tiny moon...
Timothy Sutter
any electrostatic interaction/s
will be buried under the much
larger gravitational forces.
if you shrink the earth and moon
to very tiny proportions,
there comes some point when
the gravitational forces
are somewhat comparable to
the electrostatic interactions.
at this point, the gravtitational forces
would be so small and not enough to hold
the earth and moon in orbit about each other,
and the tendency would be for the
moon to fly away from the earth
sort of like, if you had a ball on
a string and were spinning it
around your finger,
and, if you cut the string,
the ball would go flying off away from you.
but now, with the really
very tiny moon and earth
with a gravitational force that
would tend towards them flying apart,
the electorstatic interaction starts
to play a significant role
and the two bodies, with nearly
equal and opposite charges
are being held together by this force, while
at the same time, trying to fly apart from
each other because the gravity is very
weakly unable to hold them together,
but, the two bodies do not simply become
glued together and form a de facto single body,
because, in this dimensional range,
the two forces, gravity and
electrostatic interactions
are so ideally matched
that, the flying apart
and the attracting together
are bound up in a "harmonic oscillation"
sort of like the electrostatic interaction
constitutes what amounts to a tiny spring
string which holds the two together even
as they would be flying apart.
and the two oscillate with "harmonics"
very much like the "harmonics"
of musical instrumentation.
the "music of the spheres,"
as it were.
one thing of note
is that this specific interaction
is so very specific
that it -can't- "evolve"
there is no gradualism possible here,
it's either this, very specific dynamic interplay,
or nothing at all,
and i mean, NO thing at all.
it's not at all like, gravity and electromagnetism
-can- gradually arrive at these
specific dimensional qualities.
and without the stuff being there,
there is no fact of gravity
and electromagnetism to begin,
anything.
but even if one were to suggest that gravity
and electromagnetism could both be slightly
different quantitatively and still give
us -a- material universe,
there is no opportunity for this to happen from the onset.
from the onset, it's either this or nothing.
more than just a coincidence....[?]
it's like, -before- _their_ beginning,
they =already= have peculiar values.
so, to suggest that the universe evolves
when the entire structual backing of the
universe does not evolve may be
unlearned and speculative.
Timothy Sutter
the only possible replica of nothing is nothing,
and, nothing can do nothing and only nothing is.
in order for something to be,
something always is.
what is
the original something
the original indivisible entirety
that which is
activity potential
something can happen
something does something
something happens
if nothing is nothing is done
something that is is something that does
is does
something does something to something
nothing else is
that can do something
to something
is does
is acts on is
is is not acted upon
because nothing else is
how is does is known to is
this is who is is
the one who knows
is is is
something that is is something
that can be doing something
something that is is something that
can be making something happen.
and there is the origin
the beginning
and the end of all regression
The Origin
Is Is
The Primary Source
Is aware
Timothy Sutter
postulating God is perfectly reasonable.
the material universe is not infinitely old
the material universe has a beginning
unreasonable to assume that the smallest
volume of the universe is finite and non-zero.
zero volume completely removes any
possibility of harmonic oscillation
from matter.
now, show yourself that there
is no tuning fork to -induce-
a vibration in anything
else anywhere.
now, what made the material universe ignite?
no accidental ignition is possible.
no accidental ignition is possible.
no accidental ignition is possible.
there simply is no trigger.
and there is your absolute necessity
for a Creative Personality.
genesis can -not- be an accident.
and that which you can see now,
was brought into being by this
Creative Personality which
you can not see.
otherwise, the material universe
never ignites, it remains static.
