Volume 8, Issue 4, page 3

~JULY-AUIGUST, 1961
Vol. VIT

VI. r-No. 4

~Recusant Voice of 'The Infinites'

i
S

for Earth, Mars, Venus, Saturn,
'r I ~Jher'n"

Pluto, andZydokumzruske en

Published monthly. except for the combined January-February and
the July-AuguSt issues. at 207 N. Washington, Enid, Okla.

Editorial Office: 2522% North Monroe, Enid. Okla.

Mail Address: Postoffice Box 528. Enid, Okla.

Subscription Price: $2 a year. $5 for 3 years. Single copies 25#

Second class privilege authorized at Enid. Okla., Postoffice

EDITOR: The Rev. Mr. Dr. ALPHIA OMEGA HART, 1-2. D.D., D. Scn.,
F.Scn., B.Scn., HDA. HCA. et al ad infinitum ad nauseum PUBLISM:
ALICE
AGNES HART, I-1. HCA, SEC., WFE., Lbrn., ETC.

ADVERTISING--Payable in advance. Write for rates._~~py and
payment must reach us 45 days prior to insertion date.

A TRUE GOD CAN

God, as some pulpit denizens will confess, is "ALL". Then, they
spend the rest of the boring hour orso enumerating all
the things God can't be, because He doesn't have to do the things
you must do to get Him to forgive you for doing the
things He wouldn't do -but DID DO, and worse, back in the Old
Testament days.

Of course, it 's quite possible that the confusion over a
definition for "God" is not around the word God at all, but around
the word "A II ". Maybe ,Call " doesn't mean what we've been
taught it means, and instead of disputing with the Church over
howAII is God. we should get more basic-basic and find out what
is All.

Some of the trouble which can arise in trying to make sense out
of the God-business is shown in a projected project by
Max Freedom Long. in which he suggests a"new religion", "tied to
psychology", which seeks to teach what we know about
God and notwhatwe have been told about God. as is the case with
followers of the many sects , c u 1 t s, and isms. But,
apparently, he has stepped into a hornet's next. Many members are
willing to go along in his researches into the "miracles
of Huna ", but few are willing to tamper with their religious
concepts, or if they have "had a belly f ul '9 of the miasmic
swill
of theology, they want no "religion" label tied to their findings
or beliefs.

in spite of his initial rebuffs, Mr. Long asks some pertinent
questions that may be a bit embarrassing to those daring to
find answers. He suggests an abandonment of"WhatI-Was-Taught"
religion, and a little independent thinking for ourselves.
"After recognizing the fact that the human mind cannot understand
the way a divine mind may think, and

POLICY: Don't take it so damn' seriously. The infiniteness of Man
is not reduced to allsplit infinity" by wars, taxes, or" experts"
who seek to sell him what
he already has in an infinite amount.

Sub-Policy: We reserve the right to change our minds f r o m i
ssue to issue, or even from page to page, if we desire.

Sub-Sub-Policy: Each Man has the inherent right to be his own and
only"Authority"-with his wife's permission.

Sub-Sub-Sub-Policy: We have no objection to "educated guesses"
about Man's destiny - if there's no price tag to it, and if the
guesser has no objection to
our guessing that he's only guessing.

BE NEITHER DEFINED NOR LABELED

after admitting that we cannot grasp the idea of anything which
does not have a beginning and an ending, limited by time
and space, we must go on to decide for ourselves, individually,
what concept of FIRST CAUSE or CAUSELESS SUPREME
BEING best satisfies us, " Mr

Long says.

Which sounds like a good start, altbo we'd not include the
preamble that "the human mind cannot understand the way a
divine mind may think". This is a reversion to Churchanity, which
relegates man to the worm-level and places God outside
of us and injudgment over what we do and think. If we

"cannot understand the way a divine mind may think". we also must
admit that we can't even know if there is a divine mind,
and if there is, why it may be necessary for it to think. We are
attributing to a possible "divine mind" characteristics of the
human mindwhich is right in I ine (only on a broader scale) with
the original church concept of a God in man's image,
sitting on a cloud, with a Book of Judgment in which He writes
down each deed, thought, and fallen sDarrow.

We're not setting ourselves up as a know-it-all, because our
background includes the same religious fungi in which it is
almost impossible to separate the toadstools from the mushrooms.
We believe what we are taught, altho we may give lip
service to a disbelief in those teachings. We know an ex-Catholic
who can say nothing good for his old religion-its
personnel or beliefs - yet crosses himself if anything goes
wrong, if a cat crosses his path. or before he eats some types of
"forbidden food". We suppose he has some logical rationalization.

Whatever one may consider God, the mind-picture of a De

ity probably is man's insisting on needing a "cause" on which to
place the blame for everything- inc 1 uding his own
beingness and creation. For him to admit that he, himself, with
powers he's unwilling to admit having, may be responsible
for it all, would be to drive himself insane with the thought of
all that responsibility. Just as one forgets much of his
"eternity" so that he will not be haunted by the things f r o m
which even soCal 1 ed " death " may be an effort to escape.
Several point out that there is no reason for man ever to abandon
a body-if he's willing to keep it in repair. Yet who does?
Or has?

one evening, a group was discussing religion, and God

and altho most of us were wha~ is popularly known as "free
thinkers", none came up with the same definition for God. To
one He was Thought, another said He was a Spirit that pervaded
everything, a third said God was Supreme Consciousness,
and still another said God was merely Natural Law that ruled all
physical and spiritual beingness.

The editor had no definition. #d God just IS," we insisted. "ANY
definition-even that God is All - is a limitation, because
you are inferring that God is not not-all."

"How can there be a notall?"one of the group demanded.

s, I don't know," we replied. "At. the same time, how can there
be a not-God? If you are defining God, then you also are
limiting Him, because when you say what He IS, you are at the
same time saying what He is not. "

deAnyway, 11 we added, when we had been thoroly chastised for our
ambiguity, "why not liken God to that thing you Ire
drinking out of." and we pointed to

(PLEASE TURN TO PAGE 13)

W