RSS

MOOA and your Adversaries

28 Mar

MOOA:  A Jury of Your Peers? [courtesy Google Images]

MOOA: A Jury of Your Peers?
[courtesy Google Images]

If you’ve been on this blog before, you probably know that I am to some degree fixated on government laws that expressly define the American people to be “animals” and thereby deprive us of the God-given, unalienable Rights declared in our “Declaration of Independence”.

Over the past eight years, I’ve probably published 30 to 40 articles on this blog that deal with the “MOOA” (“man or other animals”) phenomenon.   You may know that I’ve used this insight and the grace of the Good LORD to stop a lawsuit by the Attorney General of Texas after he’d invested six years and nearly $500,000 in pre-trial investigations and hearings.

But in all of this, I only focused on presenting a freedom of religion argument that would prove that only I or other defendants were “men made in God’s image” and therefore couldn’t be “animals” or subjected to laws that presumed us to be “animals”.  Our status as “men made in God’s image” was protected by the 1st Amendment and our right to freedom of religion.

But I received an email today from “Jeff” that made me realize that the MOOA defense might significantly expanded to include others, even adversaries and jurors as “men made in God’s image” and therefore, not “animals”.

Here’s a copy of Jeff’s email and my reply:

Hello Al.

I sent you an e-mail sometime ago in which I roughly described challenging your adversary’s ability to hold office/position or have legal standing because they are a man or woman and not a PERSON. Thus, denying them the ability/authority to execute office/prosecute or take legal action.

Well, I have further tweaked that approach and want to hear what you think.

After challenging their NATURE, you state that you see a man or woman standing before you. Then if they deny that they are a man or woman, you then state that that they must be an animal and that per Genesis 1:28, you will exercise DOMINION over them.

Maybe this would be a legal junk shot.

 Jeff

 

 

Hi Jeff,

That sounds like an interesting and viable strategy.  Instead of only arguing that you are a man made in God’s image, you contend (under oath) that your adversaries (the police officer, prosecutor and judge) are also men made in God’s image and that, as such, they are personally liable for any crimes they commit against you.  (“Men made in God’s image” should have much higher levels of liability for their crimes or mistakes than “animals”.)

You essentially not only refuse to be judged as “animal,” yourself, you also refuse to be prosecuted or judged by others who regard themselves as animals.

I.e., it might be that they can treat you like an animal today, and get away with it because they presume themselves to also be only “animals” who are largely unaccountable for their seeming “crimes”  (all crimes require “intent”; animals typically lack the requisite “intent”). How can you hold an “animal” guilty of falsely imprisoning a “man made in God’s image”?

But if you expressly declared your adversaries to be “men made in God’s image” (especially in front of a jury) they’d have no recourse but to accept your description or publicly admit before the jury that they deemed themselves to be only “animals”.  If they admitted they were only “animals,” they might lose both the jury’s support and any claim of authority over you. Must you consent to be tried or judged by “animals”?

If they admit to being “men made in God’s image,” how can they justify trying you under MOOA laws that apply only to “animals”?

You might even voir dire your jury ito see if they believe they are “men made in God’s image” or “animals” based on your refusal to be judged by “animals”.  What if (during the voir dire jury selection process) you asked the whole jury if they regarded themselves as “men made in God’s image” (as per Genesis 1:26-27) or as animals?

Could my right to be judged by my “peers” be a basis for refusing to be judged by “animals” in the jury box?  As a “man made in God’s image,” I am not a peer–equal to–the animals.

If I declare that the cops, prosecutors, judges and jurors are all “men made in God’s image,” what are they going to do–publicly deny it?  If they admit that they are just “animals,” I think they’d open any subsequent conviction of the defendant to a successful appeal.  If they admit that they are “men made in God’s image” but operate on the presumption that I (the defendant) am only an “animal” and subject to laws that apply only to animals,

The idea of declaring not only yourself, but also your adversaries, prosecutors, judges and jurors to be “men made in God’s image” impresses me as a potentially brilliant insight and basis for a new, fundamental strategy.

 

Al

 

What do you think, readers?

 
213 Comments

Posted by on March 28, 2014 in "Man or Other Animals"

 

Tags: ,

213 responses to “MOOA and your Adversaries

  1. Toland

    March 28, 2014 at 4:18 AM

    Since the legislative intent is the law, everything depends on what the legislature meant by “animals” in the specific MOOA law you are charged with violating.

    While the colloquial definition of “animal” does exclude man made in God’s image, other definitions do not.

    It’s possible that the legislature used a non-colloquial definition of “animal” that includes man made in God’s image.

    Therefore, one is well advised to find the answer to the following question before attempting this MOOA strategy in a high-stakes courtroom setting:

    Which of the many and varied meanings of the word “animals” matches the intent of the legislature when it wrote the phrase “man or other animals”?