The Creator Made the material universe happen.
it's that simple.
this is -reasonable-
and that's all that matters.
it is -reasonable-
Timothy Sutter
the course of these next
several sentences.
if you have a bowling ball and
you stick the bowling ball in
a cardboard box in which
a refrigerator came,
then you could say that you know
where the bowling ball is, only
that you don't know exactly where it is,
because you just know that it's
in the cardboard box somewhere.
it's in there somewhere, and given that
you left a lot of packing material in the box,
the ball may not be on the bottom of
the box, but could be anywhere in the box.
it's in there somewhere.
now, you leave the room,
if you feel like it,
but you don't have to,
and someone else comes in and takes
the ball out of the refrigerator box,
and sets it into a color television box.
now, you come back and look at the new box,
and you can say that you know the ball is
in that box somewhere,
and, seeing that the box is smaller,
your knowledge of where the ball is
is a little bit clearer,
but, it's still in there somewhere.
now, your assistant takes the ball
and places it into a small green
trash bag that -just- fits over
the ball, and now, you can prwactically
see the shape of the ball,
and you can say that you know
fairly well where the ball is,
it's right there in the bag.
the container -just- fits over it.
now you start working with
much smaller objects, and
what you find eventually,
is that you cannot make container
small enough for you to have as
clear an image of where the ball
is as you had with the bowling
ball in the trash bag.
this because the stuff you have
to work with to make a box for
your object, itself -contains-
the objects you are trying to observe.
the stuff you have for making containers
has an inherent spacial void which
cannot be overcome by your ingenuities.
so, for these tiny objects,
within their own tiny little containers,
you basically get back to a bowling
ball in a cardboard refrigerator box
and find that the best you can say is;
"it's in there somewhere"
always realizing that the container
is a bit larger that the object,
-but- you can get a fairly, not
so bad, idea of where the refrigerator box is,
or, in this case, the single 'atom' of tungsten.
so, you know where the little particle is.
for all practical purposes,
it's in the little box somewhere.
and you pretty much know where the little box is.
a bowling ball you can hold in your hand.
an electron is already in your hand.
whether there actually is such
an object as an electron, inasmuch
as you can't see it, is moot,
some set of phenomena,
taken together and looked
at independantly, seem to
behave as if such a thing
as an electron does,
in fact, exist.
it's somewhere in the box
and the box is right there.
> and you pretty much know where the little box is.
or, like a bowling ball in a baseball stadium.
and this bowling ball is self propelled
and spinning around the stadium.
you know exactly where the baseball stadium is.
and the bowling ball in there
somewhere,
spinning around.
and, we don't -have- to say
that the baseball stadium
is the size of the perceived universe,
and that the bowling ball is -just-
"somewhere in the universe"
cuz then, of course, we'd be entirely sure,
but we can be quite sure even in baseball stadiums
that are -much- smaller that the perceived universe
and even say that in a baseball stadium
the size os a small glass of water,
there is a clear certainty that -many-
electrons are contained therein.
for a fact.
and believe it or not, we can reduce
the size of that baseball stadium
even further, and know that
some phenomenon
which could be likened to
a spinning bowling ball,
is definitely in there.
see, a snowflake
is your baseball stadium
and you can be sure that there are
quite a lot of many bowling balls
in that baseball stadium
because that baseball stadiam is,
itself, -constructed of things that
behave just like tiny spinning
bowling balls.
Timothy Sutter
encased in an -intrinsic- spacial void which
buffers it's intrusion by any other partical
which prevents such a particle
from being further reduced,
a fundamental irreducible partical
so, two dots screaming towards each other
can -not- crash because of these -intrinsic-
spacial voids which tends to push each other
'out of the way,' as it were,but, there are
levels of spacial energetics much like the
energy levels of the 'hydrogenlike'
electron energy states.
and when and if these spacial void levels
are energetically favorable, you get
mixing of spacial regions which allow
a 'coagulation' of sorts and the
formation of the larger, so called 'atoms'
but these were already set at time of manufacturing.
there's a bunch of other stuff
like the concious awareness of
the supra-universal intender
-who- is able to -direct- the
apparent motivity of such
seemingly massless particals -by- a -real-
form of psychokinetic interactivities.
and that's what the governors protect
until such time as we can be fully trusted
to move mountains by force of will.
only the human being is already blessed with trust.
but our eyesight can still get in the way
and block us from our useful comprehensibility.
these little fish sleep in a pool until
they are interactivated by conscious awareness
which acts upon them and brings them into being
inasmuch as they were unrecognizable as
being until they were motivated to swim.
which is the other wierd thing;
ask, "who knew 'they' were "there""
who could possibly know things that
have no being as they sleep were anywhere
when no spacial orientation had yet
been given real formulation?
the One who -can- see things that
"be not as though they be"
and no thing else.
no other being could have known.
