... But we speak about more politeness than about order public: the lack of the first one(night) which can nevertheless influence the second. 

VIII  PASTAFARISM :

Finally Pastafaray resolved partially its complex, and in the views(sights) of the disorders engendered by the false faiths decided to make his(her,its) Coming Out: yes! IT is a Monster in Flying Spaghetti, and yes it made an imperfect world during a drinking bout... Having said that, a coMing out soft: the Revelation being incredible (whatever evident) "IL" play above to let smooth the doubt: not too proud all the same, and especially is the humanity very ready to face the Reality?

The Science of the Nature, and its Décrypteurs, is slandered by the intégistes of any edges as a Farce. But God got angry: it is not because the Scientists are Humble in front of HIM, because Ses Décrypteurs is to be treated with Clowns, it is Blasphemy. HE thus sent his Prophet Bobby Henderson, that his name is eternally wiped, to fustigate friendly these "Tartuffes" by aping their Vanity.
The reality of Any Things asked "IL" to him(her) to reveal:
God is a Monster in Flying Spaghetti having created the world here is 5000 years. The Paradise would consist of a volcano of beer and of factories in stippers in the gout of each. The chosen people would be there the pirates (former(ancient) ridiculous grinding(version): wooden leg, hook, and headband(banner) on the eye) and their decline would sign the succession(advent) of natural disasters.

It is a quite Farcical. Pastafarisme does not take itself to the honest Monks, whom it respects. He(it) takes itself to the Clowns Fundamentalists of the Faith. God ( Pastafaray): " you drag My Image in the mud of your ground turpitude, or! I send back to(dismiss) you to the Farcical Image that you raise(draw up) of ME ". Any hasty Interpretation(Performance) of My Intentions is erroneous following the example of Pastafarism ".
The Muslims have reason for prohibiting any God's representation. But does not the Koran raise(does not draw up) a literal portrait of Allah in itself?
The Prejudice of Pastafarisme thus is to propose a necessarily erroneous Image of God: a Monster in Flying Spaghetti! Thus think! (Without in fact, it is true all the same)
As it the Believer meets in front of the Vanity of his Divine Representation and his Intentions. Pastafarisme suggests taking a maximum of distance with regard to any ground Religious Faith in term of rigorous literal sense(direction).

Once again, that we are not mistaken about the visible Blasphemy of The Image so sent back(Image so dismissed) of God. It is Pastafaray-Dieu himself who wanted him(it) so farcical to send back(to dismiss) to us to our vanity to be capable of deciphering Its Intentions through His(Her,Its) Revelations, who is only very fragmented in fact.

The Message of Pastafaray is to admit that our Representations are too small to lock him(it) so. They are farcical there: so much live them so. When will have understood(included) us it, we can resume(take back) our road of The Knowledge of Any Things with all the Modesty of our condition of imperfect Human being in front of HIM.

Let us be clearly as well as Pastafaray also refuses it a Deification of these Truncated Representations: HE requires of His Believers(Regular customers) a total freedom of thought, at first to put in perspective better our Vanity to lock him(it) into misleading texts in the literal sense(direction) of the term. But also especially it is one invites to investigate beyond our too narrow Human consciousness for HIM. Too big for our small spirits, His(Her,Its) Knowledge can pass only by an overtaking of our narrow-mindedness by the profusion of frenzies (our madness has things to say to us deeper than the reason): one on 1 million will just fall, and we must be aware(conscious) of it. But it is at the price(prize) of 999 999 Blasphemy that we shall find the Way in the millionth fruitful attempt... How to recognize her(it)?: " At the beginning was Chaos (in the profusion), Then elements settled, the voucher separated from the evil, the positive of the negative, the Truth of the forgery, etc.... Let us leave the time(weather) in time(weather).

But also Pastafaray wants that we laugh at Real Décrypeurs of the Divine messages (Scientists, honest Believers, etc.) not to laugh at them, but to unmask better, by aping them, the false prophets who denigrate these real Décrypteurs, on behalf of(under the cover of) "Doctitude".

Is the false prophets ape they even the Truths: and these last ones will believe can be that it is of them at whom we mock, That Nenni! It is of them misled coreligionists at whom we laugh: those who make them pass and their Gods for Clowns. This against their will sometimes: they can be sincere, and even be largely considered by them peers so much they make a mistake they even: their sincerity can be convincing..." God keeps(guards) me of my friends: My enemies I take care of it ": Pastafaray bewares of his(her) enemies, his(her) friends we take care of it.

