Hi all,

Just a quickie to say that, in case you wondered where I'd got to, I've been transferring everything from this site, 'The God Is You' to my main site, The Scotty Stevens Show.

'The Scotty Stevens Show' will from now on be my home. 'The God Is You' will be disappearing completely. The Scotty Stevens Show will become what The God Is You was, and more.

It will contain a complete self development program, as well as the opportunity to participate in the movement…

Head over there, now. I'm still putting the finishing touches, but it will be finished, soon. And then I will be adding fresh articles in the same that I was here.

To freedom,

Scotty Stevens

Today, we continue our in depth breakdown of the Seven Deadly Sins with an analysis of the Sin, 'Gluttony'. Once again, so I can be sure we're all singing from the same hymn sheet, let's look at the dictionary definition of 'Gluttony': excessive eating and drinking. Simple.

But how does one define excessive? Again, the dictionary tells us it means: going beyond the usual, necessary, or proper limit or degree. So, then, gluttony seems to denote the act of eating or drinking more than one needs to survive, since anything more, by this definition, is unnecessary.

Every vice in the Seven Deadly Sin list is given a corresponding virtue to live by. In the case of 'gluttony', its opposing virtue is 'temperance', which means accepting the natural limits of pleasures in a bid to preserve the natural balance. Resonating with the previous paragraph, by eating more than your body actually needs - into the realm of pleasure - is apparently enough to incur punishment of holy proportions.

Further research into the sin of 'gluttony' tells us that it is seen as an overindulgence and over-consumption of anything to the point of waste. So, apparently, consuming more than you need is 'waste'. A more in depth look tells us that, in Christian circles, the 'waste' tag comes from the mindset of "if you're eating more than you need, you're withholding it from the needy."

Citing an article on the sin that is gluttony over at Wikipedia, where the contributor had obviously done their homework, was the following: "Depending on the culture, it can be seen as either a vice or a sign of status. Where food is relatively scarce, being able to eat well might be something to take pride in (although this can also result in a moral backlash when confronted with the reality of those less fortunate). Where food is routinely plentiful, it may be considered a sign of self control to resist the temptation to over-indulge."

This is totally subjective. So, then, if you’re doing well for yourself in a poor community, you're not allowed to enjoy the fruits of your hard work too much, because it's not fair on the less 'fortunate'. Okay, so this means that those that are 'fortunate' enough to be able to enjoy a good meal, must have received their fortune in a cookie at the Chinese takeaway, since the advocates of this philosophy seem oblivious to the fact that fortune is created by action.

And if you're doing well for yourself, and live in a wealthy neighbourhood, (i.e., you decided you actually wanted to respect your existence as a human being and fulfil your massive potential by getting off your backside and creating something) to, again, enjoy the table of plenty before you after a smart day's work - is apparently over-indulging! Fascinating stuff.

I sometimes find myself completely bemused that today, still, in the twenty first century, my fellow humans are lazily refusing to understand how those that are living the life they read about in magazines are achieving it. They deny that the man that drives the Ferrari, who steps out in beautiful, bespoke cloth, and into the exclusive restaurant to enjoy a five course meal - actually created it all himself.

Those that truly enjoy life, respect their existence as a human being, and honour the amazing potential that goes with it - that live as a humanpreneur - choose not to over-indulge in food or drink, anyway. If they were to over-eat or over-drink, how long do you think these rational life-lovers would keep destroying their cells and clogging their arteries for before realising that they were destroying the very vehicle that allows them to live?

It's not gluttony, my friend, that will destroy our race: It's the existing systems that allow the power-seekers to legally extract a portion of the producers' hard-earned income to appease everyone else with the creation of support systems for complete strangers - including those that wouldn't recognise a hard day's work if it came over and fixed their broken boiler for them. This system is diluting the potential brilliance of our race.