'they' weren't even there until acted
upon by the Knowing Being of all Creativity.
very strange,
when asleep,
they do not exist in a real sense,
but when activated by conscious intent,
they appear.
and the Rest is future history
too many strange things...
God knows what Rest is
what would you call a massless object
that is not in motion?
'nothing' ??
right, -you- would call that 'nothing'
but it really may be some thing,
only most any observer would have
no means to detect it
it has no mass
it has no motion
it may as well not be there at all
and yet, it is
it gains these things;
mass and motion
when the time is right
well, that was not entirely correct
inasmuch as we have no time to speak of
as long as 'it' has no mass and no motion.
"what do yo mean massless?"
exactly that,
it matters little if 'it' has any substance
what matters is that 'mass' is a comparitive attribute.
and as long as 'it' is =completely= 'at rest'
there is no possible comparison.
and so, the curtain is down.
but when the still small voices whisper in Unison;
"Be Light"
"Be Light"
then,
there IS Light
of course, IT always was
only only THEY could know IT
that's where the 'divine power' resides.
way more than simply watts.
Timothy Sutter
"knowledge" one may possess is
in the form of:
"empirical sense perception memory impressions"
that's it, that's your knowledge,
that's all you can ever know.
memories of objects you have seen,
heard, smelled, tasted and or touched.
all we claim is that the Holy Spirit
leaves a memory impression but, itself,
clicks no dials on any interferometer.
backtrack for a moment to the nature
of language and knowledge dissemination.
basically, all linguistic
efforts by man are of
this form;
you have a sensory stimulus,
and you have a verbal utterance.
you a take verbal utterance
and arbitrarily attach it
to a sensory stimulus.
that is, a set of persons 'agrees'
that the vocalized effort, "bloo" shall
be attached to the sensory stimuli of
of what they see when they stare up
at the midday sky on a clear day.
so, now, when they are removed from the
sensory stimulus, they can relate the
persistent memories of that stimulus
to each other -without- the sensory
stimulus being present.
that is, they can speak of their memories
of the midday sky, at nighttime, and amongst
people of the grouping that have seen the
midday sky, and have agreed that that
stimulus shall be referred to as "bloo"
this communication effort falls
apart for people outside of the group.
that is, some other group may have attached
the verbal utterance "bloo" to the smell of
garlic and when you utter "bloo" to them,
it triggers a different archived memory impression.
fine, language is somewhat arbitrary,
screams of pain being fairly universal.
when describing things you sense with
the five, you always use similarities
to others things impressed upon you
by the big 5.
language itself is something of a circular argument.
at the foundation of all of your linguistics
is that things are defined by what they are.
"This Thing Is What It Is"
language is a brute force, mechanical, device, at best.
don't let -it- abuse -you-
use -it- with care.
"sweet potatoes are orange"
what is "orange"?
"orange is the color of sweet potatoes"
it's all mostly an arbitrary assignment.
there's no fundamental reason why
"sweet potatoes" and "orange"
should be tossed together.
they are just tags for memory impression triggers.
anyway, back to the Holy Spirit,
by the very nature of the experience,
attaching vocal utterance to it presents
some clear difficulties.
to what shall one 'liken' the memory
impression of a stimulus that clicks
no dials on any interferometer?
we suggest that God resembles a "Rock"
in what way does God resembles a "Rock"?
the -type- of memory impression
that you gain when you inspect some
artifact as 'concrete' as a rock,
is left behind by the Holy Spirit.
you distance yourself from a rock that
you have inspected, you carry a memory
impression of that rock with you
wherever you go.
you meet Jesus thru the Holy Spirit
and you carry away a definite
memory impression that Lives.
one minor difference,
your memory of a granite stone is static,
and your memory of Christ thru the
Holy Spirit is dynamic.
you don't 'see' God with your eyes,
but your mind is impressed with
a Living memory.
that's the closest i can put the experience
into words that you may have some sort of
common experience with which to compare.
now, i've already gone to some lengths
to acquaint you with the non-atomic universe.