The sincerity of the "misled" incite us moreover not to hurt them free of charge: the wound of the caricature must be enlightening, but on no account nasty, vindictive: it is only the lost sheep, that is entitled to the respect. We stigmatize their distractions, not their person.
Moreover the rule Pasta incites us to mislead us we even to find better our road: " when we do not know any more where we go, it is necessary to hurry to arrive there to know where it is! ": The humor is there only to take the drama out of our Human condition " Errare Humanum is ", and Pastafaray so made for us: respect.

Yes, finally Pastafarisme IS a Religion is, but passing, de facto more a philosophy following the example of the Buddhism, which accepts within it all the currents: a small poll(sounding) creates that in France there is in  "Flying Spaghetti Monsterism" :
25 % d' Agnostics
43 % d' Atheitics
18 % de Christians
6 % de Muslims
9 % de Jewishs
For the most serious, the others totally converted will declare themselves clownement Polytheists, luciférians, (homeopaths(homoeopaths) - > 15 %!) and other pleasures: the whole exceeding the 100 %: we can being Christian-Agnostic, Jewish-atheistic, etc. (as for myself.: Christian, Agnostic, Follower of scientism, Zététicien, polytheist, Buddhist in particular - And... Pastafarian).
The testimonies which reach me, also integrate of jolly fellow "clowns" (that and sometimes commitment chastely masked behind a vividness of facade?): the Ways of His(Her,Its) Intersidereal Ingenuity are impenetrable. The madness can spring the Light.

I add that my analysis, expressed in learned strong terms, is also a parody of Doctitude in which we get lost (by got(touched) nouilleux). True and false Believers: we are all in the error compared to Its Sidereal Immanence. The Truth does not exist (including this one!): Let us remain humble, and in the mockery of our Vanity...

perdu ? la carte aux trésors

Inch Allah, and I would dare, in the purest respect Pasta for the others and for the "Other one" (the One that we shall never affect). That there is no blasphemy: has there not that Allah to have a quite Powerful Will):

Inch Pasta... Râmen.

compteurs   

At the beginning thus the center of the world was the earth, then it was the ballot of the sun, then the center of the galaxy of the center of our galactic heap, him the same bend around a center of some heap, etc. The more we look and the less we find. And we do not still know ultimate center which shies away from our investigations.
What is logical when we know that Our Big Regulator Chafouinesque deceives our observations.

Finally!... The quantum physics be touched by Its Noodly Tentacles...

It noticed quite justly that the scientific observation gave in controvert. In particular, that what we observed depended on the point of view which we chose to observe a phenomenon. Everything depends if we take place in a practical, scientistic, theological or théologico-scientific optics, in white blouse or in pirate's dress: that is Pastafaric. They put it one time, to find these evidences.

It is affair of statistics rather than certainties: if we observe a phenomenon of a point of view A, everything indicates that the phenomenon has "chances" to appear has A': While if we observe it since B, his(her,its) chances to show itself will go B' .?.?.?...

Hey yes! In brief, everything depends on the place where the Noodly Touch carries us.

We can deduct two rules from it:

   1. The center of the world is situated where the Flying Spaghetti Monster indeed wants to create it.
   2. The center of the world depends on the point of view which we adopt.

- Of the first postulate we can realize that the center of the world " comes of " that is "IS" Ours Egocentric Omnipotentiality .
- Of the second postulate we can deduct that from it the center of the revealed world also arising from us, it is in fact us who are the center of the world    QED.

This last point is moreover of a blinding evidence. To the point that it burst us eyes without that we realize it.
The truth is not somewhere else, it is here, under our eyes: better the truth IT "IS" our eyes.

.

But let us dig a little the debate :
.

The reality is not what we perceive of her, Because it is only what we perceive of our perceptions in fact.
Better, we built in our head an image of the reality in to make and as we approached it on our early childhood. And henceforth our perceptions are channelled by kind " to stick " with this image.

Is any new perception can bring us to bend this constructed image, compared to the questionings which imposes this perception. Without noodlic experiments very sharp demonstrated that a "annoying" perception for our intellectual universe was rather truncated by our spirit to make it to it correspond rather that our spirit allows to have to question.

