Past Postings

Previous William Thomas Sherman Info Page postings, quotes, observations, etc.


[ch. 65]
He [Celsus] imagines, however, that we utter these exhortations for the conversion of sinners, because we are able to gain over no one who is really good and righteous, and therefore open our gates to the most unholy and abandoned of men. But if any one will fairly observe our assemblies we can present a greater number of those who have been converted from not a very wicked life, than of those who have committed the most abominable sins. For naturally those who are conscious to themselves of better things, desire that those promises may be true which are declared by God regarding the reward of the righteous, and thus assent more readily to the statements (of Scripture) than those do who have led very wicked lives, and who are prevented by their very consciousness (of evil) from admitting that they will be punished by the Judge of all with such punishment as befits those who have sinned so greatly, and as would not be inflicted by the Judge of all contrary to right reason. Sometimes, also, when very abandoned men are willing to accept the doctrine of (future) punishment, on account of the hope which is based upon repentance, they are prevented from so doing by their habit of sinning, being constantly dipped, and, as it were, dyed in wickedness, and possessing no longer the power to turn from it easily to a proper life, and one regulated according to right reason. And although Celsus observes this, he nevertheless, I know not why, expresses himself in the following terms: “And yet, indeed, it is manifest to every one that no one by chastisement, much less by merciful treatment, could effect a complete change in those who are sinners both by nature and custom, for to change nature is an exceedingly difficult thing. But they who are without sin are partakers of a better life.”
~ Origen (c. 184-c. 253), Contra Celsus, Book III


[ch. 64]
... For Jesus subjoins to his narrative of them both the words: “This man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalts himself shall be abased; and he that humbles himself shall be exalted.” We utter no blasphemy, then, against God, neither are we guilty of falsehood, when we teach that every man, whoever he may be, is conscious of human infirmity in comparison with the greatness of God, and that we must ever ask from Him, who alone is able to supply our deficiencies, what is wanting to our (mortal) nature.
~ Origen (c. 184-c. 253), Contra Celsus, Book III


Note. The following remarks of mine are strictly intended for those who follow or have followed my comments and views on criminal spirit people and "witchcraft" persons. Just about anyone else would or might think I was prompted out of mere political ire, and quite easily misunderstand or misinterpret my reasoning.


First, and at the outset, let me say I have generally supported Trump's Presidency, and most definitely voted for him in preference to Hillary Clinton. Certainly, and I could go on at some length, there are things about his viewpoints and decisions I do not like, but I think overall he has been more a positive than a negative force. One matter that did especially surprise me was his choice of John Bolton and Mike Pompeo as national Security heads, and who struck me as culturally and spiritually dead. I mean and honestly, they seem like manikins or cartoon characters, not real people; Bolton especially so. (Noted Pnac neo-con Dov S. Zakheim strikes me as someone of similar psychological ilk.) The previously mentioned "Speelburg" person (friend and side-kick of the ghoulish magician) I have written about, is very much someone of this sort only much worse. In my opinion, these are people who, and probably from a very early age, have been mind controlled and spiritually eviscerated by criminal spirit people; and that is why they strike one as so strange and unreal.

Again, naturally some will think I am merely speaking out of political hatred or bias; which would be quite understandable, and I wouldn't blame them for thinking so. But this said, I otherwise assure you my reader that what I state is my honest opinion, mistaken or flawed as it granted might or perhaps be; my purpose being to provide you with psychological samples, as it were, of what (again in my opinion) some witchcraft people, and with all genuinely good intention on their part, can be like. My thought of this being the case with respect to Bolton was all the more confirmed when just yesterday I learned of this interview.
["John Bolton admits to lying and deceiving the public"]

Are these bad or inherently bad people? No, they do mean well, and what they are rather are victims/subjects of professionally done mind control.

I would write more on this subject, but at the moment choose not to for the simple reason I get little or no response to anything I write at my website, and hence it doesn't seem worth the bother, but that every now and then I feel obliged, in the interest of in some way serving the public good, to say something.


[ch. 49]
...“For why [quoting Celsus] is it an evil to have been educated, and to have studied the best opinions, and to have both the reality and appearance of wisdom? What hindrance does this offer to the knowledge of God? Why should it not rather be an assistance, and a means by which one might be better able to arrive at the truth?” Truly it is no evil to have been educated, for education is the way to virtue; but to rank those among the number of the educated who hold erroneous opinions is what even the wise men among the Greeks would not do. On the other hand, who would not admit that to have studied the best opinions is a blessing? But what shall we call the best, save those which are true, and which incite men to virtue? Moreover, it is an excellent thing for a man to be wise, but not to seem so, as Celsus says. And it is no hindrance to the knowledge of God, but an assistance, to have been educated, and to have studied the best opinions, and to be wise. And it becomes us rather than Celsus to say this, especially if it be shown that he is an Epicurean.
~ Origen (c. 184-c. 253), Contra Celsus, Book III


[Posted on Face Book]


With its timeless message that it will not do to electrically generate the Frankenstein monster to full power (or, for that matter to place one's trust in someone bent on doing the same), "Frankenstein Meets the Wolfman" (1943) will no doubt remain for many their favorite Lon Chaney Jr. vehicle. I know it is mine.

Yet any fan proper sells themselves far short if they overlook the musicals, or demi-musicals, he appeared in, namely, "Girl O' My Dreams" (1934) and "Daniel Boone, Trailblazer" (1956.) Although Chaney Jr. doesn't actually sing in "Daniel Boone, Trailblazer," nevertheless the movie is memorable for a great performance as Bruce Bennett's counterpart, the Indian chief "Black Fish;" still in in top physical form and before he put on those extra pounds.

In "Girl O' My Dreams" (1934), on the other hand, where he plays a star collegiate shot-put and discus thrower and all around big man on campus, he does get to sing, and just to prove it to you I thought I might share the same with some, via this link (at around 29:40)

[For "Daniel Boone, Trailblazer" (1956), incidentally, and which, for sundry reasons, is a must see in its own right, it's can be found at: ]


[ch. 47]
But it is probable that what is written by Paul in the first Epistle to the Corinthians, as being addressed to Greeks who prided themselves greatly on their Grecian wisdom, has moved some to believe that it was not the object of the Gospel to win wise men. Now, let him who is of this opinion understand that the Gospel, as censuring wicked men, says of them that they are wise not in things which relate to the understanding, and which are unseen and eternal; but that in busying themselves about things of sense alone, and regarding these as all-important, they are wise men of the world: for as there are in existence a multitude of opinions, some of them espousing the cause of matter and bodies, and asserting that everything is corporeal which has a substantial existence, and that besides these nothing else exists, whether it be called invisible or incorporeal, it says also that these constitute the wisdom of the world, which perishes and fades away, and belongs only to this age, while those opinions which raise the soul from things here to the blessedness which is with God, and to His kingdom, and which teach men to despise all sensible and visible things as existing only for a season, and to hasten on to things invisible, and to have regard to those things which are not seen—these, it says, constitute the wisdom of God. But Paul, as a lover of truth, says of certain wise men among the Greeks, when their statements are true, that “although they knew God, they glorified Him not as God, neither were thankful.” And he bears witness that they knew God, and says, too, that this did not happen to them without divine permission, in these words: “For God showed it unto them;” dimly alluding, I think, to those who ascend from things of sense to those of the understanding, when he adds, “For the invisible things of God from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: because that, when they knew God, they glorified Him not as God, neither were thankful.”
~ Origen (c. 184-c. 253), Contra Celsus, Book III