     
    • Adask

      March 28, 2014 at 6:32 AM

      Nope. If you read the phrase “man or other animals” it clearly indicates that man belongs to the same class of entities as horses, pigs and leopards. If you read Genesis 1:26-27 (On the sixth day, God created man in His image and gave man dominion over all “animals”) man is clearly in a class by himself. I.e., man and only man is made in God’s image; none of the “animals” are not made in God’s image. Man is given dominion over the “animals”. No animal is given dominion over man. Under Genesis 1:26-27, man and animals are in two distinct and mutually exclusive classes. If you’re a man, you can’t be an animal. If you’re an animal, you can’t be a man.

      “Colloquial definitions” of animals are irrelevant. The “legislature’s intent” is irrelevant. So long as we have the First Amendment and freedom of religion, my Bible and my faith make it undeniable that I (and the judge, prosecutor, cop and jury) are men made in God’s image” and not one of us can be both a Christian (or a Jew) and an “animal”. Because the MOOA issue is a fundamental matter of religious faith, the government cannot openly presume the people to be “animals” without violating their freedom of religion.

      God trumps the legislature. Religion trumps legislative intent. There’s no confusion. No question of legislative intent. Under Genesis 1:26-27, I can’t be an “animal” and therefore I can’t be subject to laws that presume that I’m an “animal”. Period.

      Once that defense is properly raised, I will be fascinated to hear any prosecutor who can not only convince a jury that I am an “animal” but also that the jurors, their parents, spouses and children are also “animals” and therefore ineligible to claim the God-given, unalienable Rights that are found in our “Declaration of Independence” and which are the cornerstone on which this nation was built.

      The government’s attempt to degrade all men to the status of “animals” is both an act of genocide and an act of treason. Those acts cannot be justified by “colloquial definitions” or “legislative intent”. Those who support the idea that man is an animal unwittingly, or otherwise, support the government’s genocide and treason.

       
      • cynthia

        March 28, 2014 at 9:33 AM

        My own ‘black sheep’ ‘standing’ is that all are a ‘piece of highest creator’ as a soul – within living body temple, as such, any “PERSON” is beneath a living man, but you have the ability to ‘bless’ rather than ‘curse’ by only acknowledging the living man and not ‘seeing’ ANY “title” or “PERSON” for when you ‘acknowledge’ or ‘see’ the “PERSON” you are in a fashion ‘cursing’ them, even if it is in ignorance, for you then ‘bond’ the living man AS “PERSON” to their employment ‘pecking orders’ in ‘fear’ but when you ‘bless’ another you give them the freedom to act “outside” of ‘company policy’ knowing that you will ‘vouch for’ them and insist that they NOT be in ‘fear’ for loosing their job – you as witness can in fact help offer some protection. robb RYDER covered this in some of his earlier talks as have a few others, my only difference is that I do not ‘curse’ another by ‘holding’ them to any “OATH” nor “promise” because it condones ’employer’ being ‘higher than’ the highest “creator” – which is blasphemy in a fashion. Oath is construed as “swearing” while “promise” is not, but still ‘blasphemy’ because it in fact puts ’employer’ or ‘society’ above natural law (NOT the same as “Law of Nature”) and what is commonly referred to as “God” – without clearly expressing “which god” which in fact can be very dangerous. mark PASSIO has an excellent site with extensive multimedia focused on natural law – http://www.whatonearthishappening.com Just a few thoughts, nothing more.

         
      • Toland

        March 28, 2014 at 3:21 PM

        Adask said, >Man is given dominion over the “animals”. No animal is given dominion over man….I will be fascinated to hear any prosecutor who can not only convince a jury that I am an “animal” but also that the jurors, their parents, spouses and children are also “animals”… The word “animal” comes from the Latin word animalis, meaning “having breath”. In everyday colloquial usage the word incorrectly excludes humans – that is, “animal” is often used to refer only to non-human members of the kingdom Animalia…. The biological definition of the word refers to all members of the kingdom Animalia, encompassing creatures as diverse as sponges, jellyfish, insects, and humans.<

        What jury is going to see a conflict between "man made in God's image" and "animal" using this definition?

         
      • Toland

        March 28, 2014 at 3:32 PM

        [My previous attempt didn’t post correctly. This replaces it]

        Adask said, “Man is given dominion over the “animals”. No animal is given dominion over man.”

        Of course, if you use the right definition of “animal”. But the Bible does not define the word “animal”, nor does Genesis 1:26-27 even use this word.

        Therefore, the definition of the word “animal” is not a freedom of religion issue. And the legislature can use whatever definition of “animal” it pleases without coming into conflict with anyone’s Bible-based religion.

        Adask said, “…I will be fascinated to hear any prosecutor who can not only convince a jury that I am an “animal” but also that the jurors, their parents, spouses and children are also “animals”… ”

        The prosecutor will simply read out the definition of “animal” he thinks the legislature used in writing the MOOA law.