Sceptical? Let us see this small Noodlic exercise this below. Or thus these 2 teams: how many master passes is thus made the white team? Attention you are entitled only in one tries (the answer is at the end of video).

Well, what why you believed to be there, hid you quite other phenomenon not going into this frame(executive). Where from you did not see the Monster in Flying Spaghetti crossing the scene disguised as bear. Normal! "IT" had Youched the experiment of its Appendage. That we can be noodle sometimes.

Besides you know well that the common will see only a fireworks there ->

And Nevertheless !

Well we begin again the first test: how much t-il there of rockets pulled(fired) in these fireworks?

Obviously it is easier when we know in what expect! Thus how many rockets? Aaarrghh !

Let you click for a video on the blindness which prevents us from seeing the reality: no lizard, you are that spectator Here : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dwDgWPUUltg

Finally even prevented(warned), it is not always evident:

De facto the received reality is never that what we "well steal" to see there. And the world which we perceive is after all in us even.

It is has to say that we are indeed the center of the universe such as we perceive it.     QED. 

Actually, we return to our state of Pasta Primitive By Noodly Touch,

Making party of the Great Whole, where Everything is in the Center,

And where thus the Center is in Any Thing.

As Sacred Agent of the Centerity of the Big Cosmos, we owe Sanctify by doing good to us,

And by doing good has quite other Agent of this Alter-centerity Passée Présente or A Venir. .          Râmen...

Pour atteindre la réalité, nous devons revoir nos perceptions sous l'angle du Q.Q.M.S.V.P.D.T.C.? : Qu'est-ce Que le Monstre Spaghettien Volant Penserait De Tout Ceci ?

Because My Dear ConsPirators, really I you it said, IT is the Essence of Any Revealed or hidden Matter...

THE Center, what !

But everything is only a question of point of view

So by approaching the question of the "historic" center: where is situated the Sacred Mountain says Mount Midjet? Or better the Paradise Pasta and the sound says " Mount of Noon ", because, I you it said, the paradise Pasta was created at " noon of dawn " time...

It is the theological important question that the dawn was then situated at noon: IT put at once the sun in its top. Moreover, it is " Says Mount of Noon " which inspired IT the factory in Strippers... (French game of word "Dit Mont de Midi" = "démon de midi" : "Says Mount of Noon" = "middle-aged lust").

Certain exegetes would place Pasta Paradise in the sun, considered Its Noodly Protuberances. But nothing is less sure, and if you have information on its localization I am a buyer... RÂameen les donc.

As for the Mount Midjet, it cannot be the mount Ararat which is only the point of arrived from Noé after the torrent of to an anger of the MÔnster against Dinos which caused their loss.

Massaliotes holds the Mount Midjet as were the one of The Good Mother, The Pasta Primitive would be Madre of Any Things. Certain corresponding indications give evidence of this hypothesis: of numerous Dwarfs going to visit her regularly.

But Pastarisians (from Paris) objects that it would be the mound Montmartre, the Mecca of Ancestral Divinatory Practices in the ancient times. Meaning marten Pirates in Celtic Pastafarian, in reference to the lifestyle of this small predator, who gave moreover his name to the God Mars, Big Pirate with the eyes of Its Great Eternity to whom was set up there a Temple... Picasso, Pissaro, Modigliani, Toulouse Lautrec, Van Gogh would have been touched by its Noodly appendix (and would not have stood out from it unhurt).

Others tilt for the Mount St-Michel, or other; Greek will place it in the Acropolis or in the Mount Athos.

The Truth, me you it said, the world extended by replication of the Mount Midjet: Ours Débonnairité Egalitariste not having wanted to make of jealous person. This since low Egypt, which had no consequent hillock, conceived to build itself retorts it even in the form of pyramids.

All that we can say it is that it is not about a too impressive mountain according to the Age-old Texts, confirmed by the Sketch Revealed by Bobby.

Thus not need to climb rocky bars to reach Holy of Holies. The Fuji Yama is crowned only as former volcano of beer. If there is a good hillock in your place, it is lucky there so that it is a replica of the Mount Midjet...

Send we your clichés with or without FSM, pirate or the other dwarf, to see if it is advisable to dedicate it.

Habea Pastus ! Name of a Map in the Treasury misled !

Râmen

compteurs