Discussion:
Who is this troll Sutter?
(too old to reply)
RedFox
2007-07-27 04:29:56 UTC
Permalink
Hi

We are experiencing some problems with this particular Usenet troll

Anyone out there cast any light on what his game is and what is wrong with him

Regards
RedFox
2007-07-27 05:32:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by RedFox
Hi
We are experiencing some problems with this particular Usenet troll
Anyone out there cast any light on what his game is and what is wrong with him
Regards
also posted from

a202010_at_dcemail.com
repeat mechanism
2007-07-27 10:22:04 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 14:29:56 +1000, ***@StJoseph.com (RedFox) wrote:
© 2007 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Post by RedFox
Hi
We are experiencing some problems with this particular Usenet troll
Anyone out there cast any light on what his game is and what is wrong with him
Regards
Who exactly is this troll "Redfox", who once went by the equally
ridiculous "Phar Lap?"

he's been dropping his drawers and squatting in the Baptist group for
half-a-dozen years (at least)

What's up with this kook?
N***@no.spam
2007-07-27 14:31:07 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 06:22:04 -0400, repeat mechanism
Xref: sn-us alt.religion.christian.baptist:980979
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 06:22:04 -0400
Organization: just for good measre
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.03 (WinNT; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: alt.religion.christian.baptist,,alt.timothy.sutter,,alt.fan.tim-sutter,,alt.god.timothy.sutter,,alt.goddess.timothy.sutter
Subject: Re: Who is this troll Sutter?
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
NNTP-Posting-Host: reston-gnap-ip-216014-43.dynamic.ziplink.net
X-Trace: newsfeed.slurp.net 1185518892 216.8.14.43 (27 Jul 2007 01:48:12 -0500)
Lines: 20
X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 216.8.14.43
Path: sn-us!sn-feed-sjc-03!sn-xt-sjc-11!sn-xt-sjc-07!sn-xt-sjc-14!supernews.com!newsfeed.news2me.com!nx01.iad01.newshosting.com!newshosting.com!216.196.98.140.MISMATCH!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!newsfeed.hal-mli.net!feeder1.hal-mli.net!news.alt.net!newsfeed.slurp.net!not-for-mail
X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 000761-0, 07/27/2007), Inbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
© 2007 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Post by RedFox
Hi
We are experiencing some problems with this particular Usenet troll
Anyone out there cast any light on what his game is and what is wrong with him
Regards
Who exactly is this troll "Redfox", who once went by the equally
ridiculous "Phar Lap?"
he's been dropping his drawers and squatting in the Baptist group for
half-a-dozen years (at least)
What's up with this kook?
Strange - liar-johnnie posted this same message -------
this one has the NNTP 216.8.14.43 which resolves to a Maryland
host.....
216.8.14.43 = [ reston-gnap-ip-216014-43.dynamic.ziplink.net ]

Could our little St. Porno be up to something else?
Timothy Sutter
2007-07-27 15:47:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by N***@no.spam
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
What's up with this kook?
Strange - liar-johnnie posted this same message -------
this one has the NNTP 216.8.14.43 which resolves to a Maryland
host.....
216.8.14.43 = [ reston-gnap-ip-216014-43.dynamic.ziplink.net ]
Could our little St. Porno be up to something else?
the other person x: no archived it

and i wanted to see that it was archived.

i didn't use that person's name, just the post itself.

you wanna come to d.c. and find out, i'll be happy to show you.
--
http://timothysutter.usafreespace.com/
N***@no.spam
2007-07-27 16:32:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Timothy Sutter
Post by N***@no.spam
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
What's up with this kook?
Strange - liar-johnnie posted this same message -------
this one has the NNTP 216.8.14.43 which resolves to a Maryland
host.....
216.8.14.43 = [ reston-gnap-ip-216014-43.dynamic.ziplink.net ]
Could our little St. Porno be up to something else?
the other person x: no archived it
and i wanted to see that it was archived.
i didn't use that person's name, just the post itself.
you wanna come to d.c. and find out, i'll be happy to show you.
Ah-- okay then, thanks!! :o)
I put nothing past liar-johnnie, but then, I should have known better-
he's not that bright. :o)
RedFox
2007-07-28 00:50:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by N***@no.spam
Post by Timothy Sutter
Post by N***@no.spam
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
What's up with this kook?
Strange - liar-johnnie posted this same message -------
this one has the NNTP 216.8.14.43 which resolves to a Maryland
host.....
216.8.14.43 = [ reston-gnap-ip-216014-43.dynamic.ziplink.net ]
Could our little St. Porno be up to something else?
the other person x: no archived it
and i wanted to see that it was archived.
i didn't use that person's name, just the post itself.
you wanna come to d.c. and find out, i'll be happy to show you.
Ah-- okay then, thanks!! :o)
I put nothing past liar-johnnie, but then, I should have known better-
he's not that bright. :o)
However

There is something seriously wrong here and it amounts to major Usenet
abuseand probably a need for compulsory medical intervention

He is obviously either a mischief maker or mentally ill probably both. I
have traced internet posts of his going back several years and there are
four bandwidth wasting newsgroups in his name in which he appears to be
the only major poster. In addition to posting and pestering a number of
Religious groups this troll also posts to forums and groups such as alt
discordia

Granted we may well be looking at severe schizophrenia (again) there are
disturbing parallels such as the one you pointed out

The bottom line is that people need to be alert to the fact that this man
is a troll who supposedly is around thirty five although that may also be
a blind

I note from other groups that he has come very close to be banned - and
indeed may have been by at least one earlier server

I think we must hope for the time being this particular pest simply gets
bored with wanking on this forum and simply goes away

Utherwise it is rather up to the Usenet ISPs whose bandwidth he is wasting
at a cost of around three dollars a Gigabite to sort him out.

Sutter in fact seems to be educationally barely literate. His pattern of
philosophical speculation and pseudo scientific meanderings are really
pure garbage that he has developed rather like a talking parrot over
several years of internet abuse

At his core I see him as extremely sick with a severe behavioural problem

I see NO intellect worthy of debate. Just a lonely failure wailing in the
cyber wilderness because he cannot cope with life - mpossibly drug damaged

Sad very sad indeed.

He needs - as dozens of people have said to him over the years medical
treatment and a life.

And in this - once again there are surpising parallels with three people
on this group from time to time

And wondering - is legitimate

I have wasted enought time on this already

regards.
Timothy Sutter
2007-07-28 01:35:34 UTC
Permalink
you can 'pray' all the time,
you don't have to be asking
for anything to be praying.

if you want "God's will" to
be done on earth as it is
in God's Presence, lines of
communication are a good
place to begin.

you don't -always- talk to
your 'friends' making requests
of -them-, and you can talk to
God without making requests, as well.

these gestures of Faith build up as
a currency, and, perhaps, in accruing
such a currency, when you -do- make
some sort of request, God won't be
seeing you as some sort of cynical
little creature who just wants
to -get- something.

God may even make a request of you.
albeit, probably, not out of Personal need.
may be some simple request like your
acquiring the discernment to know what
you need when you need it and not with
an eye to squandering your gifts
on cheap theatrics.

do you even know what you need?

what you lack?

in God's eyes?

well, talk to God

you claim you have allowed
yourself 'free speech'

you don't need anyone else's
permission to open up and maintain
lines of communication with God.

'free speech' isn't just about
what 'shocking' thing you can
say to titillate your cronies.

you have protection from anyone
interfering in your drawing nearer
to God thru your speech.

happy trails

you know that 'prayer' that everyone
has heard at least once in their lives;

it doesn't go directly to bread and protection
it begins with you establishing some sort of
loving and respectful relationship with God.

ain't that right, Uh Huh?


we don't do hocus pocus

we don't walk up to a mountain
and tell it to move and -our-
_words_ lift the mountain away.

no, we come to an agreement with God.

and God works wonders in our midst.

when we speak to God thru
Jesus Christ, we know to
whom we speak.

for instance, if we make a request
thru Jesus Christ, we know who we
are asking, and from whom to
expect an answer.

this specificity of knowledgeable
understanding is -your- safeguard
against being come upon by forces
which may -not- have your best
interest as 'their' interest.

we come to that point where we are
led by God and our doings are in
line with our wants and wishes,
chiefly, the want and wish to be
in agreement with God.


funny thing is, a small "amount"
of Faith is a great and wonderful
thing and no Faith is nothing at all.

so you need not ask;

"how -much- Faith will move this mountain?"

but you may begin to ask;

"where is my assurance that my
wants are in line with my desire
to be in agreement with God?"

so, you come to Christ and reckon
together why this mountain is there
in the first place.

is it to your advantage to be there
even if it seems to block your way?

who would care? who would know?

blind force cannot care and can not know.


but what is Faith and how does one 'get' Faith?


if we suggest that Faith is the confident
assurance that God will act on behalf of
human beings using the name and title
of Jesus Christ as intermediary,

and that Faith is the titled possession
of Christ by virtue of Jesus' unique
identification with God,

we 'get' Faith as we take possession of
God's Gift to humanity thru Jesus Christ.

that is, we 'see' Faith when we
'see' Jesus, but we make Faith
our own as we walk in agreement
with God, thru Jesus Christ,

and that confident assurance that
Jesus had, becomes our possession.

that confident assurance was given to
humanity in the person of Jesus Christ,
and Jesus Christ gives the same to you
as his reconciling gift to God.

and now, when you speak to God
you will have that same confident
assurance that God hears you
as Christ has.

and you will see the evidence
of God's actions on your behalf.

don't be alarmed if some of God's
actions on your behalf is in
tidying up your agreement with,
and understanding of, God, and,
-your- speech begins to change,

and -your- words no longer bring
condemnation on your own head,
but, instead, reflect your
agreement with God.

feeding -your- Faith,

from God to you to God



i've probably mentioned this before
but maybe only i heard it, it was sort
of along the lines of human beings,
who are transformed in the likeness
and Image of God thru Christ,
revitalizing the universe.

in a way, you get to be "like Christ"
in a very real manner and you are granted
planets by The Almighty and it's your
assignment to refurbish them and make
them live again and maybe even grow a
crop of material human beings that may
just opt for the Tree of Life without
ever going thru all that knowledge
of good and evil bit.

maybe that fervent heat which will melt
away the elements and formulate the basis
for a new heaven and earth will come,
in part, at our hands, thru Christ
with Christ for Christ and by Christ.

always remembering that those "twinklings"
of an eye can be experienced on more than
one level, and maybe one of those levels is
is like a frame you don't even see, and one
of those levels is like slow motion.

so, something could happen in a twinkling
of an eye and you still see your entire
life flash before your eyes.

there are a few different ways
to look at this sort of thing,
but compare this to the
parable of the "talents"

---
Matthew 25:14-21
"For the kingdom of heaven is like a man
traveling to a far country, who called his
own servants and delivered his goods to them.

before he went on his journey, he gave one
servant five talents, that servant went
and traded with them, and made another
five talents.