        The definition could go something like this, from Wikipedia:

        “The word “animal” comes from the Latin word animalis, meaning “having breath”. In everyday colloquial usage the word incorrectly excludes humans – that is, “animal” is often used to refer only to non-human members of the kingdom Animalia…. The biological definition of the word refers to all members of the kingdom Animalia, encompassing creatures as diverse as sponges, jellyfish, insects, and humans.”

        What jury is going to see a conflict between “man made in God’s image” and “animal” using this definition?

         
      • Sam Kadasky

        March 28, 2014 at 3:58 PM

        Adask said… The “legislature’s intent” is irrelevant.

        I don’t see a jury buying that statement.

        If by “animal” the legislature meant “any animate being which is endowed with the power of voluntary motion” (Black’s Law Dictionary), then the MOOA law they wrote was clearly meant to include man made in God’s image.

        Your freedom of religion does not affect whether or not the legislature used a definition of “animals” that includes man made in God’s image.

         
      • J.M.

        March 31, 2014 at 7:29 AM

        @ >The idea of declaring not only yourself, but also your adversaries, prosecutors, judges and jurors to be “men made in God’s image” impresses me as a potentially brilliant insight and basis for a new, fundamental strategy.

        YES INDEED !!!

         
      • BRF

        May 25, 2015 at 9:12 PM

        Question: How is it that women were not considered “persons” under law until the 1920s-30s in various jurisdictions of British common law but men were? This is as if men and women were two different species, one created in God’s image and the other, well an animal? Therefore our breeding is one of half animal half man? All this relies on man’s interpretation of law and what God may have or may not have said, the Bible being one of those man made interpretations. I’m amazed this defense has ever worked.

         
      • Adask

        May 26, 2015 at 12:39 AM

        Me, too.

         
    • J.M.

      March 30, 2014 at 4:03 PM

      Toeland
      @ >What jury is going to see a conflict between “man made in God’s image” and “animal” using this definition?

      What makes you think it will HAVE to go to a jury?

       
      • EDOMS THORN

        March 30, 2014 at 7:18 PM

        DOES ANYONE know WHO made MOOA a reason for this conversation? What is the name of the ONE who said we a legally Animals. Where it is fpond so I can read it?

         
      • Henry

        March 31, 2014 at 12:16 AM

        Edoms Thorn:

        If I understand your question correctly, I’ll explain my interpretation (which may differ from the “official” interpretation) of this matter.

        The phrase “man or other animals” in the Pure Food and Drugs Act of 1906 (and elsewhere) implies man is an animal.

        But the COLLOQUIAL definition of “animal” (the default definition of any word used in a law) EXCLUDES man, making “man or other animals” a Lewis Carroll-type nonsense phrase.

        Therefore, the legislature that wrote this law must have intended a NON-COLLOQUIAL meaning of “animal”.

        Toland and others have, so far, been unable to locate this definition of “animals” used by the legislature.

        For other laws that use this phrase, a web search on “man or other animals” turns up several.

         
      • EDOMS THORN

        March 31, 2014 at 12:31 AM

        THANKS Henry,

        I want to know the NAME of the Animal or Human that created that “drug Act of 1906” There is someones name on it. I will try with the title that you just gave me ( Pure Food and Drugs Act of 1906) and see what I might discover.

        Thanks,

         
    • J.M.

      April 4, 2014 at 11:42 PM

      Toland, you are using scripture, like yo DADDY Do

      @ >Genesis 2:7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

      U C Toelane, Satan quoted Scripture to the AUTHOR himself. The AUTHOR responded BACK & said “It IS IS IS also WRITTEN, Then the AUTHOR said GET BEHIND ME SATAN

      Toelane, IT IS IS IS also written, “And God said, let us make man IN OUR IMAGE.”

      Why didn’t YOU include BOTH verses? Why don’t you let Alfred ALONE?? No U just LIKE MOONIE YOU are hellbent & determined to PREVAIL. Forget it Toelane. It ain’t gonna work. PLEASE L-E-T my big brother ALONE. Something BAD is going to happen to YOU if you keep PROCEEDING. It’s already happened to “E.T.”

       
      • Roger

        April 5, 2014 at 12:29 AM

        J.M., I have been following MOOA at this blog and I see Toland pursuing a question that seems reasonable. What is wrong with this question? Explain it in simple terms that I can understand please. Accusing Toland of serving Satan because hes looking for the legislature’s definition of “animal” doesnt make sense to me. I’m not interested in what you think his motives are, I only want to know what is wrong with asking this question so a threat like “something BAD is going to happen” is a result.

         
      • Henry

        April 5, 2014 at 2:01 AM

        Roger,

        It’s only J.M. trying to control the conversation again. The new drama in this case is that undefined threats have now joined simple trolling in the bag of tricks with which J.M. tries to shut down inconvenient speech.

