When Atheists Ask for Proof of God

Whenever an atheist meets a believer, there is usually a confrontation. In the vast majority of cases, it's the atheist who's very intrigued and bothered with the believer's existence and doesn't hesitate to ask for a proof that God is real.

Every believer is different and will give you a different explanation. Some may not even be able to put it into words, because God simply is there, in everything they perceive. The design of the world, its intelligence are simply God to them. Some will go into philosophy, others into psychology and esoteric knowledge. Because the "belief experience" is so personal, it's hard to come up with a universal explanation to be used by all spiritual humans.

However, in one such conversation, the atheist gets to bring a certain solid proof. It's the proof that their path is wring and horrible. What do you see the atheist doing? Arguing, being offensive, insulting, attacking, taking a superior and condescending position, throwing false arguments (blatant lies, fake history and science etc.) to destabilise the believer. It is impossible to have a rational conversation when one has the position of the atheist. All the hate he spills, all the insults and lies represent a very solid proof that atheism is evil, ignorant and most hateful towards the rest of the human species.

After all, it's atheism that has led to the most murders and wars in history. It is impossible for a believer to be violent or start a war, since most religions tell not to kill or do any harm. Therefore, by logical conclusion, anyone doing so (even in the name of religion or God) is in fact not a believer and does not obey to the chosen spiritual doctrine.

Crusades? Religious wars? As just proven, those who start those, no matter what they declare, do not stand in line with their religion. In other words, they adopted the atheist stance. How so? Well, when you're an atheist, you don't have to pay attention to a god who tells you not to kill. Thus, it's the atheist influence that leads a believer to kill or do other terrible acts.

Many say how Hitler was a Christian. Was he? Posing as a Christian or supporting it in your country, so that the masses don't revolt against you doesn't make you a Christian. Did he obey to any of the Christian rules? No. Did he represent any of the Christian virtues? No. Then why consider him a Christian?

Atheists don't ask for proof of god because they want to find it. Whenever the believer starts explaining, they close their eyes and cover their ears. Always. They refuse it from the start, because they've already taken the decision: "I won't believe. I can't believe. I don't want to believe". Also, it's not actually about believing, but about seeing, observing and understanding... but that's too complicated for the simple, primitive, animal-state atheist mind (any atheist reading this part would be totally raging and definitely not trying to analyse and understand it). The atheist fears that he may go beyond his comfortable present position. He doesn't want to evolve, to think of complicated things and explore. He fears those who are different, because their horizon may be a broader one. This is why he rejects a truly rational fight, a true exploration of the universe; he jumps to hating and insulting because he feels the terrible urge to crush the different person, the believer. It's been proven far too many times. Atheist regimes have imprisoned and killed believers for what they were, for the threat they posed. Not much tolerance, nor love here.

Is There an Issue with J.R.R. Tolkien Being a Christian?

Ridiculous but true: some "Tolkien fans" actually complained on the Internet because an article dared to present J.R.R. Tolkien as a devoted Christian (!). The reaction was simply terrifying: a number of so-called fans, not numerous but very aggressive, attacked the article author for spitting out that horrible label, claiming that they should "leave Tolkien untouched by Christianity" or something like that.

It doesn't take a brilliant intellect to simply know that Tolkien was a Christian. It's been stated a billion times and from highly reliable sources. He simply adhered to that faith and, by all means, it seems he actually practiced it. There is plenty to prove that, whether his fans like it or not. Now, to claim that he should never be mixed with his declared faith is beyond ridiculous. It's incomprehensible. Firstly, one cannot be seen as a Tolkien fan if they are not aware of whom this author was and what he was about. Information like this has never been hidden. It doesn't matter what his work was like. It could be 100% pagan. The man was a Christian, as everyone around him knew and all scholars and real, educated fans know to this day.

It's no isolated case. Many anti-theists and fanatic atheists often happen to be in denial. Their intolerance to Christianity reaches aberrant levels. One excellent example is the infamous C. Carrie, of whom we shall only mention very little. this is a person who normally wouldn't deserve a mention, but I believe it's necessary to point some things out for those who have not had the chance to find out.

This man's hatred for Christianity wouldn't allow him to accept that a Christian writer could become so famous and inspire millions. You may look it up, the case is well explained online. It looks like this Carrie hated it so much that he started a fake pedophilia scandal in an attempt to defame the author's son, Fr. John Tolkien (Hating a Catholic priest? You know what to do! Just accuse him of pedophilia!). He wouldn't stop, but actually drag other members of the Tolkien family to the court. If you find his comments, you realise what he's all about - just pure hatred for Christians. Thankfully, he lost big time.