After a long time the lord of those
servants came and settled accounts
with his them.

"So he who had received five talents
came and brought five other talents,
saying, "Lord, you delivered to me
five talents; look, I have gained
five more talents besides them.'

His lord said to him, "Well done,
good and faithful servant; you were
faithful over a few things, I will
make you ruler over many things.
Enter into the joy of your lord.'
---

at any rate, showing yourself as
faithful in matters pertaining to
this world is value.

and in "the world to come" untold,
unseen, unimagined magnificence
and responsibility.

be nice to yourself, yourselves
and your things here and now,
and we can enter in to
the Joy of God.

God is The Creator

we may very well be
entering in to -that- Joy.

remember;

---
Job 38:4,7
Where were you when I laid the
foundations of the earth?...
When the morning stars sang together,
And all the sons of God shouted for joy?
Declare, if you have understanding....
---

see, the Creation was a Joyous event.

what if you were given the
ability to breathe life
into a planet?

what sort of "God" would -you- be?

well, one thing we figure for sure
is that you will never -get- that
ability outside of Faith and Unity
in God's Presence.

just something to think about.

sometimes, you may find, the thought
of such a tremendous -responsibility-
is, in itself, humbling.

greedy and fearful is not value.

Unity of God's presence in Christ is value.

the Resurrection is value.

there is no fear in the Resurrection.

only Love
--
http://timothysutter.usafreespace.com/
Timothy Sutter
2007-07-28 03:03:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by RedFox
However
There is something seriously wrong here and it amounts to major Usenet
abuse and probably a need for compulsory medical intervention
don't psychiatric evaluations
have a bunch of questions?

what would you like to ask me?

is it like;

"is it bigger than a bread box?"

"animal vegetable or mineral?"

you may be happy to find out that
i have no 'organic brain damage.'

so, your contentions are
already shown to be false.

not that you could ever support your clams anyway.
--
http://timothysutter.usafreespace.com/
RedFox
2007-07-28 07:41:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Timothy Sutter
you may be happy to find out that
i have no 'organic brain damage.'
Ah but you self evidently do

nuff said
Timothy Sutter
2007-07-28 10:19:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by RedFox
Post by Timothy Sutter
you may be happy to find out that
i have no 'organic brain damage.'
Ah but you self evidently do
nuff said
1. my EEG says other wise

2. competetent physicians already -have-
established that i have no organic
brain damage.
--
http://timothysutter.usafreespace.com/
RedFox
2007-07-29 01:00:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Timothy Sutter
Post by RedFox
Post by Timothy Sutter
you may be happy to find out that
i have no 'organic brain damage.'
Ah but you self evidently do
nuff said
1. my EEG says other wise
2. competetent physicians already -have-
established that i have no organic
brain damage.
Nope!
Timothy Sutter
2007-07-29 01:24:14 UTC
Permalink
# so, when Hansel and Grätel took
# a walk thru the forest and came
# across the Gingerbread House,
# they discovered a plot by the
# inhabitant to cook and eat children.
# and they shoved her in her own oven.
# may have several sideways interpretations.

so God calls many and chooses few.

something to consider as you work
out your salvation in fear and trembling.

should i be altogether lighthearted
as if this is just another fad diet
and if i fail, who cares?

if i drop my weapon under fire,
who cares, it's just me who dies?

anyway, what i'm trying to drive
at with all this bit about an "elect"
is a key difference in the way
man views man and God views man.

God loved Jacob and despised Esau
for reasons that neither you nor
i can definitely recognize
at first glance.

what we may safely assume is that God
did not favor Jacob for what God
could _get_ from -him-.

now if we follow Cynical Pragmatism to
its logical conclusion, man favors man
for what he -can get- by favoring each
other over everyone else.


as we all know, man can set up cadres
and cabals and cliques to assist the
members of said groupings in attaining
a singular and particular group goal
-and- barring "outsiders" from
attaining the same.


some of the troublesome
places Godlessness
can lead you.


you can borrow from the sacred writings
and set yourself up as THE favored class.

you believe there is no -real- God, and you
prove this by the way you treat -other- men
who are cast in the image of God, and you
set -yourself- up as the God of this world.

little knowing that God sees you.

so, you secretly consider yourself "the elect"

and set out to prove that anyone you
can lead astray into Godless disbelief
can not be "the elect".

catching yourself up in a small enigma.

you don't -really- believe there
is a God there to see you,

but you believe that anyone you can
turn away from God can not be "elect"

you say;

"anyone i can lead astray cannot be "elect"

but no child is safe from this error

so, an immediate trouble is, "members" of your
own cadre can be easily led astray and so you
come into direct conflict with your own dictums.

you teach the "inner circle" the "right way"
and the outsiders, you teach, the "wrong way"

but you'd already convinced yourselves that
anyone you had to -teach- the "right way"
could _not_ be "elect"

a second small conundrum.

and leading your own children astray simply
ties a great big stone on your own neck and
sinks your entire enterprise to the
bottom of the ocean.

so your entire world ends up
in a ditch by the side
of the road.


but you now haven't the fall
back crutch of claiming that
you couldn't see clearly; no,
you already claimed magnificent
sight, and yet, your ills remain.


and there you are,

leading the fabulously rich and well
dressed patron to the front row of
the Cathedral, and barring the door
to the man who has holes in his trousers.

all cuz you've made this impure judgement
in your own heart that this rich man is
favored and "elect" even when he holds
a knife to your throat and the man with
the holes in his troousers is food
for dogs and roving bandits.

but God sees you.

as Abraham's handmaiden said;

"this is the God who sees me"

and you are not drinking your
sweet tasting stolen bread
in private.

you are tieing a great big
millstone around your
own necks.

and the weight of it
is crushing your freedom.

and -somebody- has to shove that
old lie into the oven every
once in a while.

Cynical Pragmatism is a Poison to human growth.

just watch out for a 'favored class' mentallity.

it may -seem- right to you at times
but sometimes, still, a man's worst enemies
are the members of his own cabal.

and not to worry, "women" most certainly
are "included" and not immune from the
poison of Cynical Pragmatism.

in case you wondered.

i'm just not one of those who feels
the need to write "he/she/it" every
time i grab for a pronoun, and "man"
describes the species.

but i'm sure i've said that before.


- you believe there is no -real- God, and you
- prove this by the way you treat -other- men
- who are cast in the image of God, and you
- set -yourself- up as the God of this world.
...
- but you now haven't the fall
- back crutch of claiming that
- you couldn't see clearly; no,
- you already claimed magnificent
- sight, and yet, your ills remain.

see, such as these -claim- they
-see- and even walk around
in the whitewashed Tombs

but inside they are filled with dead men's bones.

they wash the -outside- of their cups
but they are -drinking- abominable poison
and offering that up from their own lips.

they -don't- hold water.

but Jesus doesn't -want- anything from you.

Jesus means to pass -you- the
cup filled with Living Waters.

drink -that-, and you won't -get-
thirsty for God's Living Presence.

those Living Waters will well up from within -you-

just be careful.


"Cynical Pragmatism" is not some 'philosophy'
man dreamed up to make himself better and more
greatly adapted to his place in the world.

no, it's just a name i gave to the
inevitable state of man when he
loses sight of God and measures
himself against himself.

the standard of self interest blinds
him to his own personal degradation.

such is the story of mankind.


which is all part of the punchline;

good is getting what you want and
evil is not getting what you want,

but there's no real -you- apart
from the existing conditions, yet,
and -you- may not really be aware
of what exactly is 'good' for
you and what is ultimately
harmful for you.

so, your ability to make proper choices
based on real options is obscured by your
own hazy unclear outright blind vision
of what your true potential is.

and you sell yourself
short for a bowl
of porridge,

and your ultimate joy is buried beneath
your inability to see the true value
which God has placed on you, in favor
of another obscured vision offered
up by the existing conditions.

you can't make a proper choice because
you can't even remember what you look
like in a mirror.

you don't see God

you see Death.