         
    • J.M.

      April 13, 2014 at 6:52 PM

      Toland,
      @ >The definition could go something like this, from Wikipedia:

      Wikipedia did not exist when the Bible was written. What source do you recommend to go to in regards to this? ALSO, Adam & Eve were made aware of the Laws of God BEFORE ANY of the Bible was written. It seems to me The Life giver who created man in THEIR image would be the BEST source to go to to understand ANYTHING. BUT, no one can go to any source that he/she believes does not exist. They KNOW better than that, just like you & all the rest of you & yours.

       
    • Dea Lawman

      July 9, 2015 at 4:00 AM

      Toland,
      @ Since the legislative intent is the law, everything depends on what the legislature meant by “animals” in the specific MOOA law you are charged with violating.
      Do you think the legislature meant telephone poles, or grocery stores, or automobiles by using the word animals? Can’t we use a little common sense here? Are we not supposed to know what any word means, or, only a selected few? What would (POON) Pecans or other nuts include? Think it might include Peanuts, Walnuts? Is a Walnut a Pecan? Get the picture?

       
  2. pop de adam

    March 28, 2014 at 4:31 AM

    Respondent/defendant: “Who is person ?!”

    Prosecutor/plaintiff: “Well, you are, and I am, and they are and all the others watching from the gallery.”

    Respondent/defendant: “Very well then, So long as the punitive parts of this trial are also meted out in the same democratic manner that these rules were formulated.”

    Prosecutor/plaintiff: “Objection, your honor!”

     
  3. citizenquasar

    March 28, 2014 at 8:06 AM

    This is interesting and worth a lot of consideration. However, when I was on trial in THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA, the judge “randomly” chose voir dire questions I had submitted and didn’t even ask several of them. How does one get around this?

     
    • Adask

      March 28, 2014 at 8:26 AM

      Have witnesses available to help document the judge’s conduct. Be prepared to take the issue up on appeal.

      I’ve never studied interlocutory appeals. They might only be available during actual trials but not during voir dire. But it might be possible to ask for an immediate, interlocutory appeal when the judge screws up during voir dire. It’s something to research.

      It’s my understanding that judges HATE interlocutory appeals because they can cause a trial to suddenly stop–and remain stopped until the appellate court finds time to hear and rule on the interlocutory appeal. It’s conceivable that by asking for an interlocutory appeal, you might cause the court process to stop for several days or even weeks. Suppose you’re in a jury trial, and you ask for an interlocutory appeal and the appellate court takes ten days to hear and decide your appeal. What happens to the jurors? What happens when prosecutors are dragged away to other cases and forget the issues in yours? What happens to the court’s scheduled cases when yours turns out to take three weeks, rather than three days?

      What happens if, later in the trial, you ask for a second interlocutory appeal? Or even a third?

      If my understanding of interlocutory appeals is roughly correct, I doubt that any lawyer who hopes to ever win another case will dare infuriate a judge ask for an interlocutory appeal. But perhaps some pro se litigants don’t care that much if the judge goes apoplectic and would therefore be willing to gum up the works with interlocutory appeals.

      But, again, I’m only speculating. My understanding of interlocutory appeals is unreliable. The subject deserves study to confirm or deny.

       
      • citizenquasar

        March 29, 2014 at 1:01 PM

        Thanks, Al. My trial was so screwed up that I should have stood up and shouted for a mistrial, several different times. However, I was traumatized and in somewhat of a daze the whole time so I was unable to act.

        When I did act it was when I was on the witness stand and my…ahem…court inflicted attorney…turned me over to the prosecution for cross-examination without asking me any of the questions that we had agreed he would ask me and I lost my temper and started yelling. That sewed it up for the jury right there and they returned a guilty verdict in 18 minutes.

        He did file an appeal with the 10th Jerkit but only on two of the counts I submitted for appeal. I was eventually released with time served; financially broke, unemployed, with no friends, and homeless. After a few months I contacted the 10th Jerkit and found out that my appeal was on the grounds that the district judge had mis-instructed the jury and “mens rea”…”thought criminal” as I interpret it.

        The 10th Jerkit had inflicted another Public Pretender on me and he didn’t even get my name right (“Nathan” instead of “Dan”) in his opening statement. Upon a little investigation, I found that it had gone downhill from there. Inasmuch as the 10th Jerkit had the option of returning the case to the original district court for a re-trial, they could not give me back the time I had been incarcerated for, the government is an illegitimate one of tyranny anyway ,and I was very weary of the whole thing by then, I entered a well written motion and got my Public Pretender fired…and I then withdrew my case.

        That was in 2011. Life went on.

         
      • J.M.

        March 29, 2014 at 7:06 PM

        An interlocutory appeal (or interim appeal), in the law of civil procedure.
        Does an an interlocutory appeal also apply to CRIMINAL procedure? Not that I am aware of.