It's stifling the humanpreneurs, and feeding the lazy. A system like this effects the depletion of the earth's resources, since they are being used quicker than they are being produced - the balance is out. Were humans left to be free, to produce, to sell, to charge what they wished for the product of their humanpreneurialism, with every man as an end in himself - only the best would survive, leaving plenty of room and resources for those that actually wanted to 'live'.

Until then, we live in a timebomb, awaiting the discovery of another planet to relocate to before we run out of resources here on earth. Either that, or we derail the system in favour of one that actually befits the human race. Hmmm… Now there's a thought.

To freedom,

Scotty Stevens

This is going to be fun. In the next few articles, I'm going to break down the Seven Deadly 'Sins', each in turn. In case you didn't know, or indeed had never before heard of the seven deadly sins, they are basically a classification of seven 'vices', stated in early Christian writings, as a way to deliver followers from 'temptation' away from the virtues the sins are apparently opposing. Any yielding to a deadly sin is seen as destroying the life of grace, and carries with it the punishment or threat of eternal damnation.

Today, I start with 'Lust'. Now, the dictionary defines 'Lust' as an intense sexual desire or appetite. Is 'intense sexual desire' a bad thing? The Bible and its many versions of preachers would seem to think so. They seem to believe that the act of sex itself is a physical, carnal, animal act of misuse of the flesh, that it's only function should be to procreate. But the human body tells a different story…

For starters, did you know that its women, not men, who have an organ made solely for sexual pleasure? The clitoris. The clitoris actually comes from the same tissue that develops into the glans of the male penis. It has twice the number of nerve endings as the penis and, because it is so much smaller, it is ultra sensitive.

Women's orgasms that can last minutes, or much longer, compared to a man's, which can be over in seconds. Men have one orgasm and then lose their arousal. Women can have orgasm after orgasm - and many different kinds, too. Doesn't it makes sense, then, that women would want to enjoy sex as much as possible on a recreational basis, as well as just on a procreational level, rare as that would likely be?

As for men - the real men - it's no secret that we love sex, even if the act itself is not as intense as it is for women. For a man that truly loves women, a man who completely gets off on seeing his women enjoy themselves in bed, who isn't satisfied until he's enjoyed the look of rapture on her face as he makes her orgasm again and again - merely getting in and getting the job done is not enough; that would not be a true fulfilment or expression of his masculine sex. (And it's certainly not fun for the woman, too).

Now, all this is fine. BUT, the dictionary also defines 'Lust' as uncontrolled or illicit sexual desire or appetite; lecherousness. Illicit sexual desire. Lecherous. Hmm… With definitions such as these, one can only reason that 'lusting' in this manner pertains to those who are then committing adultery.

Indeed, according to this article over at 'Our Cheating Ways' on infidelity, writer, Peggy Vaughan, states in her book, "The Monogamy Myth", that recent statistics suggest that 40% of women (and that number is increasing) and 60% of men at some point indulge in extramarital affairs.

The reasons? There are a couple. But before I explain, you may recall my comments on the role, 'value' plays in relationships from my articles, Is It Right To Play The Field?, Is It Shallow To Go For Looks? and Oysters And Pearls. They're well worth a read. But, in a nutshell, every human has an objective value, determined by his values and the measure thereof. It's in a human's best interests to be always working to increase his value.

And because value attracts equal value, a man can only attract and keep a woman of equal value herself - and vice versa, of course. For this reason if a partner in a relationship raises their value, or the value of their partner drops for whatever reason, it is only natural that they will want to seek out someone of like value. So with that said, what attributes are the 'adulterers' seeking when they stray?

Concerning 'lust' and sexual desire, the two main, possible reasons for infidelity are genetic and spiritual. For a man, a diminishing of beauty on the part his partner (and subsequent lowering in physical value), can trigger his in-built need to pursue other, beautiful, healthy females (the embodiment of good genes) in a bid to spread his seed further and ensure the continuing of his line into further generations.

For a woman, a lack, or the receding of masculine traits in her man such as social status, leadership, dominance and ambition personify a male no longer equipped to protect her and the offspring, putting their survival at risk, and can likewise spur her to search for another male of like value, equal to the task.