Even if Tolkien didn't write his works as Christian allegory, you cannot separate his faith from his art. It can never be done, because a faith - any faith - or lack thereof, is deeply embedded into a man's being. It is the sum of all that they believe about the world, about life, about how people must behave. If you know what Christianity really is about, you will find it in Tolkien's work. It's in the message, attitudes, in the choices made by characters, in the final developments, the moral layer and much more. The work itself doesn't have to be in any way Christian, but the essence will always shine though, simply because artists don't just adopt different views than the ones they've got. And why would they? After all, each artist is trying to promote something. Naturally, it is in tune with what they believe.

To those saying that "you can be food without Christianity", a little more education would do good. in Christianity, there are many more aspects that go beyond the common rules of 'being good'. It's a wholly different paradigm.

Why Be Abstinent Until Marriage? The Ciara Case

Recently, American singer Ciara has been trending on social media sites after her boyfriend mentioned they decided not to have sex before marriage. It appears that the social media popularity of this news is mostly due to the shockwave it has created.

Looks like exactly those people who would usually say, "It's their life, people should choose to live it however they please" are horribly judging this Christian couple. No surprise here. You are free to do whatever you please unless it's something Christian. Still, I can't understand why the hypocrisy isn't obvious to more. Or maybe it is...?

Yes, Ciara and her man are absolutely free to choose how to live their life as a couple. If we have rainbow profile pictures celebrating gay marriage rights, we could as well celebrate the option of being abstinent. Why don't we?

In a hyper-sexualized culture, it's hard to understand why would anyone want to become abstinent. Science, human experience etc. have enough means to prove that it's OK or even better to be abstinent. How about the spiritual side though? Well, it's both simple and very complicated. The simple way is saying that those people trust God and His choice of making them come together. So they will marry and only after that make love to each other. The complicated explanation goes like this: when you want to share your life with someone, you have to get to know them well. You'd better focus on their mind, their soul, their life, their views and opinions, their ways to handle different situations etc. Too often sex just takes away from all that. It's hard to focus on what truly matters if you're in heat, thinking of and planning your next shag. It's totally admirable that there are couples who want to focus on the essential things (that will make or break their relationship) instead of catering to the physical side and being absorbed in it. And after all, this decision is only temporary. When the wedding is over and done with, they can start their sexual life.

You can sleep with anyone. You can find sexual compatibility quite easily. However, you won't find other types of compatibility so easily. It's terribly hard to find someone who's a great match. You will say that sexual compatibility matters, too. That's right, but do you know what gets to ruin sex? Fear, a lack of trust, lack of communication, the fact that you don't know each other that well etc. On the other hand, when you know you absolutely adore the person next to you and you know you will get married and totally belong to each other, that's when the true liberation occurs.

That's when all the anxieties are dissolved, when you can finally embrace the passion because you know them and you love them. Waiting until marriage is like saying: "I'm taking my time to get to know you. It's fine like this, I want to focus on it, without sex clouding my mind. We will have plenty of time for that. I'm certain I'm making the right choice and absolutely sure that what we already have is the best I can get."

Abstinence doesn't happen just because "God said no" and people are blindly following the Bible. It happens because they understand the benefits and have a different focus. The kind of focus that truly matters, that will release amazing passion after marriage and will make them happy in the long run.
Abstinence is a mature choice and it should be respected.

Democracy wins through Facebook: Romanians Electing Klaus Iohannis for President

Years and years of dirty destructive politics have turned Romanians into passive citizens. There was no point in voting anymore, as if everyone turned to Mark Twain's words: If voting made any difference, they wouldn't let us do it. All politicians were just as corrupt, annoying and hypocritical.

The first round of the 2014 elections (November 2) had two finalists: Victor Ponta, the country's Prime Minister, named by President Traian Basescu himself. The other was the one rejected by Basescu -- Klaus Iohannis, mayor of Sibiu (Transylvanian town) for 14 years, an ethnic German born and raised in Romania.

Two Radically Different Human Types

A journalist wrote, "Iohannis is everything Ponta isn't." During the following two weeks, people could see the huge differences between the two: Ponta was aggressive, was lying and turning around every righteous accusation. He avoid making the necessary changes that were in his power when Iohannis urged him to do so. He was interrupting his speech, not keeping his promises and generally being rude. The German was considerate, respectful, discreet and had dignity.