        Interlocutory appeal

        Appeal from an interlocutory order. Interlocutory appeals are extremely rare; a three-part test determines whether the collateral order exception to res judicata makes such an appeal possible:

        1. The ORDER must have conclusively determined the disputed question;
        2. The ORDER must “resolve an issue completely separate from the merits of the action”;
        3. The ORDER must be “effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment.”

        I am of the UNLEARNED opinion that what is written above, only applies to CIVIL matters, cases, etc.
        I thought citizenquasar was involved in a “criminal matter.” This is what I guess I am not understanding. ANYWAY, It IS my understanding that an interlocutory appeal applies only to “Civil matters.” I do not mean to mislead or disrupt,only trying to share.

         
      • bobhurt

        March 29, 2014 at 10:32 PM

        http://www.lawlib.state.ma.us/source/mass/rules/criminal/crim15.html

        Interlocutory appeal in criminal proceedings.

         
    • cynthia

      March 28, 2014 at 9:25 AM

      If you ‘follow’ http://trustandcontract.wordpress.com you may find ‘remedy’ to ALL ‘court’ problems, however keep in mind that every ‘judge’ is a living man with free will choice to either as ‘correctly’ or ‘corruptly’ so be ready to ‘take it up the line’ and ‘counter sue’ for any ‘foul play’ and ‘piracy’ per FEDERAL RICO and CIVIL TORTE – not that it applies to ‘you’ but rather only to ‘them due to their ’employment’ with proven to be private CORPORATION and as ‘registered’ said CORPORATION and ‘head’ are ‘BONDED’ to a ‘higher pecking order’ – just have to know to ‘notice’ the living man ‘close to’ said ‘higher jurisdiction’ – ‘above’ the current COURT CORP\INC

       
      • J.M.

        March 30, 2014 at 12:02 AM

        cynthia,
        Hi cynthia. Per FEDERAL RICO and CIVIL TORTE. What are these “provisions” traced back to as the Constitutional authority for their existence? Maybe my question is vague. If so, tell me. I do not want to use any Constitutional Authority that stems from the 13th & ON Amendments. Thanks cynthia

         
    • J.M.

      March 29, 2014 at 7:37 PM

      citizenquasar,
      @ >However, I was traumatized and in somewhat of a daze the whole time so I was unable to act.

      I understand THAT. They DO have ways of doing & SAYING things that leave us in a state of SHOCK & so much so, it leaves us speechless, frozen in our tracks, so to speak, like being in the middle of a railroad track with the Freight Train approaching & yet we can’t move a muscle. I have a stuttering defect, but I NEVER did until I was about 30 years old & this defect was CAUSED from what I was FORCED to go through with GOV-CO. I understand my friend, & yet I cannot explain it. Wicked Spirits we are wrestling with. Wicked Spirits working through THEM. IF they are possessed, they most certainly ARE HIGHLY INFLUENCED. But, I do not mean to say they ALL are.There ARE some KIND hearted Judges & peace officers, & clerks, etc. EXTREMELY RARE tho.

       
      • J.M.

        March 29, 2014 at 7:39 PM

        If they are NOT possessed, they most certainly ARE HIGHLY INFLUENCED.

         
      • bobhurt

        March 29, 2014 at 10:34 PM

        Traumatized? Contact Karin Huffer legalabuse@gmail.com for an accommodation report. Read her book “Overcoming the Devastation of Legal Abuse Syndrome”

         
      • citizenquasar

        March 31, 2014 at 11:53 PM

        Thanks, J.M. Everybody, and I mean EVERYBODY, in my entire world decided to attack me at the same time while all this was going on. I had to back down so hard on my emotions and put forth such an effort to NOT hurt from it that it confused and immobilized me at the same time …something like that. Thanks again.

         
    • citizenquasar

      March 30, 2014 at 6:00 PM

      PS
      I suspect that one of the ways that attorneys tell the court that their clients are NOT brethren, ring knockers, apron wearers, or whatever is to mispronounce of misstate their names during their opening statement. This happened to me both in federal district court and federal appellate court.

      Before that, I shook my (court inflicted) attorney’s hand and he gave me a kind of a weird fingers-only handshake and I corrected him by suggesting that he put some palm into it. Later, i saw somewhere on the internet that he had given me some kind of masonic handshake.

      That’s my story and I’m sticking to it.

       
      • J.M.

        March 30, 2014 at 7:28 PM

        @ >That’s my story and I’m sticking to it.