so, you are -not- free to tell me
that i am remembering things
that have no existance.
because we've already shown you that
the things which you -do- see and hear
and taste and feel and smell, by necessity,
emanated from some 'thing' that you
can -not- likewise experience.
that is, all citations of genesis from
singularity reduce to a severe acknowledgement
of a 'physically unknowable' 'non-atomic' world.
that is, a world that can -not- be visited with
the empirical sensory apparatus is absolutely
necessitated by genesis from singularity.
the only thing left is to check and test
that -my- empirical sensory apparatus is
functioning properly.
which i do on a regular basis and can
rest assured that my apparatus is
suffering from -no- organic damage.
i do not receive persistent memory impressions
of artifacts that i have -not- experienced.
and the memory impressions left by artifacts
that i am experiencing well reflect the
acknowledgement of standard by concensus.
that is, if i tell you
that the sky is blue and
has some clouds,
when i fully describe that experience,
anyone in the set of people who use the
same vocal utterance will be able to
recognize my description as
'correct' by 'agreement'.
the best a 'non-believer' can say with regards
to God is that they have -not- the same
experience, and therefore they do -not-
comprehend even my very best linguistic
efforts at description.
what they can -not- even -suggest- is
that what i am experiencing is a phantom.
there should be enough here that i don't
need to reprise the details as to why
such a proclamation is unfounded.
# my Salvation is not just
# a "new" "personal ideology."
# i'm sure i've mentioned the direct
# memory impressions left by the unseen.
Timothy Sutter
and things of that nature, is pointing you -at-
the way to -experience- God, so that -you- can get your
own experience of that thing which -we- already have.
almost exactly as if we said, "drop a ball
from the tower of Pisa and measure the time
it takes to fall" and then lead you through
a methodology where you will be able to more
fully describe that phenomenon known as
the gravitational force.
or simply, "look over there and see what we see"
you don't see and don't know until you look and see.
the -proof- is when -you- see
and not when we -tell- you to look.
so, what exactly do you remember about God?
what exactly -can- you remember about God?
it would have to be something like;
"-OBJECT X- tastes like tomato sauce"
but see, that statement only is
meaningful to someone else who
has had tomato sauce.
you want to describe a thing that
"tastes like tomato sauce" to someone
who has never had tomato sauce.
and so you go searching for things
-like- tomato sauce that the other
person or persons have experienced.
but, for people who have had
tomato sauce, you just say,
"it's like tomato sauce"
and immediately, a stored impression
rises in to conscious memory and they
realize what you -mean-.
which is why, for so many people who
have experienced God, their 'mission'
in life is to get you to open up a can
of tomato sauce and taste it for yourself.
so you can see what they see.
and the tremendous difficulty
of suggesting that "tomato sauce
tastes -like- sweet and salty
vinegar" would be diverted,
seeing as how we will soon discover
that many many things "taste -like-
sweet salty vinegar" -and- "sweet and
salty vinegar" doesn't even begin to
fully describe what tomato sauce
actually tastes like.
sort of like "cut out the middle
man and go right to the source"
because we will describe a thing to
those who have not experienced God as;
"a conscious -living- memory of
a personality we have never seen"
-not- "a concious memory of
a person we have never met"
but to what do -we- ourselves compare
this "God" to? that is, what about us
-is- there that -can- receive a
communion with God?
and that is our own transient likeness
of God which we call -our- "spirit"
but we might also suggest that that
"spirit" is encapsulated in our Faith.
and also, that that Faith is a Gift from God.
almost like the chopped chicken livers bit.
where you cook the chicken livers
and drive out all the waters from
them, and then add chicken fat to
that to reintroduce moisture.
stop laughing, i'm serious.
well, you can laugh, but i
-am- serious, nonetheless.
the tightrope walk here is that
for all practical purposes, your
"spirit" is quickened or made alive
at the same time that you meet God
thru the auspices of God's own Spirit
or that which we refer to as "The Holy Spirit"
and your "spirit" is simultaneously
made alive from obscurity and taken
off to 'sit' at the right hand of God
in likeness to Christ, the Holy Spirit
re-invests your body with Its Life and
more slowly begins to reintroduce this
newly made alive "spirit" back into
fidelity with your conscious memory.