The Diaspora

There are millions of Romanians working and living abroad. Some say they are about 3m. Hundreds of thousands of these are in big European cities like London, Paris, Berlin, Turin, Madrid, Rome etc. In these cities, the voting locations were too few and were closed too early on November 2 for everyone to get in and vote. Loud protests followed, in Romania and abroad. Solidarity was finally born.

When he was asked about this disaster, Ponta didn't accept voting as a human right.

This whole scandalous situation sparked revolutionary thoughts. The diaspora was ready to record the events of the next round and spread them on social networks for people 'at home' to see them. Ponta promised we would get a fair election process and that everyone abroad would be able to vote this round.


Ponta Digging His Own Grave

Ponta promised to fire his men if the next voting round wouldn't go well ( = if people still queue without hope). His men promised they'd send more money abroad, but money was not an issue. It was all about time: voters spent way too much time waiting. The personnel at embassies and other such places were deliberately slow.

During televised confrontations, Ponta also showed his true character. It was a source of disgust in millions of people. The #puiemonta hastag was born and it became increasingly popular (it is a funny way of saying, "suck it, Ponta"). Intellectuals and artists rallied against him and tried to educate the population.

Unfortunately for Ponta and his party, many genuine videos surfaced and showed the state of the nation: the scandalous situation abroad, people's revolt and the horrible misinformation in isolated parts of the countryside. Some peasants didn't even know that voting means there are two candidates to choose from. They were simply 'taught' by the mayor or the priest to "choose Ponta or his symbol" on that damn paper.

The power of the Internet was underestimated.As people started posting with the hashtags and haring massively, it became obvious that the Ponta government is doing its best to prevent a fair voting.

Loads of people who stayed at home during the first round were now angry enough to go out and cast their vote. This is how Ponta lost. He never believed there could actually be smart people who would see his treacherous ways and stand against.

The 'Common Sense Revolution'

Iohannis won because he resonated with many Romanians. Those who used to be passive and pessimistic found a new courage to express themselves and to fight against the lies. It was an awakening. Their clever, eye-opening messages starting pouring on Facebook.

Iohannis was the successful and beloved mayor of Sibiu (European Cultural Capital in 2007 and vastly different from the rest of the country in a very good way), elected again and again with percentages of over 70% and even over 80%. People knew that and took it as undeniable proof that he is a capable leader. They already had the proof.

Beyond being capable, Iohannis was also a man of a different breed: composed, cool, gentleman-ish, of great dignity, courteous, righteous, empathic, rational, mannered.

Facebook Warriors of Justice

Thank God we had the Internet and they didn't cut it down!

Organised under hashtags, all the illegal moves spotted that day would be publicly shared and seen on Facebook.
Sadly (and unbelievably), the Romanians in foreign countries were once again troubled. The voting process was not improved as promised. Video proof of the real situation was available on Facebook, coming from countless frustrated voters. Ponta, in spite of his promise, did his best to compromise this once again.

Weto see a different face of Romanians. The warriors for justice. They did what was in their power: they went to cast their vote, humble but determined. It took them many hours (on occasions even 13) and loads of coffee to go through the cold wet weather and reach the desk. The mockery was obvious, yet they persisted and didn't become aggressive.

The treacherous promises and these foreign events showed undecided people that they'd better go vote against Ponta. Yes, much of it was 'anti-Ponta', because not everyone can fully trust Iohannis. We cannot see the future or know everything happening behind the curtains. What we could see was what happened during the past weeks and during that Sunday especially. This is what got tens of thousands of Romanians out in the streets and made many undecided ones pick up the stamp and cast their vote.

People informed one another. Truth won. The true meaning of democracy was finally seen. People recorded and photographed undeniable evidence of fraud during the elections, and it was all against Ponta's party. There was no complaint concerning Iohannis's.

What Happened on Sunday, November 16

I did not believe in voting, but the way Ponta's party tried so hard to falsify the votes spoke volumes. "Perhaps there is something real in it, since they're struggling so hard to get more on their plate..."

Ponta and his men used not only propaganda to convince uneducated and isolated people, but also FRAUD. Deceased citizens' names were found on their lists. People who did not come to vote were 'replaced' with a fake signature by their men.

And then... the buses. On an awfully rainy and cold November day, suddenly hundreds of citizens decided to go on a trip! A trip to the most plain, uninteresting places in the country. It was indeed called 'tourism'. In fact, what was happening was that countless buses would take brainwashed people to various voting locations along the road. They would vote on the available 'special lists', meant for those who don't reside in that specific place. This is how the non-attractive county of Teleorman got to have a 263% voters presence, when the country average was of 50-60%!