For both the male and the female, on the spiritual level, referring to what we discussed earlier - men and women both love sex on a recreational level, too. Good sex feels good. And for someone that is good at it, that is a big tick in the box on their part - and a contribution to his overall value.

Sexual prowess equals higher value. Unfulfilled sexual desires are a big void in the value of the frigid/impotent partner. Now observe the restrictiveness and therefore vulnerability of the marriage contract - is it any wonder why, with the continuing sexual revolution, encouragement of sexual expression and the sexual liberation of women, that divorce rates are so high?

But the seven sins were highlighted to correspond with their opposing virtues, with 'Chastity' being the virtue in this case. And of course, chastity means abstinence from sex altogether. Further research, however, teaches us that the 'lust' that features on the Seven Deadly Sin list is usually thought of as involving obsessive or excessive thoughts or desires of a sexual nature.

So, then, can we take the Deadly Sin of lust to mean an overindulgence of sex, beyond what's 'required' - i.e., for any reason other than procreation? I'll tell you what overindulgence is: prostitutes, excessive masturbation, hours spent watching porn - among others. Sexual or sociological crimes such as bestiality, paedophilia, rape, and incest can be linked with a downward spiral into a lonely, sociopathic life fuelled by unfulfilled, natural, human lusts and desires - a cornerstone of a high value life. As an aside, it's a well know fact that some of our most ravenous bedfellows are those of a sexually-repressed, religious background.

The fact is, sex - good sex - is a wonderful, spiritual act - a celebration of two or more (or less) person's mutually respected value of each other. A good life is about balance. The ultimate existence of a human is that of a humanpreneur, i.e., one who strives to grow himself mentally, emotionally, physically and spiritually. Sex isn't just a physical act. Those who say that just aren't doing it correctly! The body is merely the vehicle that allows us to enjoy it. The more we take care of the body, the longer we live.

Sexual nerve endings erupt with delight at direct stimulation, but women can orgasm without even being touched, using only the power of the human mind. Real sex is not without emotion, either. To say that sex is a base act is ignorant and despicable. As I said , good sex comes from two or more people celebrating each other's mutually-respected value for each other. Emotions abound; there's no room for the base, here.

All this makes for a spiritual experience that makes the soul soar as if riding a rollercoaster, driving a car fast, listening to an emotive song or savouring sweet sherbet. The continual drive for human improvement and the practise of good sex - coupled with the balanced lusting thereof - makes for an increase in personal value, which results in the attraction of higher value, like partners.

This process negates any desire for an individual to regress into a life of internet porn marathons, trench coat-flashing and stalking. Humanpreneurship - equals - higher human value - equals - attraction of equally-valued humans - equals - good sex - equals - desireless of abnormal sexual activities - equals - balance - equals - sexual fulfilment - equals - happier human race. Simple!

Finally, 'Lust', in the context of the Seven Deadly Sins, also pertains to any form of desire or overindulgence, not necessarily of a sexual nature. The idea is that to desire more into one's life, of a material nature, is sacrilege. We'll go deeper into this in other 'Sins', but my retort to this is the same: balanced lusting and desire is fine, and mandatory for the formulation of an idea of what to aim for. The attainment of (again, which will be discussed in upcoming articles) said desires, is effected by action - and, therefore, fully deserved.

In conclusion, recreational sex is a great thing. The lusting of it is natural and necessitates the realisation of the actual act. Nothing just happens - it is attracted into your life because of the person you are; any action effected by thought-out, conscious action. Excessive, irrational lusting makes for an unbalanced, low value life, which in turn results in low value experiences. The downward spiral continues until the volitional redirection toward a high value life.

Someone once said that if you want your dreams to come true, you have to wake up. Dream well, my friend, but not for too long.

To freedom,

Scotty Stevens

Faith is an emotion that has long been recognised as a pillar supporting a positive outlook on life. Its association with religion aside, the word is synonymous with hope, goal-setting and achievement. But I wonder, is it really enough to simply have 'faith'?