or, in other words, your "spirit" lays dormant,
your conscious memory receives a message of faith,
God awakens your dormant "spirit" and takes it
to God leaving a seal of that Faith on your
conscious memory which lives and grows.
and this Faith transforms your conscious
memory into the likeness of God as your
"spirit" grows in communion with God
and the one overshadows the other.
i bet there's multiple dozens of ways to say this.
just remember, "spirit" is just a word
and we're edging towards specifying some
identifying characteristic -of- God and how
-you-, a human being, can accept and
appreciate this thing, this "deo-mimetic",
so as to truly experience and appreciate
your -own- unique identification,
and not some exploded distortion
of the existing conditions.
so, don't get too strung out on thinking
that your "spirit" is what makes you alive
and if your spirit leaves you you'll die
and you're not dead so your "spirit"
must be alive.
obviously, the -word- "spirit" can
be used to trigger several different
memory impressions.
and we're not speaking here of
the physical emulation of life.
we're speaking of that Life which God is.
and nudging towards how -you-, a human,
physical, living creature can share in
that Life which -is- God.
a Life that knows no bounds.
spirit is just a word until
it is more than just a word.
don't kid yourself to be stylish.
that's just another snare.
if i didn't get to the point,
i meant to, and perhaps i'll
try again.
Q: how many Angels can dance
on the head of a pin?
A: all of them.
there, _that's_ the point.
they -all- can do it.
all kidding aside;
i'd like to make it shorter,
but it is somewhat complex.
describe exactly an onion.
your really are left saying things like;
"an onion smells like an onion"
the thing describes itself.
so, if you want to explain onion-ness
to someone who has never seen an onion,
your only resort is to get an onion
and place it before them.
but your flesh is a filter to
the understanding of the onion.
your flesh only allows you to
comprehend things about the onion
that correspond to its sensory
apparatus.
so, you don't get a complete
understanding of the onion by
using your eyes and nose
and tongue.
you get this filtered image of an onion.
the fact that God is not grasped thru
the filter of the flesh is actually an
asset towards a more thorough understanding
and comprehension of the thing itself.
that is, you get a direct impression
unfiltered by finite sensory appartus.
now your only problem is how to
place God before yourself so that
you can grasp an impression.
so, what exactly do you remember about God?
what exactly -can- you remember about God?
"a conscious -living- memory of
a personality we have never seen"
and that's part of the thing;
you -could- say that such a situation
relegates this sort of knowledge of God
to come exclusively -from- "the other side"
that is to say that no amount of man's
desire to find out or wanting to know
would achieve -this- knowledge of God:
that it would -have to- be a knowledge
that came -from- God -to- man.
that would be barring all personal
opinions on the nature of God's
creation and man's world.
"honeysuckle is sweet,
therefore God is nice"
"children dieing of starvation is
difficult to bear, therefore God
is uncaring"
this sort of 'knowledge' is pure surmise
and such without all the actual facts.
like, "he eat's onions, he has
bad breath, therefore onions
are bad because they cause
bad breath"
you haven't even properly concluded
that onions caused bad breath much
less the broad leap that onions are
bad because of this thing.
You need Jesus Christ to 'see' God,
it's not -my- invention it's
God's own providence.
that's the way God made and outlined
for human beings to commune with God.
there is no other way to see salvation.
you can style your hair as many
different ways as you like.
good morning.
Timothy Sutter
comes -from- God -to- man
is a personal witness by God.
within limits so as to
encourage personal growth.
so, the primary approach will have to be
that someone tells you that God is there.
but we maintain that -this- knowledge
can -only- come from God and so, when
-we- tell you that God is there, we are
passing a torch and not inventing the Fire.
we simply say that Christ
is the original messenger.
Christ spoke to the mind
of the first human being
and has spoken again, at times,
foretelling a manifestation
in the flesh.
Christ appeared among men
-and- the Angels -saw- him.
Christ decended into the lower regions,
took on the flesh, and spilled blood
towards the _redemption_ of all flesh.