Many were shocked at how much Iohannis had recovered. He was 10% behind, but eventually got ahead and won, even before the diaspora results were calculated. He eventually recovered about 14% and won the elections. 6.2 million votes for Iohannis, a record for Romania.

He has German origins and is a Protestant, but he is much more of a Romanian and a Christian than his opponent, who even threatened priests and their families and who used popular Romanian saints to promote his deceitful messages. 

My Tribute to Anna Notaras, Mika Waltari's Literary Character (in 'The Dark Angel')

With her name as my writing pseudonym, I pay a tribute to a most stunning female character in literature. Decidedly unique through her struggle, Anna is a Greek woman born as nobility, profoundly attracted by the values of the Orthodox Christian faith and thus having a conflicting self. In the attempt to stay true to these original values, one cannot easily and wisely reconcile such spirituality (a doctrine of humbleness) with the demands of upper class life. Moreover, when passionate love comes into the picture, the drama is deepened and choices become more tragic.

When one is used to the finer things in life, to society's ways, to the worldly logic, as it is called, to modern life actually, letting go of its safe harbour can be a terrifying experience. When people around you are used to doing things in the 'modern way', it is hard to break away and swim against the stream.

Anna ventures into a world that the noble, rich and powerful don't fully understand. Their earthly safety replaces the divine truths, the never-changing laws of the universe (and the spirit). Her family is focused on wealth and politics. Other nobles around are being corrupt and focused on earthly pleasures.

The first visible side of Anna - caprice, doubt, fear and submission

At first, Anna Notaras appears in Mika Waltari's novel as a capricious, spoiled, fearful, hesitant

noblewoman who doesn't really know what to do about all the attention she's getting from a seductive stranger she is clearly attracted to. It is her status that matters, her reputation, her family and her possibilities to survive the siege of Constantinople. Anna loves life. Ioannis Anghelos, her secret lover and a "dark angel of death", comes to challenge all that. He struggles to convince her that there is no future, no chance (or reason) for survival, and that all the rules and hopes she hangs on to are of no worth. Here is where the author begins to shine through his splendid understanding of the feminine nature...

Anna the woman - a worrier, a problem solver, a peace agent

Anna is, first of all, a Woman. She strives to accomplish more than one thing at once, to reconcile the conflicting parts, to solve all existing problems... and to keep on living. She wants her father's honour unharmed, and she also aims to stay next to her man. She uses feminine wisdom and slyness to escape her well-guarded home, to arrange secret rendezvous, to make influential friends and keep them close for they may be needed later (such as in the scene of her meeting and seducing Giustiniani, the Genoese captain, who will later protect the two). Anna Notaras shows great skill and cleverness as she joins the nuns, the new status granting her efficient cover and freedom to be in a city she wasn't supposed to be in. She dreams of a life when she can live next to her husband, preferring a humble existence to a glorious sacrifice. Anna does her best to change her lover's decisions and convince him to save himself from the deadly siege. She chooses life at first.

Another great example of her struggle to make things right and the adaptable (or manipulative?) feminine way to make a situation better is to be found in the following: at a certain point Anna has a burst and she argues with Ioannis about how he is never pleased with her behaviour. When she acts in conformity with her status, bears herself with pride and adorns her body with rich garments and jewellery, he treats her as a temptation, with great indignation. When she gives into the spiritual values and wears the modest garments of a nun, she is again regarded as inappropriate.

Bravery and a sense of justice

The turning point of the book - regarding Anna's character especially - is when she finds out about the treason planned by her father: to open a gate and let the Ottomans inside the fortress city, thus buying their right to be spared and live as a noble family. By this time the Byzantine lady has solidified her values. She is well aware of the unfairness of such situation. Taking her brother's armour, she goes out by herself during the siege and tries to prevent the opening of that gate, thus going against her father's cunning plan. Unfortunately, this is where she meets her death.

Anna chooses death eventually

For a while, we keep on seeing the moody Anna. After many pages about Ioannis and his struggles during the siege, we meet her again, this time changed in a totally spectacular way. She has decided to join her beloved, her husband, thus reconciling both her sense of justice and her faith in God. Anna Notaras, the woman who would do anything possible to turn her man away from the deadly battle and make him choose life, now chooses to fight next to him and die together. Not only did she mentally commit to that option, but she actually did a lot by herself: stole her brother's armour, reached the commander, went past the lustful and rude soldiers and finally met her husband to communicate him the decision and stay with him. She had all the chances to live, but she realises that a life without her love is useless. Ioannis himself is shocked by her decision. He can't understand why a life lover like her, why the most beautiful woman in Constantinople, who would surely survive, now chooses to die defending the already doomed city.