Sure, faith alone won't make all your dreams come true. You don't have to be an atheist to realise that action is what separates conception and realisation. But I declare that it really goes deeper than a mere coalition of faith and action. In fact, I know this to be so. Let's take a look at a dictionary definition of the word, 'faith':

- Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing;

- Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.

Let's discuss the first part of the definition: Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing. Now, imagine someone in your life whom you know inside-out, someone you don't even have to question, you know them so well. You respect their values, and ever since you've known them, you've never known them to lie. They've proven themselves to be honest.

With that said, then, when dealing with this person, is faith really needed, since they speak the truth? Think about it, if you know something or someone to be true, 'faith' is, therefore, by definition, redundant. Faith assumes that there is an element of doubt in the person or thing. If you know something or someone to be true, it stands to reason that there is therefore no chance that any contradiction could exist. It is not faith, but a knowing, a certainty about this person, based upon your discriminate judgement of them, that leaves no need of faith.

Now let's study the second part of the definition: Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. The truth is, it could only be a belief if it didn't rest on logical proof. I remember a few years ago, in my network marketing days, I was at a party thrown by one of the pace-setters in the company I was in - Chris Mason-Paull. He was a successful, wealthy man and lived in a beautiful, big house with a pool, etc, etc. Very nice, indeed.

At one point in the evening, we were in a conversation with a Christian man about religious beliefs. Chris said something that remained with me ever since, because it was, quite simply, logical. He said, "If you have to believe in something, then there is a chance that it doesn't exist". If there is no logical proof of something, then there is a chance that it doesn't exist. This goes for religion, the supernatural, creation, etc. Not to get into a deep monologue on the illogic of religion, here, but let me explain my point.

Surely, then, it makes sense to live by objective principles? Yes, it does! As humans, we can only be sure of having five senses: sight, hearing, smell, touch and taste. We can also be sure that we are limited in the time we have to live. As humans, we are unique in the animal kingdom in possessing a reasoning mind. With all this considered, then, doesn't it make sense to spend one's life in the constant improvement of the power of these five senses AND of the mind?

To spend any time in the believing of that which hasn't even been proven to exist is a waste of a life. As humans, we have so much potential. We are the greatest race that has ever graced this planet. Our existence here, today, is testament to that. We have achieved some astounding things, and it's exciting to think about what else we will achieve. But it will only be by playing to one's strengths that the fulfilment of one's human potential will be realised.

Of some things in life, though, there is no proof for, yet there exist common beliefs for based upon logic. The best example I can think of is taken from a line by Russell Crowe's character in the film, 'A Beautiful Mind'. He said something like he "didn't know if the universe is never-ending or not, but he believed it to be".

Some things in life will be proved by science, logic and reason. Some, such as religion, will not and cannot. As a race, our survival and advancement lies in the hands of those that are striving to grow themselves using that which has taken us from swinging from the trees, to building skyscrapers. I can tell you that in those skyscrapers, you definitely won't find suited executives holding hands in circles chanting mantras and spells.

Time is short. Respect your existence as a human being, play to your strengths, and live in a constant state of improvement. You have everything you need - it's what got you here in the first place. It's time to take it - and you - further.

To freedom,

Scotty Stevens

A few years ago, when at a network marketing seminar, one of the speakers, Chris Mason-Paull, I believe – a successful MLM business owner – put forth a people-sorting analogy that has remained with me ever since. It illustrated how, when building a business built on people, the onus is on you to 'go through as many oysters' as you can, as quick as you can, in order to find the ones with the 'pearls', quicker.

It was a great analogy, and it stuck with me, albeit unconsciously. It wasn't until years later that it resurfaced when I was philosophising upon relationships, and the art of finding the right person to settle down with. I reworked the oysters and pearls 'concept' into my own theory. I've mentioned it before, but for the sake of this article, I will explain it once again. My aim of this discourse is to go further into depth. First, here's my theory…

You see, when it comes to relationships, there are two kinds of people in this world: 'weepers' and 'seekers'. Now, before I explain that, let's first pretend that all the millions of potential partners in this world are oysters. And that only a few of them contain a pearl.