Christ returned to the Glory of God
and sends us the Faithful Witness
thru the Word of God spoken
among mankind.
so, when Christ tells you,
-by whatever means-, that
God is there and bears you
no specific grudge, believe it.
the alternative will be you paying
every penny on your account, and
failing miserably.
forever in debt to the existing conditions.
you will see the unfiltered
reality of God in your life.
Live
this Fire will purify.
in case you hadn't figured;
"Christ" is also, 'just a word'
and for all practical purposes,
"Christ" -is- God. "Spirit of Christ"
is a, somewhat, redundant terminology.
the "anointing" -is- the Faithful
Witness of God's own Presence.
God even knows God thru this sort
of Faithful assurance that God Is.
whereas Moses and David were "anointed"
and therefore "Christs" and the prophets
were visited by The Word of God, these were,
for the most part, singular events.
is was "The Spirit of Christ"
who ministered thru these people.
YHWH -is- "The Spirit of Christ"
not just an equality, but an identity.
as for the man referred to as Jesus Christ;
this guy is a little different from
Moses and David and the prophets.
this guy was formulated in the womb
of Mary by The Spirit of Christ.
but see look, remember i showed you these;
DNA is the template for its replication
the "Central dogma of genetics"
that is, it takes DNA to reproduce DNA
and
DNA --> RNA --> Protein
the "Central Dogma of moleclar biology"
and then said that God formed the Templates
for the production of the originating DNA
and brought the chemicals into alignment
around God's templates.
so, it isn't a remarkable thing to explain
that God can provide a template "in situ"
which will produce a child having a human
mother and God as father.
realizing that the originating templates
for DNA arise from God in the first place.
the child is still a human being,
and no more or less a child of God
than "Adam", the first 'man', but
born by a woman under the law, but
not born of 'man' under the damning
effect of "Adam's" mortal discovery,
resulting in a mortallity which was
encoded in his physical being but
only triggered when Adam walked astray.
Mary's generation was clean top to bottom
and God provided a template through
Declaration of the Word of God upon Mary.
after all, the DNA algorithm -is-
a coded set of instructions, or
a "Word", that can be spelled out
using chemical letters.
the algorithm can exist as a pure
statement in the mind of God and
be born in the material by Fiat.
having said that, we distinguish Jesus
from all others born of "Adam" but we
do not distinguish Jesus from
the human race.
Jesus' mortallity was not triggered.
see, Jesus didn't have to die, but
he accepted -your- necessary death
in -your- stead.
a necessary death you
inherited from your
progenitors.
what Jesus could see and Adam would not see
was the Life of God being interminable freed
him from the fear of death provided he
maintained his attachment to God thru Faith.
Adam saw mortallity and fear.
Jesus saw Life thru Faith.
Adam was rejected from Life
Jesus was accepted in to Life
and like i said before;
Jesus' mental understanding so closely
paralleled and identified with YHWH
that the overlay of "The Spirit of Christ"
upon his identification with death and
resurrection resulted in a thunderous
applause came from "the other side"
that is, God thundered;
"*THIS* is -Me- in the material world"
"*THIS* is -My- offspring"
BEHOLD
alright now that -that- is said and done,
what about -you-
how now are -you- "like Christ"?
how now -can- you approach
and surpass Jesus Christ?
well, first things first,
-you- have a pile of rubble under
which you find yourself obstructed
to a full knowledge of Christ in you.
so, when Christ first impresses you,
you see clearly but the detritus of
Adam's mortal discovery and -your-
fear of death and subsequent enclosure
in a world of want competes for your
attention and when your eyes -would-
remain fixed on Christ, they look
back and you stumble.
and now, in fear and trembling,
you inch towards God, shedding the
dead works and avoiding obstacles
to your forward progress.
holding the seal of God in -your-
forehead -you- enter in to communion
and unity with God.
and then, it may be said,
that you are "like Christ"
and then you can enter in to
Life thru Christ where you were
born in to Death thru Adam.
i hope i didn't leave to much out.