==
http://timothysutter.usafreespace.com/
RedFox
2007-07-28 07:48:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Timothy Sutter
Post by RedFox
However
There is something seriously wrong here and it amounts to major Usenet
abuse and probably a need for compulsory medical intervention
don't psychiatric evaluations
have a bunch of questions?
what would you like to ask me?
Nothinh

The FBI will ask the questioons

and then the psychiatrists
Timothy Sutter
2007-07-28 16:32:04 UTC
Permalink
given that the average distance from earth
to the moon is 384400 km and the speed of
light is 299792.458 km/s,

on average, it takes 1.28 seconds for
light from the moon to reach the earth.

so, hypothetically speaking, if you had a human being,
standing on the moon pointing a flashlight at the earth,
which you could see through a telescope on the earth,

and that person, shut off the flashlight,

there would be a lag time of over 1 second
between the time that person turned that
flashlight off, and the time -you- on earth,
stopped seeing the light from that flashlight.

so, for over one second, you'd still think that
the person was flashng a light at you after that
person had already shut that light off.

so now,

let's say that we have a person
on some further distant 'moon'.

let's say that 'moon' is 384400000000 km from earth
and the speed of light is still pretty much the same.

now it takes 1280000 seconds for us to realize
that that person has shut off the flashlight.

it will take nearly -15 days- for us to realize
that the person has turned off the flashlight.

so, if we say that we 'see the flashlight'

we still cannot say that the flashlight is still -on- 'now'

where 'now' is -our- immediate time frame.

now, convince yourself that the light from
a distant Star 10 billion light years 'away'

is most assuredly a Phantom of a light that
has been turned off X number of billions
of years -before- 'we' see that light 'now'

or, at least, if you saw what was
a yellow star like the sun, -then-
it would be long beyond yellow and
converted to a red giant by 'now'

well, actually, if you saw a yellow star like
the sun 10 billion light years away, that star
would be long gone 'now' inasmuch as estimates
for the life of the sun is ~5 billion more years.

so, you'd be seeing a light artifact
of a sun which is not there anymore.

so, what you may conclude is that much
of what some people are seeing through

telescopes isn't -there- 'now' ...

one other little thing,

up to a point, it seems like
you are looking 'out there'

and up to a point, you may very
well be looking 'out there'

but at a certain point,

you have to be looking 'in there'

which is to say, you look
out to 'nearby' galaxy

and it is 'out there'

but, looking much farther 'out'

you flip around and are looking
-into- a more distant -past-

and, if you believe that
the material universe has
been expansive, then, in

the more distant -past-

you flip around and are looking -inwards-

as if you are on the crest of a wave that
is moving -away- from any possible
'central region'

in any attempt to visualize this, you should
-not- try to place the earth in the -center-
of the universe

after a point, the optical illusions take precedence
and -you- are on the -outer edge- looking -inward-

always remembering that you'd be looking
-inwards- to a past that isn't there anymore.

like you're in the outer edge crust
of pie that's been eaten, only you
seem to see a pie still there.

at least some of the pie is eaten already.

but you -seem- to be seeing the whole pie.

and you may -expect- that stuff in
the more remote -past- would appear
to be moving -faster-

and that it is this -outer edge earth-
that is, in fact, 'slowing down'

just as would be expected.

what may give you trouble is;

"why aren't we seeing the empty null region
outside of the universe if we are out along
the edge and not in the center?"

right, if 'we' really are more out along
the periphery of the material universe
and -not- in some central region which
may not even be 'there' anymore,

then, we are seeing the edge, and that is -us-
and we are also seeing some illusions which
have disappeared into time, and, any
'empty null region' wouldn't be 'visible'
to -us- anyway inasmuch as it has nothing
we can relate to with our instruments.

seeing, hearing etc.

but that's drifting off...

back to square one.

all that and, though the
'speed of light' may
be constant,

the velocity of light is not,
and, the interstellar miasma
is just that,

not a vacuum, but more like
a dirty swimming pool but that's
another difficulty entirely.

sort of







and then there's that 'torus' bit;

here look at this; this concerns the
notion that space is "shaped" and somewhat
contrary to intuitive assumption that
space is infinite, in this "model"
space is assumed to be finite.

but here's one of the things,

the shape some propose
is that of a "Torus"

mind you , I have a liking
for the potato chip saddle
shape, but just look at
the Torus first.

and then there's this, but it's unclear
as to what "shape of space" means in
this regard. unless you conclude that
what's "outside" of the universe doesn't
exist in the sense that you normally
reckon existance.



* * * * *
* * * * * * * * * *
* # *__* *__* *__* *__* *
* __ __ __ __ *
* * * * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * * * *
|S| * * * | |
|P| | |
|A| VOID | |
|C| | |
|E| * * * | |
* * * * * * * * * *
* *__* *__* *__* *__* *
* __ __ __ __ *
* * * * * * * * * # *
* * * * * * * * * *
* * * * *


alright, so this thing represents
the donut like torus "shaped" universe

and one reason I bring this up here is this;

you'd suggest that you take your
telescope and look out into space
and can "see" for 14 billion
light years,

<all discussion about red
shift aside at this moment>

ok, so, would you propose that you were
seeing the universe thru a tunnel?

or, is the consequence of your
14 billion years statement,

an end to end 28 billion
light year universe?

but then here's the
thing that is proposed,

that the universe is in the shape
of a torus, and the "central region"
is null, meaning not space at all.

one consequence is that you are
actually seeing light that comes
around the bends in the torus.

and what you perceive to be 14 billion
light years is much "closer" viewed
directly thru the central null region.

and then there's the notion of
ruffles in the fabris of space.

you seem to be positting that light
from the far reaches travels
pure linear paths.

and this ain't necessarily so,
not by a long shot.

but look up there at
the torus diagram,

and notice the # in the upper
left(UL) and lower right(LR) "corners"

/mind you, a torus is a donut shape/

but the "distance" between UL# and LR#

may appear to be 14 billion
light years when actually
they are no further than the
closest blobby neighbor.

because the null region in the
center in there and not there.

and the entire universe is "centered"
around a geometric "point"
in the null region.

it's not a center of gravity
nor a central point in space,

it's a center that lays
outside of the shape itself.

and even the universe as a
whole slowly spins on an axis.

and then you get in to the
notions of gentle heartbeat
reverberations of a dynamic
equilibrium.

not a total oscillation,
but teeny tiny echoes.

why am I saying this?

at this moment, in lieu of terminological
quibbling, I thought some further
background should be layed down.

oh, and another thing,

no one is seeing some great
wall of white light at the distance,
so, as of right now, while I don't have
trouble with its being discussed,
it is purely conjectural that there
ever "was" such a "white light"
plasma type blob.

but also, given the
view of space as finite,

and the initial blast opening up a spacial
cavern in some null and void "non-region"

one of the consequences of
*your* view is that a hugely
tremendous spacial cavern was
openned up and all the stuff
has been receding
_back_ from an initial
extreme dispersement.

which is not contradicted by
the assumed observation that
more distant 14 billion year
stuff is running away faster
than more near 4 light year stuff,

i.e., recession has slowed
to a trememndous degree.

which in my view is simply
an artifact of a non vacuous
spacial region, and torus
or bend space
RedFox
2007-07-28 03:55:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Timothy Sutter
Post by N***@no.spam
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
What's up with this kook?
Strange - liar-johnnie posted this same message -------
this one has the NNTP 216.8.14.43 which resolves to a Maryland
host.....
216.8.14.43 = [ reston-gnap-ip-216014-43.dynamic.ziplink.net ]
Could our little St. Porno be up to something else?
the other person x: no archived it
and i wanted to see that it was archived.
i didn't use that person's name, just the post itself.
you wanna come to d.c. and find out, i'll be happy to show you.
Heres an interesting coincidental post

Paper
J. Chem. Soc., Faraday Trans., 1993, 89, 495 - 502, DOI: 10.1039/FT9938900495


Dr Timothy Peter Georg Sutter PhD Chemistry 1992

Howard University

Washington DC

------------------------------------------------------------------------Steric
and inductive effects on the basicity of porphyrins and on the site of
protonation of porphyrin dianions: radiolytic reduction of porphyrins and
metalloporphyrins to chlorins or phlorins
Timothy P. G. Sutter, Rahmatollah Rahimi, Peter Hambright, Jerry C.
Bommer, Manmohan Kumar and Pedatsur Neta

------------------------------------------------------------------------A
series of sulfonated, water-soluble, phenyl-substituted porphyrins has
been prepared, containing halogen or alkyl groups in the ortho, di-ortho
or para positions. While the para-substituted compounds exhibited
monomer­dimer behaviour, all the ortho and di-ortho substituted porphyrins
were monomeric in aqueous solution at 0.1 mol dm­3 ionic strength. The
proton basicities varied over a 105 range along the series, from the
strongly basic tetra(4-methoxyphenyl) species to the weakly basic and less
deformable sulfonated tetrakis(2,6-dichlorophenyl) porphyrin. Certain of
these porphyrins and related metalloporphyrins were reduced by radiolytic
methods in aqueous solutions. Pulse radiolysis studies provided the
spectra of the short-lived -radical anions and -radiolysis led to
formation of stable chlorins or phlorins, the products of two-electron
reduction and protonation at the -pyrrole or at the meso position,
respectively. Whereas H2TPPS4[tetrakis(4-sulfonatophenyl)porphyrin] yields
phlorin at all pH values, ZnII-, AlIII-, lnIII- and SnIV-TPPS4 form
phlorins at high pH but mostly chlorins at lower pH. The ratio of phlorin
to chlorin production is enhanced by increased pH and by increased metal
electronegativity. 2,6-Disubstitution at the phenyl rings diminishes the
likelihood of phlorin formation while N-methyl substitution at one of the
central nitrogens of ZnTPPS4 enhances phlorin formation. These and other
results indicate that electron withdrawal from the porphyrin -system
enhances the ratio of phlorin/chlorin production. On the other hand,
steric crowding around the meso position retards protonation at this site
by preventing the geometric reorientation necessary for phlorin formation.
Timothy Sutter
2007-07-28 07:26:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by RedFox
Heres an interesting coincidental post
Paper
J. Chem. Soc., Faraday Trans., 1993, 89, 495 - 502, DOI: 10.1039/FT9938900495
Dr Timothy Peter Georg Sutter PhD Chemistry 1992
Howard University
Washington DC
superficial
--
http://timothysutter.usafreespace.com/
RedFox
2007-07-29 01:01:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Timothy Sutter
Post by RedFox
Heres an interesting coincidental post
Paper
10.1039/FT9938900495
Post by Timothy Sutter
Post by RedFox
Dr Timothy Peter Georg Sutter PhD Chemistry 1992
Howard University
Washington DC
superficial
Maybe
Timothy Sutter
2007-07-29 01:24:54 UTC
Permalink
clean your room


don't just run away from it and
leave all your mess for someone
else to clean up;

see, that's why you shouldn't jump
off a bridge, not for any other reason except
that some municipal employeee will have
to spray your insides off the concrete.