Firstly, what the 'weepers' do is they grab the first oyster that comes their way and they open it up, hoping it contains a pearl, and, realising it doesn't, they close the oyster, and say, "Oh well, if I love it and caress it, and do everything I can for it, then surely, a pearl will appear". So they kiss it, caress it, put it on a pedestal, do everything for it, and then open it again, hoping a pearl has appeared. But still no pearl.

So they close it again, they kiss it, caress it, put it on a pedestal, do everything for it, and then open it, once again hoping a pearl has appeared. Still no pearl. Eventually, the oyster gets bored from all the pressure and waiting around, and the weeper ends up losing the oyster, and then they cry, lamenting that they hate oysters, that they’re all the same and how they'll never find the right oyster for them. With me?

Now, the 'seekers', they understand that there are millions of oysters out there, they realise that only a few contain a pearl, and they reason that, by logic, they'll have to go through a lot of oysters before they find one with a pearl. So they find an oyster, have some fun, realise there’s no pearl, put it down again, and move on to the next oyster. Have some fun, open it up, realise there’s no pearl, put it down, then move on to the next oyster. But they know that with each oyster they find that doesn’t contain a pearl, it brings them closer to one that does.

And with each oyster they find, they learn more about life, and they become better at understanding oysters, so that they can ultimately spend less and less time with each oyster they find before realising it doesn't contain a pearl. And when they do eventually find an oyster with a pearl, they'll know exactly what to do to keep hold of it. I’m a seeker. My question to you is, are you a weeper or a seeker?

My main reason for my writing this article is that, at times, even after explaining my excellent theory, some people will still hit me with the same question, "What if you find the oyster with a pearl, now, before having gone through many oysters?" Their point, when they ask me this, is that could I really be as harsh as to turn away someone that could potentially be right for me - the love of my life - if I wasn't supposedly, ready?

But the art of choosing the right person involves a lot more than the heart. If you have your values set, you'll naturally fall in love with someone that lives by those same values. If you've fallen in love with someone whose values are conflicting with your own, you need to examine your values.

I've gone into this before in my article, "Is It Right To Play The Field". But, I'd like to be a little more specific by breaking it down, further. So, in answering the question of why I wouldn't settle for a pearl if I found one early, allow me to sum it up in the following points…

1) Every human has a value and he should spend his life constantly increasing his value, because the higher his value, the better value he attracts into his life. This is what it means to be a humanpreneur.

2) I love women. I love the way they walk; I love the way they talk; I love the way they laugh; I love the way they smell; I love the way they feel; I love the way they taste. I love their anatomy; I love that I'm physically stronger than they are; I love that they expect me to lead and to be dominant and I embrace their femininity - I just love women. And in the same way that I love to travel, I want to go to as many places on earth as possible; in the same way that I love food, I want to taste as many different dishes as I can; in the same way that I love adventure, I want to try as many crazy things as I am able - so I want to experience as many different women as I can before I settle with one, and…

3) Finally, because value attracts value, the more I increase my value in life, the higher value woman I'll always want and naturally attract. And the more you increase your value, conversely, the fewer oysters you find with pearls in, since you become more discriminating in your search for that extra special oyster - which is therefore harder to find. But when I'm nearer the man I am striving to become, and I know exactly what I want in a woman, I'll be ready to attract her and keep her for good.

As I said, these points are based on my own situation, so point number two is subjective. But, points one and three should be objective laws to live by. For you, you may find someone like yourself early on, someone who is also a humanpreneur, striving to increase their value. It may turn out you are both on the same path, you are compatible, and therefore can grow together.

Whatever you do, put yourself, first. The partner you attract will only be as 'quality' as you. Make yourself 'top quality'. Remember my motto, 'Mecum et incipio et finio', translated from Latin to, 'I both begin and end with myself'. Words to live by.

To freedom,

Scotty Stevens