# DNA is the template for its replication
# the "Central dogma of genetics"
# that is, it takes DNA to reproduce DNA and
# DNA --> RNA --> Protein
# the "Central Dogma of moleclar biology"
as an aside piece of background;
see, given these central dogmas, which were
gained by methodical observations, people have
been trying to invent ways to explain the
arising of life on earth under the darkness
of the "NO God" axiom.
that is, seeing that DNA is the
template for it's own replication
and that the string of events
is always observed to proceed
DNA --> RNA --> protein
and -never-
amino acids --> protein --> RNA --> DNA --> RNA --> protein
one must resort to unobservable conjectures
and speculation to account for the very
fact that self reproducing genetic libraries
exist on earth at all given the "No God" axiom.
among these the so-called "space seed"
and "RNA world" 'hypotheses'.
but, see, in light of the consequences
surrounding genesis from singularity and
the absolute necessity for a Creative Being
to initiate genesis from singularity,
the "No God" axiom fails as -not-
"self evident" and, in fact, false
and wholly invalid.
and so, "space seed" and "RNA world"
conjectures are unwarranted and unnecessary
and one may construct a -simple- dogma
God --> DNA --> RNA --> protein
which neatly accounts for the existance of
genetic libraries on earth without resort
to onobservable conjectures but simply
the unavoidable evidence of the finger
of creation.
a finger we've already demonstrated
as present in genesis from singularity.
just another evidence of the existance of God.
and so, there's no -real- 'excuse'.
and like i said,
Adam is referred to as "son of God"
-we- are "son of Adam" or "son of Man"
so now, Jesus, by this peculiar birthing
by the Holy Spirit in Mary is again a man
called "son of God"
but is also, "son of man" by Mary.
and that's why he is special
for -us-, the children of Adam.
the "son" part refers to his humanity.
so, -how- has -this- "son" 'always existed'
whereas Adam was "formed of the dust?"
his template -is- The Word of God.
God declared Jesus in to Mary
YHWH Savior becomes "son of man"
The Word of God who has always
existed became flesh and dwelt
among mankind.
The Word of God who Is God.
The Word of God who Is
The Spirit of Christ
who Is YHWH
tasted -our- mortallity
and swallowed up Death in the
Indestructible Life of God.
The Great Fish who could not
lay hold of Jesus, vomitted
him out onto the shore.
Timothy Sutter
# and knowing God is "Love"
and how do we know this?
we demonstrated that no trigger
of metastability -could- exist
to initiate material genesis.
we assigned the absolute
necessity for Creative origin.
and Creative origin -is- Love.
that -is- part of what -it- is.
in part, Love -is- Creative origin.
remember the linguistics bit.
in the final analysis,
the object defines itself.
the semantic triggers
do not define the object.
"purple fragrant sweet spicy and floral"
does not define "lavendar"
the object itself, held
in your grubby little paws,
-that- defines "lavendar"
and while "Love Creator Savior Counsellor Comforter..."
may trigger "God" in your mind,
when we say "Love is Creation"
we are calling a thing by what it is.
but that which defines God -is- God.
when God overshadows your consciousness,
then you can say that you know God.
you cannot say that you know God by
delineating a set of memory triggers.
any more than you can say that
you know lavendar by delineating
a set of its attributes.
that is, if i inspect lavendar,
and set down a list of attributes,
and you come along and convince
yourself that you comprehend
the entire listing,
even if my listing is painfully detailed,
all you will ever know is my description.
that is, until you pick up
a sprig of it yourself.
long story short;
when you examine a sprig of lavendar,
-that- is -your- knowledge of that thing.
-not- -my- painfully detailed description.
so, we use the term "Love"
in our description of God.
and now, all we wish to do
is to cordom off "Love" to
some first approximation,
as Creation.
having already demonstrated that
Creative origin is necessitated
by material genesis.
not and never that some -thing-
set off a metastable trigger to
initiate the material genesis,
but that no such metastable trigger
-can- exist, and therefore, by necessity,
a purposeful, directed, creative event
-must- have initiated genesis.
and we define both the event
and the event maker as "Love"
and then, we seek to broaden
out our definition of "Love"
to more thoroughly describe
the state of affairs, -before-
the first Creative event.
the Creative event is an expression of Love
the Creator is what Love is.