        YES, & the MORE some of us with 1st “hand” experience reveal things that DO transpire in their “homes” aka COURTS, the more we will be considered LIARS. There are ONLY two classes of “people” who will say this & it is those with NO 1st hand experience or those WHO are doing what we say they are doing. It “tickles” some people’s funny bone to hear about ANYONE being traumatized, & guess what, MANY of them CALL themselves Christians & even quote certain Scriptures to “prove” they are Christians. They are SO GOOD at it, even I myself have bitten into their bait & came to grow close to him/her ONLY to have THEM shatter my heart into pieces, & this IS because I TRULY WANT to be sincerely “Christ Like.” THEY DON’T. They only “appear” to be that way, Christ Like. As you, citizenquasar, can tell, at least I hope so, I am drawn close to you. I only know of one other man who responds to you, TOO. Where are ALL the other “CHRISTIANS” who care about you being traumatized ?? Well I CARE. Like the German lady said,WHERE IS EVERYBODY? Well it’s a little to late now for “you” to “APPEAR” anyway.

         
      • J.M.

        April 2, 2014 at 4:11 AM

        citizenquasar
        @ >Thanks, J.M. Everybody, and I mean EVERYBODY, in my entire world decided to attack me at the same time while all this was going on. I had to back down so hard on my emotions and put forth such an effort to NOT hurt from it that it confused and immobilized me at the same time …something like that. Thanks again.

        I know. But with ALL the “neighbors” we have on this blog AND in the world we should be encouraged. I hope you have a Bible. IF so, read & YOU, at least, will see ALL the neighbors we have who care. Luke Chapter 10 verses 25 through 37..That’s ok citizenquasar, I’ll try to post it for you. Maybe it will be allowed to go through.

        Luke 10
        25 On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. “Teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”

        26 “What is written in the Law?” he replied. “How do you read it?”

        27 He answered, “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and

        with all your strength and with all your mind’ ; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.”

        28 “You have answered correctly,” Jesus replied. “Do this and you will live.”

        29 But he wanted to justify himself, so he asked Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?”

        30 In reply Jesus said: “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he was attacked by robbers.

        They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead.

        31 A priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side.

        32 So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side.

        33 But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him.

        34 He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey,

        brought him to an inn and took care of him. 35The next day he took out two denariie and gave them to the innkeeper.

        ‘Look after him,’ he said, ‘and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have.’

        36 “Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?”

        37 The expert in the law replied, “The one who had mercy on him.”

        Jesus told him, “Go and do likewise.”

        citizenquasar, we need to be grateful for all the “neighbors” we have, don’t cha think? See what I mean about ALL the “Christian” Posters??? If this goes through, I’ll send you something else that will be enlightening, or try too send it, at least. I care for you. I wish there was a way we could get together, I would prove it but I don’t know how to meet with you, other than this way.

         
      • J.M.

        April 3, 2014 at 4:58 PM

        @ >But it will be MORE BEARABLE for Tyre and Sidon at the judgment than for you

        citizenquasar, did you catch what IS being said here? “More Bearable.” ??? See, I understand “more” about this judgement DAY, which is for 1,000 years, than most people do. They ONLY understand PART of what this “Judgment day” IS or IS about. This was a divine Revelation. BUT some posters WILL use that very statement AGAINST me as PROOF that I am a LIAR. I DID lose 3 friends who committed suicide over “religious understanding” OR better said, “misunderstanding. This did not happen ALL at once. There were several years of time elapse intervals concerning their deaths. I know MORE about this than anyone ELSE, on this blog, BUT one poster says because I said this, it is PROOF I AM A LIAR. This particular poster also says he is EDUCATED TOO. His truthful information is, just simply a mouse click away, as HE says. Click on it, citizenquasar, & GET the truth then, if you don’t believe me. I can promise you or anyone else that YOU will not be condemned, as long, as you TRY to do what is FAIR. It does not matter that you are a Christian OR NOT. NO ONE can come to a knowledge of the purpose of life UNTIL & unless “God” calls you, or them. Based on what I think I hopefully understand about you, you will be called LATER. AND also, you will not have the evil one to contend with either, “LIKE” some of us are, now. BUT there is a little more to the story than what I have said. This is not important for the “present time.” I am only wanting to encourage you that you have a Bright future ahead. Of course saying this doesn’t help when we are hurting now. BUT, a LOT of us, well maybe not a lot, but SOME of us are hurting also. Believe it or not, I would rather be in your shoes than mine. This is another story too.

         
      • Dea Lawman

        July 9, 2015 at 4:09 AM

        citizenquasar
        @ That’s my story and I’m sticking to it.
        Most of umm are as crooked as a bag of snakes. They even smile crooked.

         
  4. citizenquasar

    March 28, 2014 at 8:07 AM

    PS How did you get a picture of the jury that convicted me?

     
    • Adask

      March 28, 2014 at 8:11 AM

      I saw it in the Post Office under the “Help Wanted” sign.

       
      • citizenquasar

        March 29, 2014 at 1:04 PM

        LOL.

         
      • J.M.

        April 3, 2014 at 12:35 AM

        @ > I saw it in the Post Office under the “Help Wanted” sign.
        You’re funny.

