i must say it...[i think im a thinking being
over thinking perhaps..and most definitly a loner
[or at least rejected by all]

my family faith talks of a lost one
they even hold rituial to remind themselves of how much they miss me

but im lost...lol
so the ritualised love/missing[rememberance?]..of me
is better than their actual open rejection..of the real me i am being

i have met the collective love person to person
[yes it was via that still inner voice that angels and demons use]
but i knew it was 'him'[the only true living good god of love/light/mercy grace]..because this was clear true and pure in his own voice...[inner voice]

now no one not in my mind..could hear these graces
and i couldnt record the words..but if you listen closly..he will give you your own words..but it will yet be in the same way deliverd..

ok i demanded of the good grace living mercy..to reveal himself
so i looked into the hell fires[you call your sun]...and was rewarded not with blindness[for i looked at it with pupils dilated[with love]..and looked upon thy face

upon seeing you i realise why more holy than i
could not look upon thee of lord...but this
is clear..by how theee looked
thusly then..to me

like a cell..with a soft living loving 'center'
within a lumpy bumpy circle..[egsactly like the areola..surrounding your mark upon our chests]..[in plain speak lord thee looked like a generouse nipple..

engorged..fire...circluar soft
holding the most viole safely within you
while our cell centers...contain you within!

you that soft engourged nipple
[of a mother..teat treat..when mothering her child..

via her milk
her own life substance..[material light]..
sustaing the childs life..as much as light..sustains life

how did the holy not dare reveal thyface

own goodness of teat
the treat that so faithfully reveals..thee yet we ciouldnt read the sign[by de-sign]...that unspeakable of unspeakables..that resembles thy face..so truelly

that face we yearn for
revealed in our living mothers nurture
[or revealed to lovers...
when their two paired of opposing teats [4 nipples]..meet]

[that at which..the new born spirits..made flesh sup..[sukk]at with such gusto...and enthusiasm..

that light
the milk of life...that the new born..
soo greedly slurp at with fond rememberance..
of previously visitating upon your nature/nurture..face...
when as the unborn they were thus..in spirit

now note thy face..within each living cell[nuclious]
plus..thy image..wrote large on every chest

i have gnosis of thee oh lord
i detest thy theiests..who pervert your truth

who subvert their trust..
who chose 'just war''..[doctrain]
that does no honourum..to thee lord..

theee..the living good..
god of all life

they hate me cause i cant explain to them my gnosis
and because they know i love them...alone
because thee lord is wrote large..
within everycell..

over every heart
and rote largess..twice..upon their chests

but not like a dogs teat
who yet hast nipples applenty

all mine
of thyne envisioning
that wast missing
was a doubble ddd breast...and a matching pair
but ye lord are one

but you lord
are one

we..made egsactly..like thy image,
ye made us..for living loving life and fun

i s-mother your face
with my kisses

honourum
to the lord our nipple

from the biggest boob boo
briefly back on line..the thesis gnostic
who having seen cannot un see..regardless of how much i-gnored i be

Hi Luciferase,
“Answer: "I believe God does not exist and I believe God may exist" full stop”
That would be my answer to the question you pose, although I would phrase it somewhat differently:
I strongly believe God (as so far conceived by all religions I'm aware of) does not exist, but I freely admit I could be wrong.
What bothers me most about strident atheists is right there; their lack of doubt. People who bomb innocents and promote wars in the name of their God must I think have the same lack of doubt.

