http://www.nnseek.com/e/talk.religion.course-miracle/ Posts for talk.religion.course-miracle Fri, 26 Jan 2007 12:37:18 PST http://www.nnseek.com/ http://www.nnseek.com/img/64.png 64 64 NNSeek http://www.nnseek.com/e/talk.religion.course-miracle/i_ve_made_up_all_of_it_13820552t.html http://www.nnseek.com/e/talk.religion.course-miracle/i_ve_made_up_all_of_it_13820552t.html yahoo.com> schreef in bericht news:1169763728.568517.119780@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > > On Jan 25, 2:11 pm, "Pieter" wrote: >> "ellie" yahoo.com> schreef in >> berichtnews:1169757960.230494.13990@a34g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... >> > Awareness IS. It is not a something. It is both everything and >> > nothing. In Its nothingness, everything is included. >> Listen what the Course says >> on nothing and everything: >> >> "Two concepts which CANNOT coexist >> are nothing and everything. To whatever >> extent one is believed in, the other HAS >> BEEN abolished. Fear is really nothing >> and love is everything. Whenever light >> penetrates darkness, the darkness is >> abolished." (T-2.VII.5:1-4.) > > This is talking about something entirely different. Please explain; thanks in advance! >> >> Nor to the question what the place >> >> of Love [the nature of which is >> >> extension] is in "Awareness". >> >> > Pure Awareness is Love extending ItSelf. >> In my grasp I cannot (maybe: not yet?) see >> "Awareness" as "Love extending ItSelf". >> - What about the reality of the extension? >> >> The sentence: >> "You don't awaken, what has >> eternally been awake realizes itself" >> imo denies the idea of the Course >> of our going, or coming, Home. > > Pieter, what I've posted is not a teaching. It is someone's attempt to > put into words the universal experience the Course is pointing to imo. Great! Please keep trying now and then! Though words always fail in expressing it, they still can point to it in a maybe helpful way. > It is not about concepts. One either relates to it or they don't. Yes. > > ellie >