        Now here IS Another thing. Toland, Sam, & Henry had a LOT to do with you having to give me a warning. It IS their never ending questioning to YOU about your belief. The ONLY ONE that gets to ME is moon. But ALL of this together is OVERWHELMING !! IF you get a chance, go to the Un-Christian thread & “see” the 2nd comment. I took this comment from moon as a SLAP & SPITTING in the little child’s FACE !!! AND YES YOU were RIGHT. BUT I wasn’t LOSING IT——- I LOST IT. My face is one thing. Her face is another thing, “God’s” FACE is another thing TOO!!!

         
    • J.M.

      April 2, 2014 at 4:46 AM

      citizenquasar,

      Here is the follow up. The one thing I KNOW that too many other people don’t, IS there is a day of Judgment coming. Some people will just have to find out the hard way. But I CAN tell you this citizenquasar, YOU are in a LOT better standing than MOST people. My “God” LOVES honest people. Then again, I’m certain there are “honest people” who are honestly TRYING their best to belittle, MOCK & RIDICULE ANYTHING GOOD. It depends on what we are HONESTLY TRYING TO DO.

      Luke 10
      13 “Woe to you, ! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago, sitting in sackcloth and ashes. 14But it will be more bearable for Tyre and Sidon at the judgment than for you. 15 And you, Capernaum, will you be lifted to the heavens? No, you will go down to Hades.

      16 “Whoever listens to you listens to me; whoever rejects you rejects me; but whoever rejects me rejects him who sent me.”

      Phillippians 4:8
      Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.

      I admit it is impossible for me to think on these things when I am constantly mocked & ridiculed. I only want to finish up my exchange with Bob Hurt, IF I can, & then I am outta here.

       
      • J.M.

        April 5, 2014 at 7:55 AM

        @ > But it will be more bearable for Tyre and Sidon at the judgment than for you.

        More bearable?? I think anyone thrown into the lake of fire & brimstone will have the same effect on each one.. It is not a matter of degree.of unbearability. < probably not spelled right

         
  5. cynthia

    March 28, 2014 at 9:21 AM

    This particular path of thought is EXACTLY what I am following or taking combined with “administrative process” with the ‘three letters’ – first as ‘notice’ second as ‘default with option to cure’ and third as ‘default with dishonor’ including “In-Voice” for first lawful ‘charges’ i.e. community service, man-di-tory training on core ‘law’ – natural law vs legal\administrative, jail time as appropriate, and if grievious i.e. physical harm then immediate firing with option to take on any other ‘government’ or ‘police’ related position, and first being non-frn\usd in fact debt based ‘notes’ but instead that which is nature for food, then clothing, possible service, and only LAST “debt based” “federal reserve note” ‘equivolent’ ‘money’ (more knee) – per Public Law 73-10\12 U.S. Code 411 – ‘without debt’ e.g. lawful in the FORM of ‘legal’.

    It is very frustrating that the concept of ‘man to man’ “without mask of title” seems to be by the ‘masses’ entirely ‘lost’ concept that is entirely valid. For me, I ‘hold’ all to natural law, lawful, FIRST and all that is ‘legal’ (form only) second but with equal weight and measure across the FULL spectrum of ‘jurisdictions’ for the FULL ‘chain of command’ is in fact ‘responsible’ for the actions of the ‘down line’ per ‘war crimes’ – think “Veterans of the Psychic War” – seems majority are with a form of “Stockholm Syndrome” and blindly ‘following orders’ with full memory loss to fear of ‘loosing their job’ which is just a perpetuation of the feudal system.

    Check out roger SAYLES – A passport 4 Ed – http://auspassport4ed.com/?page_id=21

    Another that is entirely ‘private’ and not ‘online’ in any capacity, stands firmly as “a living man” in all that he does, combined with ‘administrative process’ and ‘conditional acceptance upon evidence proof of COMPANY ‘claim’ and time and again is “left alone” to total silence (smile).

    Thanks for all you do!

    cynthia
    lawful given name
    simply a man upon the land, nothing more or less

     
  6. Gary Lee, [Russell], sui juris

    March 28, 2014 at 10:12 AM

    What happens when the judge decides that the bible, Genesis and “man made in God’s image have NO application, such what appears to be happening with the current ‘war’ on Christianity? What do you do in THEIR court, when, just as we may not recognize their ‘corporate’ statutes, they decide to no longer recognize god’s ‘laws’?

    The courts and current GovCo seem to be headed that way for some reason. It may become a matter of perspective, what is ‘true’ and what is not, as NEITHER can actually be proven….well, and sometimes the guy with the most ‘guns’ wins and gets to make the rules.

    it may be like trying to talk a hungry lion out of eating you for lunch, because, according to Genesis, you were ‘given’ dominion over animals…..think he’s going to listen?

    Then what? ; )

     
    • J.M.