and they have to face the mess you
left behind and it's disheartening
to -them-

and then you end up your 'life'
the same way you tried to live it,

with you running away from your troubles
and someone else always there to clean
up your mess.

no, you're gunna have to get down
on the floor and pick thru all
the debris even if none of it
matters to you, some of it may
matter to someone else.

you can probably safely toss most
of the junk this world tried to feed you.

not much purpose in keeping
old issues of 'house beautiful'

cuz apparently, that didn't help too much.

oh, and take that science project over
in the corner and flush it down the
toilet and put the dishes
in the dishwasher.

nobody's ever gunna eat that
crud and it's attracting maggots.

you already lost your birth certificate
in all that debris, how it got on the
floor no one knows, and your beer can
'collection' is harboring drosophila,
the common everyday fruit fly, and'll
never likely pass for art -or- a science
project, so now no one knows who you
are -or- what you're doing here.

and even no one doesn't much care.

well, no one may care a little,
but seeing as how you don't come
equipped with your own personal rosetta stone,
not many people are gunna be able
to decipher that garbled string
that litters your doorway.

and nobody will look at that wilted
flower crushed in the pages of your
copy of the catcher in the rye and
consider that 'rosebud' meant anything
to anyone but another cabbie
who couldn't hack it.

maybe it -is- funny how everyone else
who walks into your life sees only
pristine security,

all i can do is offer you

a mop and a bucket.

like you needed -me- to tell you that.

you missed a spot.



Matthew 11:16-19

"But to what shall I liken this generation?
It is like children sitting in the marketplaces
and calling to their companions, and saying:

"We played the flute for you,
And you did not dance;
We mourned to you,
And you did not lament.'

For John came neither eating nor drinking,
and they say, "He has a demon.' The Son of Man
came eating and drinking, and they say,
"Look, a glutton and a wino, a friend
of tax collectors and sinners!'

But wisdom is justified by her children."



so, why don't you just let
Jesus clean your room up for you?

well, you never heard -me-
say that Jesus does parlor tricks.

you probably heard people suggest
that Jesus will -accept- you even
in the depths of your disgrace
and degradation.

but the first thing Jesus would
probably do is set out to convince
you that you weren't created
to wallow in your own blood.

probably wash out your personal image

and this would be your first little flash,

you looking around at your own dreary
little circumstance, and coming to the
sincere conclusion that you're gunna
wash out on your own, and i mean,
'wash out' on the program of life,
and -asking- Jesus for a hand.

in that little moment,

you realize, you ask,

you die, in Christ,

and -Jesus-

-in-

-you-



so, i bet i mentioned a few times how Israel
would fall away and run off in league with
'the nations' and find itself in trouble with
those same 'nations' that it went to for help
and alliance after YHWH had already expressed
a peculiar status for 'Her,' Israel.

and a few times, Israel did the old
sackcloth and ashes bit and turned
back to YHWH with all this weeping
and blah blah blah.

and then they'd get renewed, and then,
of course, they'd feel all happy and run
off and lay down with 'the nations'
again and basically say;

"we did it, we're so great,
there really is no YHWH anyway"


and this is exactly what there
is safeguard against in Christ.

Jesus will -not- be your fall back crutch
everytime you feel like you need a pep talk
and then when you're feeling all healthy
again, you look around and say;

"who's Jesus?"

like you pretend to be all broken hearted
and contrite when you get the short end of it,

and then Jesus is just gunna pump you up and
right away, you're off pickin' crack out of
the floor boards when you should be ridding
your house of the moldy bread crumbs lodged there.

this sort of behavior will erode
and choke off your Faith
in short order.

no, Jesus will never
leave you nor forsake you,

but -you- will end up presenting God
with a useless Faith that is grounded
in dead works and bears no fruit.

but not a soul has ever
'gotten away' with making
a fool of God.

don't ever suppose that you can curse the Ghost.

it's not a rigged game where God
gets kicks by watching you
mired in failure.

this is an aberration of thought.

but God will never be cheated.

the safeguard is, in part,
that there is no -peculiar-
"birthright" to indwelling
with the Holy Spirit.

the -peculiar- status of the Christian
comes from the wind that you don't know
where comes from but you understand its Presence.

you don't squirt out of your mother with this status.

and so, God owes -no- "peculiar" people
any sort of Holy Spirit guided attention
by virtue of their birth.

no.

whether God views Israel, whoever they may be,
with any sort of 'peculiar' gladness is not
relevant to the begettal from the Holy Spirit
though Faith and the shed blood of Christ
accepted in one's favor.

this we see in practice.

and nobody's insistance that salvation
is "for us alone" will change this and
force God's hand to show a benevolence
to a people who insist on slapping God's face.

and this sort of;

"God, i love you when i need you
but when i'm well you can take a hike"

attitude and behavior is just
as if you spit in Jesus' face.

and, while Jesus is kind,

the Ghost may leave a pile of ashes behind.

the Ghost is not one of your
'friends' whom you can view with
your usual utilitarian eye.

this is not fun and games and never will be.
and so, God owes -no- "peculiar" people
any sort of Holy Spirit guided attention
by virtue of their birth.
no.
whether God views Israel, whoever they may be,
with any sort of 'peculiar' gladness is not
relevant to the begettal from the Holy Spirit
though Faith and the shed blood of Christ
accepted in one's favor.
Jesus The Christ *IS* The Overcomer with God.

when you enter into Christ you become
an overcomer -because- of Christ.

you become Israelite by virtue of
your faith and are grafted
into God's Temple.

you are -not- grafted into
a birthright under Sinai.

just be somewhat clear on that.

you are grafted into the Promise.
this we see in practice.
yes, we see this in practice.

we don't -see- this because Timothy Sutter says so.

we -see- the Ghost falling upon all manner of people,
and falling not in regard to their birth status but
in regard to their faith.

and you enter in to the household of God.

but that entrance is a purely personal matter.

you certainly don't need -my- permission.

and as far as i see,

Jesus is still standing at the door.

and no other.

and Jesus is that reliable and worthy craftsman.

they can't walk you in thru
a wall of fire if nothing
will be left but a pile of ashes.

and what crosses thru is not your shiny diamonds.

specificity.
and nobody's insistance that salvation
is "for us alone" will change this and
force God's hand to show a benevolence
to a people who insist on slapping God's face.
Christ's safeguard
see, dear olde God looks
specifically for faith.

and dear olde God knows exactly
what it is that God is looking for.

it's impossible for anyone
to invent a pretend faith because
God plants Faith within you,
and -you're- the one who begins
to recognize a thing which had
been heretofore unknown to you.

and now God is looking for a multiplication
of that thing in you which you didn't even
know what it was two moments before.

God is looking for this very substantial,
very intimate, knowledge of God, thru faith.

and God knows that you know God
because God 'smells' your prayers
and thanksgiving.

God doesn't 'read' all that
fear and loathing that goes
on in your mind.

that's just jamming the signal.

God reads for that thing
in you which God put there.

if -you- quench it or dampen it
or extinguish it -by- your fear
and faithlessness exhibitted -by-
and -through- your loveless actions,
to yourself, God has nothing in
you with which to multiply.

that is, if your own view of your
circumstance chokes off the breath
to the fire, you are inhibitting
your own personal growth,



for someone who has -not- breathed in
God's Presence, the part of the persona
who -can- experience God thru Faith sees
loveless actions whether your conscious
understanding fails to recognize
them as such or not.

so, even if you purposefully pursue
the course of lovelessness you won't be
able to escape the effect those actions
have on your ability to realize faith.



and, in like manner, for a person who -has-
taken in the first flash of faith, a continued
pursuit of the unsubstantial air of lovelessness
will choke off the growth.

self condemnation we don't want.

self justification we don't want.

personal emulation of God's own Faith

we want.



so, back to Israel

what's the difference between the 'christian'
church, after the crucifixion resurrection
and the day of pentacost, and the Israelite
wanderers in the Sinai desert?

we claim both heard the words of Faith
and both received spiritual food from
'heaven' and both drank from the
Rock which is Christ.

so, why were the Israelite wanderers
seen as unfaithful and dropped in the desert?

one easy observation is that Moses alone
was filled with the Holy Spirit. and after
that, the 70, when Moses began to feel,
somewhat, overwhelmed.

but what about the
'early church'
-before- pentacost?

they were sitting around in the upper room
even after seeing Christ resurrected and
wondering aloud what they should do with
themselves in an apparent futility of purpose.

so, the two are somewhat alike,

the early 'church' -before- pentacost
was -like- the wanderers in the Sinai desert

and the church after pentacost
was -like- Moses and the 70.


but, why didn't YHWH just fill all
the wanderers in the desert with
the Holy Spirit and -give- -them-
the Faith that was necessary
to please God and not
drop like flies?


and, why doesn't God just fill all
who call upon Christ with super-abundant
Faith so as to remove all spiritual weakness?

why is it 'according to measure'?



in the former case, we may
conclude that God is, in part,

beginning to prove a point to the
"Heavenly Host" that is, those Spirit beings
which though Mighty, are not the Creator.

a point which reaches it's
conclusion in Christ and
the 'church'


the theme is that this thing is an entirely
supernatural event, from God and that the
hand of man is only instrumental in -receiving-
Divine Mercy and Benevolence.


part of what we may conclude is that
any 'wrath' and 'anger' poured out
upon Israel is simply a matter of form,

and no real hatred or detestation for
this segment of the human population
sometimes referred to as
'the apple of his eyes'

but, they are an 'apple' -because- of
the manifesting of a Presence using
God's own clay jars,

and not and never that these clay jars
are particularly more beautiful or Godly
or Godlike than any other segment
of the human population.


of course, it is God who makes
Israel and -NOT- Israel who makes God.


so, why the pro forma anger?


well, faithlessness is still displeasing
to God whether or not God is the
source of the Faith.


so Israel, in the desert and beyond,
is a direct witness to the supernatural
Hand of God,


and STILL, -they- pull back a withered hand.