Ah AJ,
I offer you an olive branch, and you slap me in the face with it.
I'm sorry you're bothered by my use of the word 'dogma', AJ, because I have to use it again. I'm just as 'gobsmacked' by this quote of yours:
“There is a crucial distinction there and the fact that Sagan apparently didn’t understand this...”
Sagan was a world renowned cosmologist and exobiologist, highly regarded by all who knew hin as a towering intellect. Indeed, the unabashedly conceited Azimov described him as one of only two people he'd met whose intellect surpassed his own.
To suggest your 'understanding' surpasses his indicates not only an unshakeable belief in your own dogma, but unbelievable intellectual arrogance; based solely on the fact that his 'understanding' is not congruent with your understanding.
You may not be a buffoon, but you would need to work a lot harder than you have on these pages to convince me that your intellect and abilities in comprehension exceed those of Spinoza, Einstein or Sagan. Further, I don't accept they were victims of their times, as I am not aware of any scientific, philosophical or theological breakthroughs in the last few decades which have brought us any closer to proving the existence or non existence of God, much less define what qualities It (He, She) may have. Nor were the 50's to 70's times when intellectual blasphemers were burnt on any stakes, and there is no evidence to suggest either Sagan or Einstein ever lacked intellectual courage.

Continued:
I also find it incredibly arrogant for any thinker to imagine that any puny human intellect could ferret out positive proof in the existence of a god capable of creating universes if that god didn't want them to; ergo absolute human proof that that particular god does or does not exist is logically impossible.
Why should we care? I would suggest that all scientific endeavour could be described as attempting to achieve greater understanding of the “God” of Spinoza (nature, the cosmos, physical law, whatever), eg. What is of enormous interest to many scientists and enquiring minds is why our universe is so understandable. We may not have complete understanding yet, but the pattern appears to be one day we will, and there will be no room for a “God of the gaps”; which isn't the same as saying there will be no room for God.
As I understand it, there is nothing in the theories of Einstein or quantum mechanics that disallows the possibility of time travel. This not only opens the door for the 'Grandfather Paradox', but also the opposite possibility, that a sufficiently advanced culture might feel the need to go back in time to create themselves, thus becoming evolved Gods.
Our most brilliant scientists have already conceived the possibility of manufacturing baby or bubble Universes. If we admit that possibility, we must also admit the possibility that we live in a universe manufactured by someone else.
I would strongly suggest that it is at this time impossible to prove or disprove that we are currently living in a Cosmic petri dish, being studied by a Being who merely seeks to understand how He Himself came into being, and exactly how much He has to simplify the basic foundational laws so the experiment will run itself, with no further adjustments from Him.
Just like us.

Ah Grim,

I’m sorry if you felt like I was slapping you in the face with the olive branch. But I’m not going to ignore a glaring flaw in reasoning for the sake of reconciliation, sorry. Reason still matters.

Anyway, I thought you would have agreed with me. Instead you disagree with me, without actually showing why I’m wrong, and then fall back on to a fallacious appeal to authority.

I agree everything you said about Sagan, but obviously he either didn’t recognise the distinction I made, or he didn’t appreciate the redundancy in applying the “God” label. If you disagree, then tell please tell me why I am actually wrong.

You appear to make the very same mistake (or just assume that he’s right)…

<<Why should we care? I would suggest that all scientific endeavour could be described as attempting to achieve greater understanding of the “God” of Spinoza (nature, the cosmos, physical law, whatever), eg. What is of enormous interest to many scientists and enquiring minds is why our universe is so understandable.>>

How does applying the “God” label to all these things, that we already study, help with our enquires? And how is the “God” label useful when we don’t know what it is we’re looking for? We can’t just slap a label on something and expect that it’ll help us.

You have not addressed my point in regards to “their times” either. You’ve merely sidestepped it with an assortment of red herrings about intellectual blasphemy.

I have not suggested that my intellect surpasses that of Sagan and Einstein’s, but I’m also not going to just flippantly assume that they must have exclusive access to certain mental powers when I see a glaring error in reasoning. That is exactly what you’ve done and it’s fallacious.

You still have not shown how I am wrong in any way and you certainly haven’t justified your accusation of “dogma” as I have supported everything I’ve said with evidence and/or reasoned argument, and have not asserted anything as incontrovertibly true.

Your accusations are completely unfounded, totally unfair and just plain offensive.

Dear AJ and Grim,

You have both posted items that I have read and thought, "I wish I had posted that." It pains me that two such usually reasonable individuals are at odds.