and, a Creative event does
not speak of selfish desires.
a Creative event does not suggest;
"I and Only I"
and so, we say that "Love"
is an outward effusion
from One to an Other,
because a Creative event flows out
of a Creator and is received
with applesauce [applause]
when and if we inspect the
Creation of the Spirit Host
we'll see that the same sort
of thing applies there as well.
but, that Spirit Host applauded
the Creation of the Material universe.
all we suggest is that God, also,
applauded the Creation of the
Spirit Host -by- God.
that is, when God began to Create for God,
God applauded this effort as a proof of "Love"
a proof of a thing -they- already knew by Faith.
and you get this cyclic roundabout,
they are Love, they Create, they are One God,
they Create, they are One God, they are Love,
they are One God, they are Love, they Create.
now, you'll see funny things by
going back and forth to attenuate
your vision.
God spoke the material in to existance
and then, -formed- man from the stuff.
God didn't -speak- man in
to existance, at first.
God is now speaking God in to man thru Faith.
and God is forging a new creation
in man that is exactly like God.
God's image of man as image of God
began to be perfected when God pulled
out the companion from within the man.
before the companion was pulled out,
the companion was hidden, even to man.
in God, the Companion dwells within
and is not experienced by any
other but God.
but, the Companion is God.
in a sense, man is to image of God as
'list of attributes' is to knowledge
of 'lavender'
that is, man is like a list of attributes
that describe God in likeness, but God
-is- the thing itself.
like, for instance, man's 'sight' is a sort
of 'description' of God's sight in a similar
manner as a paragraph of words that describe
human sight is not human sight itself but
only a description of human sight.
like, if you say things like;
"light bounces off of some object and impinges
on the pins and cones in the retina and leaves
an inverted image of that particular object
which is transmitted to the brain on neurons
and a person 'sees' the object in 'his' mind"
this description is -not- human sight itself,
but a wordy description of the thing itself,
and now, we do a recursion and say that human
sight itself, is just a descriptive image
-of- God's own vision.
where God's own vision is not filtered in any manner.
see, man is -only- an 'image' of God.
God is the defining knowledge of God.
man is only somewhat -like- God.
but -they- had poor communication.
for instance, those Two that were One Flesh
-somewhat- like, as God is One God, fell short
of that Unity which -is- God and experienced
a 'want' within each other than blinded
their 'eyes to God'.
snuffed out their 'lamps'
before they were ever lit.
we may say that God formed the Spirit Host
from a God-breathed substance of Faith
and we've mentioned, at some lengths,
the "want" experienced in Lucifer. and
how this revealed a "darkened"
understanding.
"Micha el" who is also, 'like God'
remained Faithful, and stands
as testament to God's Love.
has no want
knows no sin
bows before Christ.
YHWH is God of Gods.
this, while unknowing of the 'Companion'
a 'Companion' "Micha el" comes
to understand thru -our- message.
in fact, we -are- "Micha el's"
knowledge of the Companion.
a knowledge we gain thru the
indwelling of The Holy Spirit.
and Love is perfected.
this is the condensed version.
but one taste of God's Love
and the scales will drop from your eyes.
and, in an instant,
in the twinkling of an eye,
you'll realize
God is Love.
this isn't finished.
if it looks like there are gaps and
'blind' spots, chalk it up to our nature.
on closer inspection, new levels of
missing connectivity are bound to appear
which we can paint in with finer
and finer strokes.
but we say that God, not only has a far wider
field of vision, all encompassing, if you will,
but, that God has the cognitive structure to focus
on the entire spectrum of 'events' in some
simultaneous manner which 'sees' things
as they actually are.
our focus attentuates over time,
God's sight is everywhere in focus.
we look far, we look close,
and time stands between the two.
God sees far and close in the same instant.
God -must- have mercy on us.
accept it.
Timothy Sutter
somehow this square thing...
________________________
|\ /|
| \ SPIRIT / |
| \ / |
| \ / |
| F \ / |
| A \ / B |
| I (LIFE) O |
| T / \ D |
| H / \ Y |
| / \ |
| / \ |
| / ACTION \ |
|/______________________\|
...