Egypt and the surrounding nations were
dumbfounded by the Mighty work and feared Israel
-until- God stirred them up to smite Israel.

smiting Israel -because- they -saw- all
this in their midst, and STILL would
-not- see God in their midst.


so, does God say thank you?

thanks for being a stiffnecked people
and failing to see God in your midst
and being instrumental in this Divine Proof
of supernatural necessity?

no. the material is God's property

period


any -worse- than any other people?

no, certainly not.

just, in part, trapped in a drama
that is -not- their own Creation.


abandoned by God?

look dude, we're talking about God here.

The Faithful and True
The God of the All

disloyalty is _not_ -God's- failing.

but as it ever was intended,
entry into God's Household comes
by the Divine Hand and -not- by
human ingenuity.

and so, -others- are entering -before- you.

forgotten and forsaken?

obviously not.



why doesn't God just fill all
who call upon Christ with super-abundant
Faith so as to remove all spiritual weakness?

why is it 'according to measure'?


remember, we've all fallen into the
hands of the Almighty, which is
a terrifying thing.


there will never be any boasting against the Vine.

remembering that if God can pluck
out and sever off limbs of his
own cultivated olive and graft
in wild branches, God can, just
the same, pluck out those same
wild olve branches if they throw
up a stiff neck and become unfruitful.

and even pick up dead branches by
the side of the road and graft
-them- -back- into God's
own cultivated olive.


so, can man throw up a stiff
neck even against the Divine
Hand of Mercy?


fall away and lose faith even after
joining in Christ's crucifixion
and resurrection?


well remember,


God wants you to show your -own-
Love grown from the Divine Hand.

and God may pull back at times to -test-
the genuineness of -your- faith hope and love.

and we do believe that a person
can breath in God's Presence
for a moment and then heat from
the world can wither it
to the ground.

or be choked off by
the cares of this world.

or just be stolen
before it ever takes root.

God prizes that thing in you
which is The Image of God.

God cannot 'lose'

and God does not 'lose' to Time.

God puts it there by a Divine Hand,
but you still have to pick up
your mat and walk.

make 'it' your own.

make 'it' your own.

....etc



it's a Divine hand but
-you- are still important.

when you 'pray'

acknowledge the Divine Hand first,

-before- you start requesting
provision and protection.

God already knows you need all that stuff.

--

we all know the routine,

before the Passover,

-you- gotta get up and sweep
all the crap outa your house.

and if you like to see recursions

you get to play God in your
own little tent which is you.

just like when -you- enter
into a tent for Sukkot

God enters in to -you-

and God cleans -you- out
and -you- clean the tent out.

etc...
--
http://timothysutter.usafreespace.com/
john w <johnw@yahoo.com>
2007-07-27 07:37:58 UTC
Permalink
x-no-archive: yes
On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 14:29:56 +1000, ***@StJoseph.com (RedFox) wrote:
© 2007 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Post by RedFox
Hi
We are experiencing some problems with this particular Usenet troll
Anyone out there cast any light on what his game is and what is wrong with him
Regards
Who exactly is this troll "Redfox", who once went by the equally
ridiculous "Phar Lap?"

he's been dropping his drawers and squatting in the Baptist group for
half-a-dozen years (at least)

What's up with this kook?
who me?
2007-07-27 10:30:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
x-no-archive: yes
© 2007 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Post by RedFox
Hi
We are experiencing some problems with this particular Usenet troll
Anyone out there cast any light on what his game is and what is wrong with him
Regards
Who exactly is this troll "Redfox", who once went by the equally
ridiculous "Phar Lap?"
Dunno, don't know as, say opposed to you, one could ethically call him a
troll.
But I do know you have attempted to disrupt another thread.
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
he's been dropping his drawers and squatting in the Baptist group for
half-a-dozen years (at least)
As opposed to you, who has been shitting on the carpet since 96.
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
What's up with this kook?
I don't know, nor do I think I want to really know what is up with you.

The list would probably take up at least twelve pages.


Who, me?
N***@no.spam
2007-07-27 14:27:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
Who exactly is this troll "Redfox", who once went by the equally
ridiculous "Phar Lap?"
Why do you need to know, short bus? You can't handle everyday
information anyway.
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
he's been dropping his drawers and squatting in the Baptist group for
half-a-dozen years (at least)
More obsession with bowels and/or bowel function, I see-------
Finger painting again, are you?
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
What's up with this kook?
If ANYONE is a kook, it's you, weatherless.
john w <johnw@yahoo.com>
2007-07-27 22:54:53 UTC
Permalink
x-no-archive: yes
On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 10:27:44 -0400, ***@no.spam wrote:
© 2007 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Post by N***@no.spam
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
Who exactly is this troll "Redfox", who once went by the equally
ridiculous "Phar Lap?"
Why do you need to know, short bus?
Did you mutter something again, Insane Elaine?

Didn't think so!

:-)

john w
look here
2007-07-27 10:51:30 UTC
Permalink
One of the most famous passages in the Bible is the passage found in
Hebrews 11, which is used by many Christians, especially of the twenty
first century variety to define the word "faith"
The passage ­ which is generally taken out of its historical context reads
"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things
not seen"
however one translates it, the suggestion is
that such 'faith' is not 'blind' but that this
'faith' is a belief in what we -do- know
and have experience with.

we cite Abraham as having believed God.

we do not suggest that Abraham simply believed
that such a thing as God existsed, but that
Abraham had a direct relationship with this
God and believed what God transmitted to him.

so, your statements about how 'some' ancient
people viewed the world and universe is entirely
irrelevant to this experience based 'faith' in God.

and any way, even aristarchus showed that the
world was round and even correctly calculated
the distnace from something like alexandria to athens.

that the hebrews believe the world was
flat is purely conjecture on your part.
The passage later continues "Through faith we understand that the worlds
were framed by the words of God, so that things that are seen were not
made of things which do not appear"
and it makes perfect sense with what we
do know about the material universe.

that this material universe has a very
definite beginning and a beginning
from no visible source.

you will not be able to cite any accidental
triggering of this material universe from
no material source and so, the prospect of
a purposed event stands alone as valid.

in other words, modern 'cosmology' -must-
cite an 'unseen' source for all things seen.
As a definition of faith the concepts here are quite obviously defective
and belong to the lack of scientific knowledge of the world of two
thousand years ago, a world in which many people still believed the world
to be a flat disc around which the sun and indeed the entire Cosmos
revolved.
this is one greek view of the 'cosmos' so, the only
'defect' here is in your attributing this to the bible.

or even implying a connection.
The starry skies were seen as concentric layers with stars that
were quite close to the earth and the Heaven of God a place somewhere on
the outer fringe of those layers. All this was "spoken into existence" by
a lonely God.
in the absence of any possible accidental
triggering mechanism that you can cite,

a purposed event springs as valid, that manner
whereby conscious interference patterns are brought
about which would ignite such a genesis is perfectly
warranted as similar in many ways to speech patterns.
We now know that these concepts are incorrect.
according to your own statement, you know
-nothing- anbout the initiation of genesis
much less that vocal initiation is incorrect.
We know that the universe
is some ten billion years old, that it came into being through processes
yet to be understood that may or may not have required the intervention of
an omnipotent God,
what you may be certian of is that this material
universe has a very definite beginning and from
some source that you know nothing about.

that is, an immaterial source
for a material manifestation.

in the absence of any possible accidental
triggering that you will be able to cite,

a purposed event stands as valid.
and we know that the complex life forms that we know
today , including ourselves came into being through a process of evolution
that took place itself over billions of years from a base of simpler life
forms.
you knmow no such thing, this is
pure conjecture on your part.

even people who seriously believe in this do not
suggect that rodents became men in a billion years
but cite a much smaller time frame.

be that as it may, it's not the time
frame that is your major difficulty.
Faith in the terms of Hebrews Chapter 11 and therefore in the form
pressed on us by much of populist Christianity is simply wrong. It is
dysfunctional as a measure of reality
you do not support this properly.

you jump from a statement about 'faith' in hebrews 11
to a mismanged description of the natural world
both past and present, and claim that you can then
conclde that your mismanaged statement invalidates
hebrews 11, which it clearly does not.

hebrews 11 makes 'faith' -experience- based
which we will say that it is.

you claim that because you can -invent- a story
of origins that has no God that you have invalidated
this experiential 'faith' which you clearly have not.
Evolution, unlike religion does not address the question of the origin of
life.
ok, so you will be admitting that life as you
are able to describe it has no clear random
happenstance solution for its appearance.

whether yu admit it or not, it does not
have such a random happenstance appearance.
Evolution as a science analyses the processes whereby complex life
forms evolved from simpler life forms.
show me a mechanism right now that attempts to describe how
biological molecules write themselves into existance,
and then continue altering their forms in response
to environmental stressors that have not yet happened.
It does not seek to answer the
question of the origin of life.
'it' would if it could.
That is a matter it leaves to religion
and to other sciences such as chemistry and Physics.
none of this detracts from the
hebrews 11 description of 'faith'

you are just hand waving.