Posted In: talk.religion.course-miracle

no comments

Reply

]]> Fri, 26 Jan 2007 12:37:18 PST http://www.nnseek.com/e/talk.religion.course-miracle/hate_crimes_was_re_an_open_message_to_katie_dean_13817736t.html http://www.nnseek.com/e/talk.religion.course-miracle/hate_crimes_was_re_an_open_message_to_katie_dean_13817736t.html aol.com> wrote: > Doug:I suppose the bottom line is that while some of us might not be overly > fearful of someone slagging us, many other people ARE and these criminal > harassment campaigns do chase them away, and we all lose from that. > > sv: yes, I do agree with that. sheryl I'm interested in what you mean by criminal harrassment campaigns, and WHO do you see being in them? If I were to try and figure this out, like who is doing what and might be driving people away (not responding from love, not showing what ACIM teaches, etc) I would probablly come up with different names than you. And others might, also. So, who is right in this? What is the point of seeing criminal harrassment campaigns (which implies plotting and planning and purposely writing something from that, when it could be just the person writing what THEY (personally) think, feel and believe about it) anyway? I could say how does seeing some like as part of criminal harrassment campaings fit with what ACIM says? But, some take this as personal criticism and attack. Or your book, for that matter? Or you tape on LOVE where you advise someone "if you don't see someone else as kind, loving, etc pretend you do and come from that" (paraphrased from memory)? I'm also wondering what is "criminal"? I've already decided if someone believes someone else here is legitamitely threatening them or doing/planning to do them some harm, why would they keep writing here and antognizing the person they see that way? Can people be harrassed if they don't give attention to the person (s) they see as harrassing them? Questions and comments for possible discussion. > > "Doug Thompson" wrote in messagenews:x7OdnTz3zeo-EijYnZ2dnUVZ_oqmnZ2d@golden.net... > > > > > > > "SMV" aol.com> wrote in message > >news:51ld6nF1l2jopU1@mid.individual.net... > >> personally i think that if one were really doing a search on the internet > >> before hiring someone, katie's posts totally speak for themselves. I > >> feel that I've done way too much inner and outer work to be fearful that > >> someone like that on the internet can ruin me. What we buy into becomes > >> True in our lives. And don't get me wrong, what katie does here is > >> potentially damaging,, however, I choose to trust in God's plan and not > >> hers. Sheryl > > > I completely agree Sheryl but ... that's a bit like saying you can > > probably survive being murdered. I'm sure you can. I also believe that > > many people, if they found the criminal libel posted by certain > > individuals, would be able to tell they were dealing with a smear campaign > > ... but I also know that some would not be so discerning and might never > > read past the subject line and might just think "hmmm, this person seems > > rather controversial ..." and move on to the next. > > > Short of a double blind survey study, there's really no way to know. > > There is no way for an individual to know WHY s/he didn't get the job or > > that prospective client went elsewhere. Often there may be many reasons, > > but libel on the Internet is increasingly one of them and is a growing > > concern for legislators. Libel in other environments can usually be dealt > > with by criminal and civil law but when it spans international borders on > > the net it becomes very difficult to apply criminal law to it, and some > > people know that very well and take full, criminal advantage of it. > > > I suppose the bottom line is that while some of us might not be overly > > fearful of someone slagging us, many other people ARE and these criminal > > harassment campaigns do chase them away, and we all lose from that. > > > This is the main reason why I remind people: "Don't feed the trolls!" > > They can do damage "in time" and the most effective way to "de-fang" them > > is to not take the bait! > > > --- > > Doug Thompson > > dthomp74@hotmail. (dot) com > >http://ca.geocities.com/dthomp74ca > >http://www.execulink.com/~dmaltman/ACIM- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -

Posted In: talk.religion.course-miracle

no comments

Reply

]]> Fri, 26 Jan 2007 12:17:29 PST http://www.nnseek.com/e/talk.religion.course-miracle/for_the_newbee_13815688t.html http://www.nnseek.com/e/talk.religion.course-miracle/for_the_newbee_13815688t.html yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1169838537.230006.145020@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com... > > > On Jan 26, 10:45 am, "Carrie" kingcon.com> wrote: >> "ellie" yahoo.com> wrote in >> messagenews:1169836601.442432.105420@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > On Jan 26, 10:24 am, "Carrie" kingcon.com> wrote: >> >> "ellie" yahoo.com> wrote in >> >> messagenews:1169835468.156687.103380@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> > On Jan 26, 9:45 am, "Carrie" kingcon.com> wrote: >> >> >> "ellie" yahoo.com> wrote in >> >> >> messagenews:1169831842.400742.270560@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> > On Jan 26, 6:38 am, "Carrie" kingcon.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> "ellie" yahoo.com> wrote in >> >> >> >> messagenews:1169749013.409934.84230@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> >> > Hi Tami, >> >> >> >> >> > I wrote this in the newbee thread but think that it might be >> >> >> >> > missed >> >> >> >> > in >> >> >> >> > all the other messages in the thread. >> >> >> >> >> > I'd like to suggest you try the Yahoo group Course Talk. The >> >> >> >> > focus >> >> >> >> > there is on ACIM. It's a good place for a beginner to start >> >> >> >> > imo. >> >> >> >> > Here >> >> >> >> >> > is a link .... >> >> >> >> >> >http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Course_Talk/What'swrong with >> >> >> >> >Tami, >> >> >> >> >or >> >> >> >> >any newbie learning about the course on this >> >> >> >> newsgroup? >> >> >> >> >> She obviously found it. The course says nobody comes into our >> >> >> >> lives >> >> >> >> by >> >> >> >> accident and we're all teachers to/for each other. >> >> >> >> >> If she was Guided to find this group, why send her elsewhere? >> >> >> >> > In the world of "if" the possibilities are endless. >> >> >> >> >> Unless you're saying you were Guided to do this (LOL) >> >> >> >> > I was. >> >> >> >> >> You are seeing her as needed the security and "safety" of the >> >> >> >> moderated >> >> >> >> Course_Talk group, like she can't handle an unmoderated open >> >> >> >> newsgroup, >> >> >> >> where she might have a chance to come to her own conclusions and >> >> >> >> learn >> >> >> >> her >> >> >> >> own lessons in her own way? >> >> >> >> > Are you saying your guidance told you how I am seeing her? >> >> >> >> > ellie Not anymore than any one is Guided as to how they write or >> >> >> > respond on a >> >> >> discussion group, when something is presented as a topic or >> >> >> possible >> >> >> topic >> >> >> for discussion. >> >> >> >> Just pointing out that this ng, itself isn't all that bad to >> >> >> learn >> >> >> about >> >> >> ACIM on. >> >> >> >> You are the one one who first told me about it and helped me set >> >> >> it >> >> >> up >> >> >> the first time. >> >> >> > I'm asking you if the HS told you that ellie is seeing Tami as >> >> > needing >> >> > security and saftey. Did the HS tell you that? I don't know. >> >> >> I wrote what came to me, and didn't ask for ID >> >> >> It could have been the devil. >> >> > Okay. >> > The reason I asked was because you told me how I was seeing her and >> > what my motives were in posting the C_T information. Glad we cleared >> > it up. :) I think you missed the question marks. >> >> I was asking you questions, relating it to the course and possible >> course >> discussion. I reread it and checked. >> >> But you seeing it as me telling you how you were seeing it and what >> your motives were is okay, too. >> >> Whatever you want to see it as. > > You're right, I did miss the question marks. I apologize. > I probably shouldn't have asked, and just left it alone. I get involved in "possible discussion" and sometimes it gets taken wrong. Like writing further or asking about a tropic that is written about on and to the group. I've asked about this further and been told it's none of my business. Aside from you and I and what I asked not being seen (at first) how I meant it, seems like any thing written about on an open group like this would be okay to ask or comment or "discuss" further, wouldn't you think? What is mind your own business (in response to something written, stated as fact or written in what might be a confusing way) on this ng, for all to read and what isn't? Seems like anything personal would be written, well to the person (in private). It's like when I've asked someone "how does this relate to ACIM?" because I'm really wondering, and I'm told I attack people. Online discussion groups, at leas ACIM and spiritual themed ones, sure aren't what my idea of discussion is. That's how it seems to me anyway.

