[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: Theos-World Re: [bad text]

Feb 15, 2010 08:14 AM
by Drpsionic

I can remember a number of years where 95% of the US was under snow and  
cold so bad it froze the oil in car engines.  This year is nothing.   Oh the 
East Coast had a snow storm and the southerners got to make snowmen, but  I'm 
from Chicago, I live in Wisconsin and you ain't gonna impress me with  snow.
As far as the planets being aligned with the Milky Way, the planets are  
always aligned with something.  The Mayans were simply nuts, or is  it the 
folks who are taking them seriously who are nuts?  Sorry, I'm  not impressed.
Chuck the Heretic  

In a message dated 2/14/2010 7:35:43 P.M. Central Standard Time, writes:

Hi Chuck
Seeing we have no recorded evidence of all the planets being in  alignment 
with the Milky Way (which is all the Mayans predicted) we have no  way of 
knowing what, or cannot predict, how or if this event will impact  the earth.  
We have had pole shifts in the past and survived them, we  have had ice and 
mini ice ages, so what I am saying, is not that the earth  will be 
annihlated but what is causing these climatic changes such as 95  percent of the USA 
under snow?

We have evidence of islands sinking  and evidence of mountains reemerging, 
and if a chamber was found in the  sphinx foot it would suggest that it was 
constructed to hold  something which could have been removed.  As Cayce was 
a christian  perhaps the Jesus thing was more about the Christos thing.?

Are there  no more clairvoyants left in the TS?


In AgnosticsRefuge@  yahoogroups. com, "HumanCarol" <humanist@> wrote:
> >
>  > Unable to correctly attribute material to the correct author,  
mangummurdock <no_reply@> alleged:
> > 
> > >  Richard Dawkins argues in Chap 3 of his book "The Dawkins Delusion"  
> > 
> > It is already know that that is a  lie.
> > 
> > << "it is more parsimonious to conjure  up, say, a `Big Bang 
singularity' or some other physical concept as yet  unknown" to account for the 
existence of the universe. The word parsimonious  is meaningless in context: 
Whatever it might denote, how could it be measured?  But conjure is the right 
verb, suggesting as it does both misdirection and  inattention. Misdirection: 
The Big Bang singularity does not represent a  physical concept, because it 
cannot be accommodated by a physical theory. It  is a point at which physical 
theories give way. Inattention: The physical  concept in which Dawkins has 
placed his confidence is something that is either  infinite and inscrutable, 
or otherwise unknown. Men have come to faith on the  basis of far les_s. 
This is, I suppose, not surprising. His atheism  notwithstanding, Dawkins 
believes that he is a "deeply religious man." He  simply prefers an alien cult.>>
> > 
> > Why don't you  correctly attribute that passage?
> > 
> > Here is the  context and a correct citation:
> > 
> > ---begin  excerpt---
> > 
> > > >

[Non-text  portions of this message have been removed]

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Back to Top]

Theosophy World: Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application