-if- chemistry and physics had an explanation
for the arrival of life on earh in a random
happenstance manner,

'evolutionists' would cite that.

-you- do not, because there is no
clear citation to make.

how this lack of evidence on -your- part
should translate in to suome disruption of
the hebrews 11 statement about 'faith' is
not credibly maintained.
One would hardly think so however with the rage directed against
scientific thinking and most especially against the fact of evolution by
modern "Christian" Fundamentalism, conservative traditionalism and
Creationism masquerading in all three cases, without real justification,
as mainstream Christianity.
if there be any 'rage' at all

it would be againts people holding up a clearly
preposturous claim as if it is the unquestionable reality.

-sceintists- should be at odds with this 'god-less myth'
simply because it is fatuous and unfounded.
What is particularly sad is that that this
rage echoes the rage of the sixteenth century papacy against the scientist
Galileo and his fellow academics who had had the audacity to reveal their
findings about the nature of the universe. The Catholic Church long ago
apologised for this error and was long ago forgiven for it..
of note is that Galileo was not arguing against
the christian worldview but against the ptolemaic
greek earth centered universe.

iof you are in a blur as to understand
why and how greek 'science' was being
supported by a politico-church
structure that claimed to be christian,

you should at least look into the aspects of
the roman church that as merely an emperors
wand declaring the old roman empire to be
christian, for political expediancy and
not for religious purposes.

do we fault roman christians?

no, we fault the roman imperial structure that
makes non-christians to be -called- christan
by virtue of imperial edicts.

your contentions are still in shortfall.
Faith is dependent on evidence.
exactly and that is what hebrews 11 states
and so, you -validate- hebrews 11.

hebrews 11 even -calls- this faith an evidence
and a substance and cites abraham as having
been faithful and if you look at genesis, abraham
was in direct communication with this God in whom
hebrews claims he had faith.
We teach our children this when we tell
them to be cautious about strangers,
to be careful about crossing roads,
to be careful near fire or near deep water. We tell them never to cross a
road without first looking in both directions and we tell them to remain
alert as they cross.. We tell them that the assurance that a stranger is
a safe person is not sufficient evidence to place absolute trust in them,
and we show them that fire can hurt and deep water can be dangerous. We
teach them not just through a demand to be obedient to us, but by showing
them the dangers and drawing their attention to examples.
that's nice, i'm glad for you.

how this invalidates hebrews 11
is known only to you.
A similar failure for much of modern Christianity to properly define basic
concepts comes with both the word "truth" and with the word "belief." A
distortion has taken place in defining these terms and that distortion has
serious consequences.
now, you're attacking more words.

ok, fine.
For example the word "truth" is derived from the German word "Treu" which
means loyalty. But the word truth has long since gained a far more
important meaning. Something is only regarded as a truth if it can be
evidenced in something more than just assertion. In other words claiming
something is true does not magically make it true, evidence is required.
Thus in science an assertion is regarded as a theory , a hypothesis or a
thesis until such time as evidence is provided of its validity. Then and
only then can it begin to be regarded as a truth or a fact, and even then
contrary evidence will reduce its status.
let's say 'Truth' is the way things are,

and 'truth' is the way you see things,

sometimes Truth and truth are worlds apart.

none of ths discrepancy aboyut the nature
of 'Truth' does anything to invalidate
a christian viewpoint.
Christianity has in recent years come to be far too much about an
antiquated concept of "faith". Within its boundaries truth and belief
have become matters of loyalty rather than of knowledge, reason ,
understanding, common sense and rational thought.
you haven't shown that this 'faith' as stated in
hebrews 11 or even the christan concepts of faith
alone is unmodern, antiquated nor invalid.

you try and tie it to your beliefs about
the physical reality and its origins and
say that because -your- 'truth'

is different from some ancient beliefs
that this invalidates 'faith.

it is not an effective statement on your part.
I was born In England into a Christian family in the immediate post war
years. My parents faith survived the war but not without the recognition
that blind faith and misplaced belief and loyalty had been the very
sources of the nightmare they and their continent had experienced. More
than sixty million dead, many millions exterminated in massacres and in
extermination camps and even their own bombed out church had taught them
that the psychic core of Nazism, loyalty based on emotion and prejudice,
and on unevidenced claims was evil
well, maybe you should mention that many americans
and the like who fought agianst nazism were christian.

are you trying to show that chistianity
is equivalent to nazism?

consider the pharissee/saducee wars,

was it wrong for one type of jew
to kill another type of jew?

can you now say that phariseeism is anti-jew?

well, they sought the extermination
of a particular variant of jew,

but they themselves claim to be jews.

how does that work?
Yet only sixty years after that war Christianity seems to be returning to
that stance. The process of conversion has all too often become one of
blind faith
and this is exactly what hebrews 11 is -not.

so, you invalidate your own thesis.
in a personal realisation identified incorrectly as a
spiritual experience emanating from outside the persons psyche followed by
loyalty to a system of belief to which one pays loyalty on the basis of
emotional feeling.
this is what you really mean to say,

not that hebrews 11 falsely describes faith
in a manner consistent with the christian ideals,

but that there is not God to have faith in,
and so, no matter what people describe as 'faith'

you claim that no such experience is possible
basd on -your- own personal lack of such an experience

and your intent to describe such experience as false.

-you- say;

"there is no God as outlined by christian ideals
and so, there can be no such thing as 'faith'
as described by those same christian ideals."

what you do not show is that no God as described
by christian ideals -can- exist and therefore,
your thesis should be taken as self evident.

you trick your own self more than you convince anyone else.
Nazism was frighteningly similar in nature. Hitler
was believed because he first created an emotional environment ­ often
called "mass hysteria" ­ and then took advantage of that suggestible
state. To those of us with long memories the rants of cultist pastors
look remarkably similar.
well, i see no hysteria here.

are you trying to incite hysteria?

why?
The extremists of the Fundamentalist fold would have us believe that the
earth was created in six days some six thousand years ago, that men
coexisted with dinosaurs (in one American museum a model dinosaur is even
displayed wearing a saddle) that the events of the first two books of the
Bible were historical events, that the Bible in fact is inerrant in its
historical claims and in fact contains the actual Words of God related by
inspired writers
carefully considered, -you- have
no real reason to say otherwise.

your statements are scattershot

and you may wish to start a further delineation
by carefully defining exaclt what a 'day' represents.

i don't need to say that the earth is 6000 years old
and i don't suggest that the bible or genesis
makes such a demand anyway.

maily you are dealing in straw men of your own devising.
Never to be questioned in their world view in particular are the
statements made in the New Testament. The Gospels are to be regarded as
the indisputable evidence of eye witnesses.
they describe themselves as eyewitness accounts.

your saying, 'no they aren't' is
insufficient to change this fact.
The Book of Revelation is to
be regarded as a prediction of the end of the world and Jesus is to be
regarded as having died for the sins of us all as a sacrifice to appease
the anger, not only of his own father but to another aspect , through
Trinity doctrine, of his own self.
well, now you've drifted further into
your own little world of device.

this statement of yours is not clear.

it sounds like you have an anger
against that which you do not understand.
The fact that large numbers of Christians do not adhere any longer to this
belief system is never revealed to most congregations. How many
Christians especially in the cultist groups realise that Christian
scholars and even Bishops have stood out against this world view? Spong
and Robinson are two obvious examples of such dissent
christians stand up and say that Jesus never lived?

if you say that a thousand times, it
still won't magicaly become the "Truth"

try harder.
When I pick up my newspaper, whichever paper it may be, I often find
myself confronted by a religious column. All too often I know that what
is said in these columns is simply inaccurate. So I ask myself the
question "If I, as a secular person were writing a "religious column" on
the basis of my childhood and adolescence within the Christian Church and
by knowledge and experience gained since, what truths would I seek to put
before my readers.? What knowledge would I seek to bring to them that the
church of my childhood concealed from me and that it continues to lie
about?"
why don't you try and edit your own diatribes first.
That
The very existence of Jesus of Nazareth is not evidenced in any convincing
fashion outside of the New Testament. References to Jesus at all are
almost completely non existent and also dubious.
well, the talmud suggests that such a person existed

albeit the talmud was written -after- the gospels
and probably written -by- roman philosophers to
placate a very small angry segment of
the jewish community.
There is no convincing evidence that any of the Gospels were written by
eyewitnesses to the events described within them. All of them are
apparently constructed to convey theological ideas relevant to the time
they were written and to the communities they were written in
the gospels claim to be eyewitness accounts.

all you have is 'no they aren't' as your main idea.

do you realize that there is no extant
copy of any work by plato or aristotle

and that the most ancient source on these
is well into the so-called christan era?

do you also suggest that no person named plato existed?

after all, we have no manuscript of this person's.

did Hillel exist?

we don't have any manuscript of his.

in fact, the talmud was compiled well after 200 a.d.

and has so -many- redactions and editions
that it is impossible to decipher

just what constitutes talmudic philosophy
inasmuch as outright contradictions exist
between several of the versions.
The consensus of almost all respected scholars is that no Gospel was
published before around 65AD., 30 years after Jesus¹s supposed execution
and after Paul¹s letters.
and, the watergate informant known as 'deep throat'
was not publicized until nearly 35 years
after the actual events.

no, you have no point.

there is always some time between
compilation and publication.

that and the early christians were subject
to attack and harassment just for being christians.
The Gospels attributed to Matthew and Luke are, like Mark, almost
certainly falsely so attributed and draw from the writers of Mark¹s
version. They do not consist of independent testimony.
this also supports that they are telling the same story.
The Gospel of John is ideological and theological in nature. Any dialogue
attributed to Jesus that only appears in John is almost certainly
fictitious. It is highly unlikely it was written by the disciple John ­
supposing him to have existed which is itself uncertain.
this sort of "reasoning" would tend to make the talmud
and the works of plato and aristotle fiction,
before they would make the gosples fiction.

you forget that the chistian ideal are -accompanied- -by-

an experiential relaltionsip with the
God who is so identified in its pages.