Posted In: talk.religion.course-miracle

no comments

Reply

]]> Fri, 26 Jan 2007 12:07:46 PST http://www.nnseek.com/e/talk.religion.course-miracle/hate_crimes_13815176t.html http://www.nnseek.com/e/talk.religion.course-miracle/hate_crimes_13815176t.html gmail.com> wrote: > >Carmen wrote: > >> And it showed me how, depending on how much work each one has done in >> clearing OR obstructing their connection to that "internal compass," >> the ability to detect the "b.s." in any environment either gets better >> or more impaired. > >I would love to think that when I detect BS I am showing how closely I >listen to the Holy Spirit, but I have to suspect a lot of it boils down >to reasoning on the ego level. Reasoning on the ego level is what tells us it will profit us to lie... iow, accept less than the *whole* truth from ourselves OR others. If there's one thing my experiences have shown me, dear Gene, it's that you can have the BEST reasoning ability that the ego's world can offer and still be ENTIRELY wrong and off the mark (consistently). No one has the ability to know ALL the facts in any matter - but the One Mind *always* does. And now I trust in that (instead of in little me ;-). >> ACIM calls that piece of "equipment" the Holy Spirit or the Vision of >> Christ. >> >> And the more in touch with It we become, the more clearly and quickly >> we can discern any deception from the truth. > >I always liked this line in Tolkien where Eomer, one of the riders of >Rohan, says that becuase the riders are not in the habit of lying they >are good at detecting those who lie. There was a bit of irony in this, >in that Wormtongue had the King fooled Tolkien, imho, used the king as an example of what happens to insecure people - they will turn to any "magic" that they think will make them "worthy." And so I think the king was easily fooled because he couldn't tell who really loved him (his family) because he didn't really love himself. What we do unto others *is* done to us AND vice versa. (What we do to ourselves, we do to others.) >--but of course, not Eomer, and >not most Rohirrim, hence his nickname. And I do think that when it >comes to spiritual teachings at least, there's such a thing as >sensativity to a false note which can prevent all kinds of follies. When we "block" our mind's extension beyond the body, ACIM, says it's in the belief that we CAN pick and choose what we would share with others. That's the very BASIS of the separation - it affirms it in our minds and makes it REAL (for the time being ;-) And the more consistently we withhold what is true in us, the greater will be the block TO truth in us. And that block DOES shut us off from others, but more importantly, from the One Mind (where the utlimate truth resides (can't take the little truths? then reistance to the Great Truth is really HIGH). I have long-since taken the following quote VERY seriously and have found that it's really helpful in every transaction I have with others: "... in private thoughts, KNOWN ONLY TO YOURSELF, you think you find a way to keep what you would HAVE alone, and share what YOU would share. >>>And then you wonder why it is that you are not in full communication with those around you<<<, >>>and with God<<<, Who surrounds ALL of you together." T-15.IV.7.4-5 When we choose to withhold the truth from either ourselves or others, we create a barrier to communication - we have *attacked* our oneness by that withholding - and BECAUSE we do not allow the truth in us to "go out," the truth that is in others *cannot* make it "in." BUT clean up our own deceits and get into integrity, internally, then others find it *far* more difficult to be successful in any attempts to be out of integrity with us *because* our blocks against the truth are coming down! It's really just that simple, imho. And, most importantly, my experience is telling me it's true. (And so I deeply, truly believe that Eomer was right. ;-) >On some level those who become entangled in spiritual deception must >have sought that, I suspect. Not just in those deceptions related to the insubstantial, hon. ACIM says, imho, that your suspicion is totally correct, but all-inclusively. Only those who WANT to be deceived CAN be (T-14.I.5). And I believe that would indicate it's true regarding *whatever* arena in one's mind one has chosen to HOLD deceit. And that's a GREAT learning tool, once recognized, don't you think? That those areas where we are easily deceived are the areas where we're BEING deceitful, however UNconscious we may be about the fact that we're doing it? That would REALLY be a proof that, not only can our mental darknesses NOT be hidden, but that there's EVERY reason (even in the world) to identify them and root them OUT. (Talk about a motivator! lol :-) And I take great comfort in that understanding as I muddle along on my own journey of identifying those areas where I'm blocking the truth within myself... Sorry to take so long in responding, hon. (It's been *very* busy in my world. :-) Love you, always, Carmen

