|
|
 Up |
  |
Author: CarrieCarrie
Date: Jan 7, 2007 19:05
mr bill wrote:
> lol
>
I remember seeing something about this during the campaign, but it
always seemed like well... "something that got dug up during a
campaign".
|
| Show full article (1.48Kb) |
|
| |
no comments
|
|
|
Author: SMVSMV
Date: Jan 7, 2007 18:19
hey doug, I have a 3d file on some of your great posts,, but lost my on line
files, and one of the ones I'd like a copy of is the Brillant post of yours
on the 3 levels of the "world" as the course describes it. thanks! sheryl
"Doug Thompson" wrote in message
news:aqednctcMvCVEz3YnZ2dnUVZ_vKunZ2d@golden.net...>
>
> "Lee" <4given@ innocent.com> wrote in message
> news:Qb2dncLVO7Ja0QLYnZ2dnUVZ_sapnZ2d@giganews...
|
| Show full article (3.49Kb) |
|
| |
no comments
|
|
|
|
|
|
Author: LeeLee
Date: Jan 7, 2007 15:55
~Deborah hotmail.com> wrote:> Doug Thompson wrote:
>> Unfortunately this episode, entitled "While You Were OUT", first
>> broadcast last April, does not appear to be available except on CD.
>> CBC has only recently begun to make past shows available on the net,
>> and they're still a long way from making everything available. For
>> years they've been making them available on tape or as transcripts,
>> but at a rather steep price.
>
> note the name of the fellow I made mention of in an earlier post, is
> "Jeff Warren".
>
> ~Deborah
|
| |
|
no comments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Linda LLinda L
Date: Jan 7, 2007 14:29
Nancy, I just read over your post again and wanted to address this -- hope
you don't mind that I take things in bits and pieces!
> When the course says that purification
> is necessary, it's just referring to the
> fact that, when we're in the grip of the
> ego, we aren't in the present, so we
> aren't accessible to the HS, so mira-
> cles are not possible.
>
> Nancy
Yet again, what about others who may be "in the grip of ego" receiving
miracles?
> Ok, this sounds pretty much like what ellie has put forth in her comments.
> Again, what about the receiver, who may not know about holy instants?
|
| Show full article (1.12Kb) |
|
no comments
|
|
|
Author: ellieellie
Date: Jan 7, 2007 14:22
I went to see Good Shepherd, The yesterday, which re-ignited my curiosity
and interest in the Yale secret society Skull and Bones. Growing up in New
Haven, Ct. it was impossible that Yale University not be a part of my
influences, the windowless sandstone structure of Skull and Bones always a
source of wonderment and speculation. And I always wondered why there
weren't more Americans who found it upsetting that the Bush/Kerry
presidential election came down to a race between 2 "Bonesmen". Anyway,
since we sometimes discuss politics on this site I thought I'd post a couple
of things that I think speaks to the real sources of power in the USA and
more likely, the world.
This was a fascinating article in all it's parts:
http://www.meta-religion.com/Secret_societies/Groups/Order_of_Skull/part_1.htm
This an interesting video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MmX3k9csflg&NR
ellie
|
| |
|
2 Comments |
|
|
Author: SMVSMV
Date: Jan 7, 2007 14:08
heh heh, only check this out if you're a book lover like me. Added a blog
for best books of 2005 -- don't know if I'll be enterprising or let's face
it, procrastinating enough to go back to other years! haha -- several
questions from others provided an impetus to add info and expand my "best
ever" list as I originally wrote that off the top of my head. anyhoo,
enjoy and happy reading: http://www.sherylvalentineblogspot.com/
|
| |
|
no comments
|
|
|
|
|
Author: PieterPieter
Date: Jan 7, 2007 13:24
"maz" hotmai.com> schreef in bericht
news:-NSdncEU2_u6YD3YnZ2dnUVZ8taknZ2d@fiberworld.nl...>> First of all, believers and semi believers are not always discussing
>> the course. There are some who have continually stayed busy name
>> calling, and making non believers into trolls, crack whores, militant
>> atheist, disrupters, and the like.
>
> pieter: "Those are people who, although they
> embrace ACIM, have not yet a clear idea
> of what it means to really follow it."
>
> Pieter, again I think you are far off the mark
> with that reply to a stated untruth. What you don't
> get is that the argument is completely bogus.
|
| Show full article (1.98Kb) |
|
no comments
|
|
|
|
|