-you- have no such experience,

fine, speak for yourself.

but your lack of experience does -not-
translate to a positive statement by
you that no such events took place.
Jesus if he lived was executed at the behest of the Romans. The claim
that the Jewish authorities (the Sanhedrin) did not have the right to
sentence him to death is entirely fictitious, The sentence that could
have been imposed by the Sanhedrin for blasphemy was stoning to death.
Jesus was supposedly executed in the manner dictated for a person found
guilty of sedition against the Roman Occupation force. The Jews played no
part in his sentencing and execution. The Gospels lie on this point,
failing especially to point out that King Herod and the High Priest were
appointed and supported by the Romans
you have no idea -what- the sanhedrin was able to do
inasmuch as the talmud was compiled -after- the
known dates for the gospels.

the sanhedrin was under roman occupation, this is true.

and the romans were not at all indiscriminate
about what they would allow the indigenous
populations to carry out, and capital
executions are just such events that
would require roman oversight.
No complete Gospel text predates the Fourth Century. We do not know the
original wording and content of the originals. The Christmas story
including the claim as to Jesuses Virgin Birth especially seems to be a
later addition to the original text
no text of the talmud predates the claims of the gospels

they all come -after- the gospels.

-and- the year '0' A.D. did not even exist
until about the 15 century A.D.

meaning that '0' A.D. was -invented- well
-after- the inception of the gospels.

tell me if you will, why this
should be considered important.
No fragment of any Gospel exists that has been reasonably dated before
around 135AD, the earliest being the Ryland fragment which contains
fragments of a few verses of John. The dating remains contraversial in
that the fragment appears to be part of a codex(book) supposedly dating
from a time when scrolls would have been more normal. The Gospel are in
fact not even quoted or acknowledged to exist in contemporary documents
dated before the second half of the second century. The evidence to their
being written in present form before 150 AD is almost completely absent
most of the talmud was written down in the late fifteenth century.
the talmud didn't even exist as literature during the time of Christ.
The belief that Jesus died for our sins is part of a parcel of theology
referred to as Atonement or substitution theology. It is refuted by many
modern Christians and is no longer a fully accepted doctrine outside of
Catholicism and evangelicaland Birn Again cults
Jesus' atoning death like that of the
passover and day of atonement is central
to christian ideals.

that you consider this to be defunct
in christian circles is far from the Truth.

capital T.
A substantial body of scholarship attributes the majority of Christian
theology and even the biographical details of Jesus¹s life and
resurrection to the reformed former persecutor of the followers of Jesus,
Paul of Tarsus.
show me.
The true origins of the religion we may know as Christianity may well have
been in the area known as Asia Minor (Turkey)
no, it set out in Jerusalem.

amd basically predates the Sinai covenant
inasmuch as Abraham Isaac and Jacob were
smeared with the annointing of YHWH.
The religion of Paul and the Judaic religion followed by the earliest
followers of Jesus may well have had very little in common. In particular
the events of the Last supper including the Eucharist may well be
inventions made to justify Pauls teachings and have no basis in truth.
well, you aren't supporting your statements on 'faith'

which seemed to be your intent.

now you are just rambling.
A substantial body of scholarship sees Pauls claims of revelation to be
pure invention at best and fraud at worst intended to justify his claim of
apostleship.
and this scholarsip which takes place
2000 years after the fact should be considered
much more reliable than the statements made in
a comtemporary manner, according to you?

where we see Peter making mention
of Paul on very friendly terms.

2 Peter xx:xx.

Sylvanus was a steno.
The Bible contains no predictions reasonably attributed to Jesus. The New
Testament can be reasonably regarded as being deliberately written to
create this false impression. There are no genuine predictions of future
events
you'll have to specify what you mean here.
++++++++++++++++++++
What does all this mean for the modern world even for your own suburb. I
believe it means that it is time for religion to "get honest" ­ to stop
relying on unprovable assertions and threats that a soul unable to be
obedient to the nonsensical command to "choose to believe" is condemned to
eternal hellfire.
no, to those who have the experience with God thru Christ,

the very thing that you do not ruin, "faith"
is the provable attribute which we all walk after.

not a 'blind belief' in that which we do not know,

but a very real experience with the God who supports them.
It is time we stopped scaring our children and instead sought to recover
from our own religious trauma and from those who once spiritually abused
our trust
be more specific.
Remember the strangers we taught our children to be careful of and not to
trust. We now know that levels of sexual abuse from church members and
priests in the past were so high that much of the trust in them in the
past was misplaced. But sexual abuse and physical abuse were not the only
personal crimes committed, spiritual and educational abuse were even more
common
one thing you can be sure of is that -you- believe that there are
things in this world which are -wrong- no matter who does them.

-you- do -not- say;

"well everything is ok it just depends on
the situation and who is doing them"

no, you say;

There are thingsin this world that
are -wrong- no matter who does them.

i agree with you here.

some things are -wrong-

and not just a matter of personal viewpoint.
Fundamentalism, Creationism, traditionalism, and much of Born Again
evangelism are remnants of misplaced trust. For Christianity to move
forward ­ perhaps even to survive it needs to denounce more than just its
occasional sexual abuses. What it needs is radical reform based on a
willingness to honestly confront its own past and the dubious nature of
its origins. It needs to recognise that the Bible is a collection of very
human documents inspired only by ideas and not by some direct line to the
Holy Spirit. It needs, quite simply, to respect its own demands for
honesty and integrity and to recognise that applying even its own moral
standards it frequently fails
christianity has seen worse foes than
you and will likely see them again.

in fact, your scattersot approach is so poor,

that it only goes to show you as a poor scholar

and so, why should anyone lend credence to the
offhand statements made by such a lax
individual as yourself?
In conclusion to those who would say "Oh but Jesus said we must accept as
a child if we are to enter the Kingdom of Heaven, and that is what I do" I
would say "then listen to the words of my six year old son many years ago"
One day he told me "Dad I know what the Bible is" Knowing how many have
pondered these questions all their adult lives I was rather amused and
said "Well go on , tell me"
He replied with the very childhood simplicity we are told to exalt as an
example to ourselves as the right attitude to the Scriptures and to God,
"It¹s a book of laws with legends in it"
your child is parroting -your- sentiment.

nothing more.

you have tainted yur own child.

is this abusive?

or maybe in your mind you are simply handing
down the tradition inasmuch as it is obvious
that -you- have been -taught- to hate and
villify christians.
How right in this instance both he thirteen years ago and Jesus two
thousand years ago were. The child has spoken
your child is parrotting -you-.

still no 'childlike' statement.
It is indeed "a book of laws with legends in it," ancient laws and ancient
legends. It is nothing less and truly nothing more.
this is what -you- instilled in your child.
That which you BELIEVE that is within it, and that which you REJECT will
not decide how you spend eternity and the nature of the most important
matters in life ­
Matters of love and compassion of sharing and caring are not dependent on it.
unless and if the only Being who truly
knows what Love and sharing and caring -is-

is the God who does not live to
selfishly tend to God's own needs
-first-, and that this God may be drawn closer to
by some examination of these scriptures.
For these you must search within yourself as a functioning and reasoning
being. And having found them we need to learn to live and work together,
whatever ancient or modern beliefs we ascribe to. All of us at times fall
short of our responsibilities to each other. No religion cleanses us from
the effects of our errors and no-one really has the right to forgive a man
except his human victim.
so, you claim that mankind has errors which must be cleansed.

you don't say that mankind is ok just the way it is.

christians seem to suggest that God is the only
realiable Being who could execute such a cleaning
inasmuch as God is not sullied by any such uncleaness.
Maybe we could start by at least recognising that..
i recognize plenty.

you don't really support much of what yoyu state,

you simply toss a lot of accusations around as if
your believing them make them self evident to everyone else.
--
http://timothysutter.usafreespace.com/
RedFox
2007-07-28 02:52:12 UTC
Permalink
"LOOK HERE" is of course "Sutter the Nutter" trolling under a different
name in the same thread as he uses his own name

Watch for other simultaneously used aliases

This is an arch pest on Usenet
<~(Hey, WhaddyaKnow?JesusSaysI'mAWhosoeverToo!)~>
2007-07-28 03:02:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by RedFox
This is an arch pest on Usenet
I'm sure many here feel the same about you. What makes you think
you're any better than he is?
Timothy Sutter
2007-07-28 03:09:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by RedFox
"LOOK HERE" is of course "Sutter the Nutter" trolling under a different
name in the same thread as he uses his own name
i felt "look here" was sort of an instruction
for you to follow and not a name 'per se'
Post by RedFox
Watch for other simultaneously used aliases
i don't care how many names you call yourself.

you could call yourself "for pete's sake" for all i care.

you'd still be unable to actually
support any of your contentions.

you just like making them.

that's ok.
Post by RedFox
This is an arch pest on Usenet
this must be a disposable sock puppet you are wearing.

like i should care who you 'really' are.

an -empty- sock puppet.

you wear a mask with no face underneath.

so, you have no 'face' to lose.

but one of your masks is definitely

floating down the river.
--
http://timothysutter.usafreespace.com/
Timothy Sutter
2007-07-27 11:05:48 UTC
Permalink
i'm the nicest person in the world.

i mean, there are other 'nicest people,'

so, it need not be considered as categorical,

i am of the nicest people in the world,

i'm the nicest person in the world.