Quicker than Ioannis

The twist is surely surprising: although Anna has been the weak and hesitating one, she is very firm when the time comes to stand against treason and defend the city - or, better said, the principles. While Ioannis travelled to Constantinople to die with it, awaiting death day by day, dreaming of the supreme sacrifice in the name of all that he believes in - and it's been a long, well-thought plan for him - Anna accomplishes this briefly. She sees the danger, confronts the situation with her own values and goes to have her say. The soldiers then kill her without hesitation. The one who was supposed to survive, the one who had all the chances to do so, dies before Ioannis.

An interpretation of Anna Notaras

Learn to Be Wise as Snakes

In my readings I came across a story - I don't even know if it's pretended to be true or not; I see, however, that apart from its fun and fantastic nature, it holds a very wise and useful teaching to pass.

The story begins with the annoyance of a demon over a monastery of nuns. He was playing tricks on one of them, so that she would drive all the other to ill feelings. They began blaming her for all kind of evil doings, which were not true. But, in her deep humility, she never argued by defending herself. Instead, she accepted all accusations. However, she decided to fight on her own. So she set a trap for the demon, caught it and bind it with the power of faith (ordering his binding in the name of God). I believe the details are not necessary. Then she gathered all other nuns to witness; the prisoner devil was tortured and screaming for release. The nun promised its release if they would sing together a song in praise of God. The demon eventually agreed and proceeded, and sang with an angelic voice. However, he could not go on with telling the actual words of praise - "Lord, have mercy onto me" (by which he would admit the rule of God and cross the satanic oath). That's when the nuns praised it for singing so wonderfully, admiring its unearthly voice. In the moment when it was pushed to say those words by the 'brush of his ego', it immediately turned into an angel of light and soared to the sky.

Now, if we just don't go into questioning if any such story would be true or not and if we strip it of its "fun", then I guess we discover the actual truth in it, in its wise teaching. That nun was surely following the will of God, the dogma, and all else you can think of in religious terms. But she was also using the weapons of her enemy: being cunning, smart and... tricky.

After all, what was before Satan was Lucifer - the wisest and most beautiful angel of all, the closest to God. The light bearer. Those gifts, he still uses... but he uses them for evil, for his own ideals and needs. If Satan is known as sly and cunning, it doesn't mean we have to stay away from using those gifts. It would be self-sabotage. It is wise to know exactly who your enemy is and what weapons he uses. Otherwise, it's just blind confrontation. Or maybe no confrontation at all.

Paganism and Christianity - A Gap?

I am not going to go into many details... I rather prefer to illustrate what there is to see with valid examples. It is up to you to do the rest - thinking and concluding. Those who are already interested in this controversy have probably watched some of the documentaries on the web, where they analyze all kind of aspects, from the useless and overused ones ("Christianity placed its feasts over the pagan ones!") to the not so obvious aspects. Anyhow, some of them are to be taken with a serious amount of doubt and reason... like the claim in a certain production, otherwise an interesting and quite serious one, that the Blood of Christ is a mimic of menstrual blood in pagan traditions, which also signified Life. Anyone with a sense of decency (if not truth) will remember that menstrual blood is mainly used in witchcraft in love spells, a form of black magic, and is also 'prized' by satanists, which use it to reverse and to mock the symbols of the liturgy. This is not to deny that such blood wouldn't have meant the force and gift of life. That, however, has nothing to do with its meaning in the holy liturgy: it is the descent and sacrifice of the 'god' (a totally different ancient concept) and its communion with the man himself, it's the divine blood that washes the sins. All these before the giving of a 'new life'.

My example today is from my immediate experience: the orthodox church service.
Let us take a look at what happens...

It is not a private service, it involves a compulsory gathering of people - this is the "church", often mistaken for a senseless flock of sheep, brainwash and manipulation. I don't deny this, however. It's up to each individual out there what they make of it. But I rather see in this gathering the consciousness that All is One, and One is in All.

The orthodox liturgy involves a hypnotizing rhythm, a slow and steady one, which generates the alpha state and sometimes theta (I felt it myself many times). Certain types of prayers are very repetitive. The lighting, the smell and sound work together. At some moments, the priest's speech is overlapped with the choir's singing. For many times, there are several voices and layers of sound, some of them being very, very low. They generate vibrations that can be felt within the body. It is almost like throat singing. It is inducing a trance-like state.