Posted In: talk.religion.course-miracle

no comments

Reply

]]> Fri, 26 Jan 2007 12:03:46 PST http://www.nnseek.com/e/talk.religion.course-miracle/order_is_heaven_s_first_law_13814920t.html http://www.nnseek.com/e/talk.religion.course-miracle/order_is_heaven_s_first_law_13814920t.html lycos.com> schreef in bericht news:cs-dneAy0_nisyTYnZ2dnUVZ_sSmnZ2d@comcast.com... >> "gig" lycos.com> schreef in bericht >> news:c-GdnUZPE6aaQSrYnZ2dnUVZ_tKjnZ2d@comcast.com... >>> "Pieter" wrote in message >>> news:45b75b84$0$15543$bf4948fe@news.tele2.nl... >>>> >>>> "gig" lycos.com> schreef in bericht >>>> news:Y62dnbQEH6TjGCvYnZ2dnUVZ_oCmnZ2d@comcast.com... >>>>> "Pieter" wrote in message >>>>> news:45b67e91$0$502$bf4948fe@news.tele2.nl... >>>>>> >>>>>> "gig" lycos.com> schreef in bericht >>>>>> news:Pp-dnWdHq5QMiSjYnZ2dnUVZ_qOpnZ2d@comcast.com... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "Bad behavior can be forgiven, but the behavior must change, else >>>>>>> bad behavior becomes acceptable, undermining all that forms the >>>>>>> foundation for civilization and social harmony, not to mention >>>>>>> improved interpersonal relationships." >>>>>> >>>>>> Behavior is not cause; >>>>>> it is an *effect*. >>>>>> Cause is at the mind level. >>>>>> >>>>>> ACIM T-2.VI.3:4-7: >>>>>> "You must change your mind, not your behavior, >>>>>> and this *is* a matter of willingness. You do not >>>>>> need guidance except at the mind level. Correction >>>>>> belongs only at the level where change is possible. >>>>>> Change does not mean anything at the symptom level, >>>>>> where it cannot work." >>>>>> >>>>>> T-4.IV.2:1: >>>>>> "I have said that you cannot change your mind by >>>>>> changing your behavior, but I have also said, and >>>>>> many times, that you *can* change your mind." >>>>> >>>>> Sure, Pieter, no arguments here. I don't see anything that contradicts >>>>> the original paragraph though. There may be a lot in between not >>>>> mentioned, but I don't see the original idea disagreeing with anything >>>>> you posted below it. >>>> >>>> The cause of the behavior must be >>>> changed; the cause is in the mind. >>>> Changing symptoms is but >>>> a temporary, not a real, solution. >>> >>> I agree, but the original message is not saying, nor even inferring, >>> that >>> changing symptoms is the solution. I think you're reading that into it. >>> It's merely stating what I think is the obvious. Let's break it down... >>> >>> "Bad behavior can be forgiven...", >>> >>> Do you agree or disagree? >> >> I agree. >> >>> I know you would agree. :-) >> >> Correct! >> >>> "...but the behavior must change, >> >> The *cause* of the behavior must change, >> or there *is* no change. > > This is obvious, since the two are linked together and cannot be separate. > > "Without a cause there can be no effects, and yet without effects there is > no cause. A cause is MADE by its effects; the Father is a father by His > Son. > Effects do not create their cause, but they establish its causation." > > So in truth, calling for an end to bad behavior (effect) is in essence, > calling for an end of the erroneous thinking (cause) that gets expressed > as > bad behavior. To believe it could be any different is just more erroneous > thinking. The quote you cite below pretty much confirms this. "...You > CANNOT separate yourself from the truth by "giving" autonomy to > behavior." T-2.VI.2:2-8. Yet this is exactly what you are doing by > claiming the original quote is saying that you can. It's not making this > claim. It appears as though you are though. By seeing it there. Else why > the objection? > >>> else bad behavior becomes acceptable..." >> >> Only for the ego, which is destructive by definition. > > Yes, but if we accept it, we side with the ego. > >>> Agree or disagree? >> >> I had to break it down. :-) >> >>> Yes, it's true there is no