Nathan_Jr

Right. And I challenged the the idea that man does not help his fellow man unless an idea of God is involved. You seemed to imply that helpfulness must come from outside a godless framework (Darwinian Construct). I have received loving kindness and generosity from atheists, agnostics, Jews, Christians of various sects, non-theists, Taoists, Buddhists... I can't speak to their motives. Maybe they were operating out of fear of reprisal or hope for reward. I only know that they were all equally helpful, whether with God or without. And I have extended loving kindness and generosity to the same folks. This I have done without thought or hope for reward or fear of reprisal from any god or any human.

We don't have to use those words. Not trying to start a fight. Not even trying to debate. Truly, just trying to understand what you mean. You're trying to describe a world without God. That's helpful. I get it.

So, humans who help humans to survive but do not help deer to survive are operating within a Darwinian construct?

I've wondered what this phase means. I'll let Chockfull explain what he means. However, I suspect it's a pejorative against Darwinism as dogma. Darwin's theories are not dogmatic. Evolutionary theory today, and even those predating Darwin, have never been dogmatic. It could imply something about "survival of the fittest." A phrase that cannot be attributed to Darwin -- and a very superficial description that is insufficient for evolutionary theory. I really don't know what Darwinian Construct means. Chockfull? A little help?

It seems to me that every charlatan, every false prophet, every phony guru has at least one thing in common: they all make great claims for themselves to speak for, or to be sent from, God. This, it seems to me, is your sign that they surely DO NOT speak for God. You will know them by their fruit. Period.

I respectfully disagree with your assessment. ALL of the transcript is as worthless as the red drapes story.

Those who claim to speak for God are surely those who do not.

Hmmmm... a coder, a dancer, a comedian, a window washer, an absorber... A real polymath.

Really? This is not what I observe. I see man helping his fellow man all the time. I see compassion demonstrated every day by people who believe in gods and by those who don’t. I think we all need help from each other. I wouldn’t be where I am today without the help of others, and those others wouldn’t be where they are without my help. This is true whether one believes or doesn’t believe in the right or wrong god or in any god at all. Could we as human beings ever have made it out of the savanna without cooperating, helping, giving, caring, protecting each other?

Precisely, scientifically, the class was riddled with "mistakes" and error in every segment of every session. I know. Prophesy is not problematic, neither where it begins nor where it ends. So, it must not be prophesy. Math. I see. Scrubbing. Whitewashing. Got it! He was? Well, that settles it! Victor said it, you beleeeved it.... This is gut-busting hilarity unto itself. I'll let it sit there like a duck. Is that what you thought? Well, it's settled then. You didn't?

The ministry died because it was built on a pile of sandy lies instead of rock. The monster was spawned from victor's own seed. Victor seeded that monster.

Or one could just read it in the original, in Bullinger, in little book hat took victor 18hrs per day for 30 years to copy.

Impossible! "The class" was completely complete. The perfection of the original "class" could never be duplicated. That's why the '77 PFAL was scrapped at the last minute.

It never did. It's a rhetorical question.

Again, I'm trilingual in glossolalia. I can even write in glossolalia. I can even interpret those two sentences above into one of my glossolalias. No one "taught" me. I can speak TF out of SIT. And I can interpret TF out of them, too.

He did?

So what?

Oh. I thought it was because that's what victor signed off on, but you were going against his method and making it your own.

Those are words Mike uses to begin so many of his replies. Just trying to communicate on his level.

No. Not really. Or, not REALLY.

Right. But according to your beleef, a character, a person, of light. Just trying to understand your concept of God.

Right Fire engine red drapes are definitely material. They really do sit there like a duck.

I got exactly what you meant. You called God a character. It's telling.

Thanks for that, but I can get the referral and prescription for free. It's just a matter of putting one foot in front of the other. It's easy here, too. It will be federally legal soon. After all, it's like drinking a beer, only not as physiologically detrimental. And it sure does round off those angles, smooth out those corners.

Fire engine red drapes. I guess that little fiction was about "spiritual" abundance.