Incense is used, but not only as the symbol for the ascension of prayer to God. The fact that the church condemns the burning of herbs and other 'pagan practices' is only a modern rule which serves the harsh elitism. However, it may also serve to keeping the weak ones away from straying, from going to the very negative sides (very few of us are actually aware of the dangers along the way.. each way...). Therefore, it was safer to declare that such practices are against true faith. But... the orthodox faith still keeps such practices. The priest smudges the entire space, filling every corner, passing every object and person through the purifying smoke of the incense. None will ever have an explanation for this, perhaps. Only the folk wisdom, that says, "It's for chasing away the bad spirits..."

Candles are always used. Not just for being there, not just for reminding of a deceased one. They are lit up at key moments and in various, fixed places. Every 'wish' of the faithful has to be forwarded in the company of a lit candle. This goes well in harmony with the extensive use of candles in Catholic faith.

The funeral rites are far more complex. I cannot even try to go into this now, because for most of my life I refused to consider them necessary, and today I'm afraid I still don't know them too well. They are surely complex and full of bizarre thinking. Probably the most intriguing part is the obsessive smudging of the body and the grave in the first days after death. The dogma doesn't really give an explanation, I'm afraid. At least not to the simple folks. But the ancient traditions do: it is to prevent the possession of the body by the wandering entities, "spirits" that may have an interest in dwelling it.

I am sure that people still remember the funeral of Pope John Paul II in 2005. Along with the other priests doing their ritual, there were the ones of the Eastern Church as well. One could see the contrast at the time of their mass: their long black coats, the smoke of incense, the way that dark gathering moved and sang in a mystical tone - it was like a scene from another time, another world. A circle of enigmatic wizards in the middle of the Western world.

If your idea of Christianity revolved only around the rigid Catholicism and the cold Protestantism, then maybe it would be interesting to take a look at the rites and teachings of the Eastern Church. You will find a side that it's a lot more like magic and mystic...

Note: Eastern Christianity did not have crusades. It did not have any form of Inquisition either.

Every Spirituality Can Be Good Spirituality

It is interesting how the humans, all throughout history, have been these creatures to desperately wonder and seek for something beyond, for something unseen but which connects to their terrible feeling of incompleteness and nostalgia. What is there, beyond, is not the subject of this post though...

Nowadays we tend to see the various spiritual doctrines as isolated cultural products, specific to certain areas, isolated in their limited circumstances, thus ignoring the many coincidence points, similarities, even common origins or, on another hand, amazing synchronicity and their continuation in time.

The purpose of spiritual traditions seems to have always been: to achieve a higher existence, to connect to the eternal and the never ending, to abolish all that causes suffering. However, due to the incompleteness of humanity and to many corrosive factors, such as time and diverse manipulation, most common ground has been split apart and many vital connections are lost. That is how we got to have different, often conflicting spiritual traditions. But all it takes is for one to see the common essence and goals, regardless of the ways and imagery. As long as people tend towards a form of spirituality, it is still better than living in ignorance.

The chakras are "gates" between the astral world and the physical bodies, in which the chi (life) energy or prana activates vital principles. The same energy circulates through body meridians which start in the brain, and the whole system is under the influence of the nature of our thoughts. Breathing is the process directly linked to the flow of chi.

Orthodox monks master breathing techniques that almost no one knows about. They also practice fasting, with amazing results. Also, deep prayer alters their brainwaves to those experienced in very early infancy. A prayer done right is the passing into another state of consciousness, with its specific brainwaves - and, therefore, possibilities and results.

Modern science proves that the thoughts in our brain determine various frequencies and those modify the chemicals and the functions in our bodies. Everything is connected because everything is vibration.

Gregorian chants and the throat singing in exotic traditions held such vibrations that they could instate certain frequencies, good for insight and healing. Today, these secrets are used by science in brainwave technology, as a very efficient alternative therapy.

God only had intention and word to create the world. It's the weird, misunderstood, folktale-beginning of the Bible... or is it not? Intention/will is the first force, the consciousness within, while word is nothing else but vibration (it is common knowledge that the sounds we produce and form as words come from our vocal chords, and they are pure vibrational phenomenon). The creation of the world is the result of specific vibrations, as it clearly comes. With the help of science itself, the Bible now doesn't seem so much fantasy and fairytale anymore...