mention of exactly *how* to do this >>> "changing" >>> (that is a different subject altogether), yet the statement in itself >>> can >>> be either accepted or rejected. >> >> Here an ego addition had to creep in >> to justify making the statement. :-) >> Bad behavior of course must be *stopped*: >> we cannot freely let a murderer murder, >> that is quite clear. Nevertheless is change >> *only* possible at the mind level. If fellow >> human beings do not succeed in giving >> sanity back to the murderer, then he will >> have to be kept apart from society. >> (Mere punishment with 10 or 20 years >> of solitary confinement has *nothing* to do >> with healing, or "changing his behavior".) >> >>> If something remains unchanged, I think it's safe to say it becomes >>> *accepted* (considered or held as true), else it would not remain >>> unchanged. Yes, there are underlying erroneous beliefs/ideas that we may >>> or may not be fully aware of that cause it, but ultimately, we are >>> responsible for it's presence. And we either accept it or not, >>> individually and collectively. >> >> Here the following passage of the Course is relevant: >> >> "You would not excuse insane behavior on your part >> by saying you could not help it. Why should you condone >> insane thinking? There is a confusion here that you would >> do well to look at clearly. You may believe that you are >> responsible for what you do, but not for what you think. >> The truth is that you are responsible for what you think, >> because it is only at this level that you can exercise choice. >> What you do comes from what you think. You cannot >> separate yourself from the truth by "giving" autonomy >> to behavior." T-2.VI.2:2-8. >> >>> "...undermining all that forms the foundation for civilization and >>> social >>> harmony, not to mention improved interpersonal relationships." >>> >>> Agree or disagree? >> >> The foundation for civilization and social harmony >> is: following the lead of the Holy Spirit, >> and as a consequence relinquishing the ego. >> >>> Seems obvious these would be the results if bad behavior became the norm >>> (acceptable) in society, no? There would be complete chaos if we as a >>> civilization accepted bad behavior. >>> >>> So yes, there can be no argument that the mind is the cause, but I also >>> don't think there can be any argument that any errors of that mind >>> should >>> be accepted. >> >> Errors of the mind are not behavior; >> they just are darkness, which >> results in maladjusted behavior. > > Again, the two cannot be separated. The mind (cause) does not operate in a > vacuum without behavior (effect). Errors of the mind result in bad > behavior, > so in essence, the two are one. > >> Don't give autonomy to the behavior, > > As the quote (T-2.VI.2:2-8) you mentioned above says, this is IMPOSSIBLE > to do and calling for a change in behavior does not make it so. It IS > possible though to call for a change in behavior and be fully aware of > what > that change entails. In fact, that is the ONLY possibility. Assuming it > isn't is to assume the impossible. > >> but let the light shine away the darkness in the mind. > > Amen. > >> Maladjusted behavior of someone is >> a sign that his mind must be healed; >> the darkness in it dissolved. > > Agreed. And part of this healing process is letting the mind know what is > behaviorally unacceptable, thereby giving it the opportunity to change at > the CAUSAL level. If an error is not seen, i.e. "NO light allowed to > shine on the darkness", it can't be corrected. So in saying, "Bad behavior > must change", we must be calling for the mind to look at the cause and > change. It's all one process. Cause and effect are ONE and can't be > separated, but nowhere in the original statement was it claimed they could > be. If you see it there, you must have put it there. Why? > >