calm yourself.
--
http://timothysutter.usafreespace.com/
--
http://timothysutter.usafreespace.com/
Timothy Sutter
2007-07-27 11:28:21 UTC
Permalink
i haven't sung;

"""
row row row your boat,
row row row your boat,
gently down the stream,
gently down the stream,
merrily merrily merrily merrily
merrily merrily merrily merrily
life is but a dream
life is but a dream
"""


since i was in grade school though.
--
http://timothysutter.usafreespace.com/
Timothy Sutter
2007-07-27 11:30:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Timothy Sutter
i haven't sung;
"""
row row row your boat,
row row row your boat,
gently down the stream,
gently down the stream,
merrily merrily merrily merrily
merrily merrily merrily merrily
life is but a dream
life is but a dream
"""
since i was in grade school though.
and believe me,

it ain't easy to sing a round all by yourself.

but in grade school

the whole class sang it.
--
http://timothysutter.usafreespace.com/
Timothy Sutter
2007-07-27 11:37:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Timothy Sutter
Post by Timothy Sutter
i haven't sung;
"""
row row row your boat,
row row row your boat,
gently down the stream,
gently down the stream,
merrily merrily merrily merrily
merrily merrily merrily merrily
life is but a dream
life is but a dream
"""
since i was in grade school though.
and believe me,
it ain't easy to sing a round all by yourself.
but in grade school
the whole class sang it.
alice

if it's any consolation,

i was never happier
than when i was with you.

my life hasn't been all that easy.

thank God Jesus found me
--
http://timothysutter.usafreespace.com/
RedFox
2007-07-28 00:50:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Timothy Sutter
i'm the nicest person in the world.
i mean, there are other 'nicest people,'
so, it need not be considered as categorical,
i am of the nicest people in the world,
i'm the nicest person in the world.
calm yourself.
--
http://timothysutter.usafreespace.com/
--
http://timothysutter.usafreespace.com/
Post by Timothy Sutter
Post by N***@no.spam
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
What's up with this kook?
Strange - liar-johnnie posted this same message -------
this one has the NNTP 216.8.14.43 which resolves to a Maryland
host.....
216.8.14.43 = [ reston-gnap-ip-216014-43.dynamic.ziplink.net ]
Could our little St. Porno be up to something else?
the other person x: no archived it
and i wanted to see that it was archived.
i didn't use that person's name, just the post itself.
you wanna come to d.c. and find out, i'll be happy to show you.
Ah-- okay then, thanks!! :o)
I put nothing past liar-johnnie, but then, I should have known better-
he's not that bright. :o)
However

There is something seriously wrong here and it amounts to major Usenet
abuseand probably a need for compulsory medical intervention

He is obviously either a mischief maker or mentally ill probably both. I
have traced internet posts of his going back several years and there are
four bandwidth wasting newsgroups in his name in which he appears to be
the only major poster. In addition to posting and pestering a number of
Religious groups this troll also posts to forums and groups such as alt
discordia

Granted we may well be looking at severe schizophrenia (again) there are
disturbing parallels such as the one you pointed out

The bottom line is that people need to be alert to the fact that this man
is a troll who supposedly is around thirty five although that may also be
a blind

I note from other groups that he has come very close to be banned - and
indeed may have been by at least one earlier server

I think we must hope for the time being this particular pest simply gets
bored with wanking on this forum and simply goes away

Utherwise it is rather up to the Usenet ISPs whose bandwidth he is wasting
at a cost of around three dollars a Gigabite to sort him out.

Sutter in fact seems to be educationally barely literate. His pattern of
philosophical speculation and pseudo scientific meanderings are really
pure garbage that he has developed rather like a talking parrot over
several years of internet abuse

At his core I see him as extremely sick with a severe behavioural problem

I see NO intellect worthy of debate. Just a lonely failure wailing in the
cyber wilderness because he cannot cope with life - mpossibly drug damaged

Sad very sad indeed.

He needs - as dozens of people have said to him over the years medical
treatment and a life.

And in this - once again there are surpising parallels with three people
on this group from time to time

And wondering - is legitimate

I have wasted enought time on this already

regards.
Timothy Sutter
2007-07-28 03:23:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by RedFox
I have wasted enought time on this already
this is apparently not so.

as usual, you are in an argument with yourself.
--
http://timothysutter.usafreespace.com/
RedFox
2007-07-28 00:51:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Timothy Sutter
i'm the nicest person in the world.
i mean, there are other 'nicest people,'
so, it need not be considered as categorical,
i am of the nicest people in the world,
i'm the nicest person in the world.
calm yourself.
When you are put away where you belong the hundreds of people who you
appear to have pissed off will rejoice
Timothy Sutter
2007-07-28 01:41:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by RedFox
Post by Timothy Sutter
i'm the nicest person in the world.
i mean, there are other 'nicest people,'
so, it need not be considered as categorical,
i am of the nicest people in the world,
i'm the nicest person in the world.
calm yourself.
When you are put away where you belong the hundreds of people who you
appear to have pissed off will rejoice
you give every indication that
you don't like me very much.

the FBI likes me.

they must.

it only stands to reason,

i'm an american citizen.

of course, i can't expect that everyone will like me,

but, i'm really quite benign and benevolent.

who should care so much about me?

oh, Jesus cares about me.

[fixed width font]

perfect <---> Child of God ---> Tree of Life ---> Kingdom of God
human being ^
\ |
\ Child of God
\ ^
\ |
\ turn to Christ
\ ^
\ |
realization ---> personal works ---> failure
less than God \
\
\
Death


"Adam's" nature as a -flesh-
being was not flawed.

the forging of his -character- was sidetracked.

Christ's character, for all practical
purposes, -is- "The Tree of Life"

that -is- the character of God.

had Adam taken from that, they would
have entered onto the Kingdom of God.

so, when -we- 'eat' of Christ

we are grafted into that identification
with the character of Christ

while, as yet, our personal characters
may yet be in shortfall, and our physical
beings of lesser 'glory' that the
original creation of Adam.

but we are again called "Child of God"

and God sees our reconditioned and
perfected selves off in the distance
as a matter of fact.

we are declared righteous, and we walk
toward the reality of that declaration.

God see us -as- Jesus Christ

and transforms us back in to that persona
which we were meant to be from before creation.


God did not let "Adam" die and abolish "Man"
and then form a new man from the dust of the
ground and breathe the breath of life in to
a new creation 'starting all over from scratch,'
as it were, and hope that -this- 'new' "Adam"
did not make the same false move, but took
from the Tree of Life instead.

didn't do that.

God perpetuated Adam's life thru childbirth.

and thru Jesus, repaired "Adam".

but Jesus is still a -little- bit different.
different from Adam and different from Adam's
progeny. much like Adam and much like Adam's
progeny, but a -little- bit different.

but also, _God_ didn't do anything wrong.

it wasn't God's fault that "Adam"
grabbed from that false intention.

and so, if God wiped out Adam and
started all over from scratch, one
may conclude that, somehow, God had
done something wrong of which God
intended to fix, 'the next time'

and like some of us can see and agree,
this is no "trial and error" experiment.

so, it's not -just- that God
addressed the problem, as it lay,
and worked out this Salvation,

but that Man's error was not God's error.


the Love which is God
is True Light and the
only source of Life.


"Adam" was formed by God and
God breathed the breath of life
into "Adam's" nostrils.

when Adam broke faith with God
he lost the vital connection to God
which was perpetuating his life.

like a lightbulb in a lamp provides no
light when unplugged from the wall socket.

there is no choosing involved here,

unplug the lamp, no light.

unplug from God, no life.

although this happens very fast
in our little likeness, when
you unplug a lamp from the wall
socket, the light remains on for
a fraction of a second as it 'turns off'

if you could take a high speed
film of it and slow it down a bit
you'd see the light slowly turn
off after the lamp was unplugged.

so, like that, human beings don't
just drop to the ground immediately
when they are unplugged from God.

at any rate, this is WHY Jesus.

WHY the blood

WHY the Cross

we all became/become unplugged from God

in short;
God lives as eternal Spirit, God is Life.
God forms the man, adam, from the earth.
God makes the man to continue to live thru God's Life.
God says to man, don't do this or you will die.
man does this, becomes detached from God, and dies.

God, perpetuates the man's natural
physical material existance thru childbirth.

we are all born as children of the man, adam.
we were not newly -formed- from the earth,
we are -born- of the flesh.

so, we 'inherit' the man's material physical life.

but we also, 'inherit' the
man's physical mortallity.

that is, we inherit death from adam.

"Adam and Eve" were enabled to pass
on that temporary life to the flesh
thru conception and child birth.

so, -we- get -that- temporary light of life
from our parents and ostensibly from "Adam"

God the eternal Spirit, takes on the flesh
material physical nature and dies a
physical death

as a substitute for our
eternal spiritual death.

the eternal Spirit experienced a physical
death as substitution for the material
being experiencing eternal spiritual death.

by and thru this substitution, the human
being becomes re-attached to the Life which
is the eternal Spirit which is God thru an
identification with this human being who
was God in the flesh material being.

we are now identified with Jesus Christ
and we re-inherit our lives from God.

now, human beings can enter into
the resurrection of Christ by personal
identification with Christ -as-
son of adam, the man.

in essence, -that-
set of actions
-by- God

conception-life-crucifixion
blood spillage-burial
and resurrection

make it possible for GOD
to plug -us- back in to Life.

it -is- an action of Love provided
by God to plug us back in while
we were yet dead.
--
http://timothysutter.usafreespace.com/
Robibnikoff
2007-07-27 12:59:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by RedFox
Hi
We are experiencing some problems with this particular Usenet troll
Anyone out there cast any light on what his game is and what is wrong with him
Ask him about the "Triforce" ;)
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
BAAWA Knight!
#1557
Loading...