Posted In: talk.religion.course-miracle

no comments

Reply

]]> Fri, 26 Jan 2007 12:00:11 PST http://www.nnseek.com/e/talk.religion.course-miracle/nancy_lorieau_alleged_channel_for_jesus_on_lying_and_13672072t.html http://www.nnseek.com/e/talk.religion.course-miracle/nancy_lorieau_alleged_channel_for_jesus_on_lying_and_13672072t.html wrote in message news:1169229922.149784.17700@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com... > > Carrie, I've been following this thread, but > I don't understand your perspective that > lying and pretending is honest. I do get the > example that each of us is responding the > way we feel we need to, though. So you're saying that you feel you NEED to claim to channel Jesus, but provide none of the information that "he" shares with you to the general public? Maybe it's only provided for the Special People? Or maybe you're Just Pretending?

Posted In: talk.religion.course-miracle

no comments

Reply

]]> Fri, 19 Jan 2007 20:05:45 PST http://www.nnseek.com/e/talk.religion.course-miracle/maz_answering_your_post_13671304t.html http://www.nnseek.com/e/talk.religion.course-miracle/maz_answering_your_post_13671304t.html hotmai.com> wrote in message news:roOdnR8yRcsA1yzYRVnyjAA@fiberworld.nl... > heybiddhi, just a quick one, > > thanks for the reply but its all scrambled > on my screen, so i need 2give it more attention 2morrow.... > >> Just for the record, and for the sake of honesty, how many private >> e-mails do you and others exchange discussing this ng? > > I know of a maximum of maybe 4 or 5 per year, quite accidentally, > and none of it structurally. > >> Is there a >> behaind the scenes agenda? > > Not that I know of. > and i wouldn't want to be part of such, btw. > > see you soon, > > namazt

Posted In: talk.religion.course-miracle

no comments

Reply

]]> Fri, 19 Jan 2007 19:27:06 PST http://www.nnseek.com/e/talk.religion.course-miracle/maz_answering_your_post_13671048t.html http://www.nnseek.com/e/talk.religion.course-miracle/maz_answering_your_post_13671048t.html gmail.com> wrote in message news:1169242955.615345.202270@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com... > Your above comment reminds me of Eddie Haskell in Leave it to Beaver. > He really charmed the old ladies and acted like the perfect > gentleman when he was after something, but when they turned their > backs, he was an instigator and manipulator of the naive and gullible. OMG! You are too funny for words! I was just scanning along and came across this one and had to comment! The Beav was so profound on so many levels! Eddie Haskell was like a gift from the Oracle...shades of things to come!! Thanks for yet another amazing moment!!

Posted In: talk.religion.course-miracle

1 Comment

Reply

]]> Fri, 19 Jan 2007 19:22:10 PST http://www.nnseek.com/e/talk.religion.course-miracle/what_does_it_mean_to_co_create_with_god_13670536t.html http://www.nnseek.com/e/talk.religion.course-miracle/what_does_it_mean_to_co_create_with_god_13670536t.html gmail.com> wrote in message news:1169153965.455935.127770@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com... > AKA: > You haven't stimulated any thoughts in me ... only frustration and > disappointment and a laugh at your sense of humor every now and then. > > bidhati: > It's good that you have a sense of humor. Rarely does anyone get > Katie's wit I know, and that's why I love ya good buddy, and the belly laughs we can so easily share!! Woooo wooooo!!

Posted In: talk.religion.course-miracle

no comments

Reply

]]> Fri, 19 Jan 2007 19:17:22 PST http://www.nnseek.com/e/talk.religion.course-miracle/carrie_maz_wrote_how_can_anyone_be_anything_but_open_13667720t.html http://www.nnseek.com/e/talk.religion.course-miracle/carrie_maz_wrote_how_can_anyone_be_anything_but_open_13667720t.html > maz wrote: > How can anyone be anything BUT open and honest? > > That's simple. Narrowminded, closed and looped thinking > is not open. Disinformation games and untruth is dishonest. > I thought you had figured this one out already. >> And who decides what this is in someone else? You do all the time, remember? > Of course, you seeing me the way you do (disinformation games, untruth, troll enabler, etc) is how you honestly think and feel and see it. I just don't see how you would think I'd be interested in being any kind of friends with someone who writes to and about me the way you do.< " I don't think God cares if people use him in their lies." ~ Carrie Starchild > >> Even if they feel > need to lie and pretend that is still being honest.<< > > Carrie's Chaos 101-- lol. > Yup, really funny, isn't it? I write how I honestly think, feel and believe and you make fun of me and make me into a joke. How you need to be to feel better about yourself or something?< " I don't think God cares if people use him in their lies." ~ Carrie Starchild > I wouldn't want to go anywhere near you, and your baby bottom biting wife- who believes in teaching people with pain and making them pay for being who they are.< " I don't think God cares if people use him in their lies." ~ Carrie Starchild > > namazt

Posted In: talk.religion.course-miracle

no comments

Reply

]]> Fri, 19 Jan 2007 09:26:49 PST