      April 5, 2014 at 7:07 PM

      @ > Gary Lee, [Russell], sui juris
      @ > What do you do in THEIR court, when, just as we may not recognize their ‘corporate’ statutes, they decide to no longer recognize god’s ‘laws’?

      When they DECIDE to no longer recognize god’s ‘laws’? They DO RECOGNIZE & OBEY “god’s” LAWS. Also, it is written that THEY will WAX worse & worse. WAX IS DEFINED as, BECOME. Become, means, IS defined > They will GET more EVIL & progress to get MORE EVIL than THEY were previously. I will not DEFINE what previous or previously MEANS. Confusing ain’t it.

      Sincerely,
      Jim Madison, Jus Sanguinis, Jus Soli, Sui Juris
      aka, J.M.

       
    • J.M.

      April 5, 2014 at 7:34 PM

      To: Gary Lee, [Russell], sui juris

      YOU, Gary Lee, [Russell], sui juris, say, to me, J.M., in pertinent part: “I believe you will also find that Alfred Adask was never charged with ANYTHING, ………< March 30, 2014 at 10:57 PM, this very thread.
      Then please, Gary Lee, [Russell], sui juris, explain what Alfred Adask means when he, Alfred Adask says to Bob Hurt, the following

      "As I’ve reminded people repeatedly, I was sued by the Attorney General of Texas for $9 million per year and stood to be fined up to $20 million "

      Gary Lee, [Russell], sui juris, what does the above statement mean ???

      Sincerely,
      Jim Madison, Jus Sanguinis, Jus Soli, Sui Juris
      aka, J.M.

       
  7. Adask

    March 28, 2014 at 11:50 AM

    The Judge can’t easily do that without violating the 1st Amendment. But, if you run into a crooked judge, what can you do?

     
    • J.M.

      April 6, 2014 at 5:51 AM

      @ >But, if you run into a crooked judge, what can you do?

      Depends on who the “you” IS. Some, one or two have a “defender” aka a long standing problem. I forget, for how long. But, it’s been for quite a while.

       
  8. bobhurt

    March 28, 2014 at 1:45 PM

    Alfred Adask is a soft-spoken sweetheart of a political activist, and he is a bible-thumper. I consider him a wonderful human being and a nice guy. He used to publish the AntiShyster magazine, later renamed to Suspicions. Now he hosts a blog where he writes articles. Today he published this article dealing with a Texas law mentioning “man or other animals” (MOOA):

    https://adask.wordpress.com/2014/03/28/mooa-and-your-adversaries/

    I write in response to his comments:

    ——————

    First of all, the bible’s primitive and allegorical nature makes it anything BUT a credible source of information on the creation. The universe contains many orders of willed creatures (you do believe in angels and the archangel Michael, and the Holy Spirit, right?) subordinate to God, all different, and all thinking he created them in his own image and likeness. I’d say using the creation tale as the basis of any logical argument constitutes a logical fallacy on numerous levels. Furthermore, in his 3-volume Age of Reason, Thomas Paine lithely defeated the notion that Moses authored the first 5 books of the bible (among other flaws, the author of Deuteronomy, certainly NOT Moses, described Moses’ funeral). So if you cannot believe the credentials of the author, how can you believe every word (or anything, for that matter) in the author’s tales? Thus, your bible based arguments have to fall on the rational reader’s blind eyes, if you get my drift.

    Second, we have no reason to doubt that man is part of the so-called animal kingdom, physically just another mammal. But man differs from all the rest by possessing a putative gift from the Heavenly Father, a “personality.” More correctly we might say that part of each human with survival capacity IS A personality. While we cannot precisely define personality, we know it has these characteristics: self-awareness; moral will, ability to exchange ideals, thoughts, ideas with other personalities; ability to desire to do good to (love) other personalities; and ability to crave to know God and to love and become like him to the extent allowed by inherent capacity and antecedent condition.

    Most importantly, we know the effect of neglecting civilizational duty. It derives from the law of the survival of the fittest. When the delusional, through government, interferes with with that law by protecting the unfit or less fit, only WISDOM can prevail to find peaceable and humane ways to preserve the benefits of that law. That means government must find another way to eliminate the unfit.

    Our nation’s leaders have mired the land in the sticky goo of political correctness, welfare, suffrage and procreation prerogatives for the stupid and other irresponsibles, out of “goodness of heart” or Communist ambition, I imagine. So now 25% of the population lacks the cognitive ability to graduate from a normal high school. And another 40% to 50% lacks the knowledge and sense of responsibility to make prudent life decisions, including decisions regarding political matters. Originally only adult free white landed men could vote. Now women, the stupid, and the irresponsible may vote. Those have swamped the common sense of government and demanded largess from the public treasury to support them throughout their lives. The rest have effectively become their slaves.

    Worst of all the smart, responsible people generally fail to organize in an effort to eliminate criminals, crime, and evil philosophy from Government. So long as otherwise responsible folks use fallacious BIBLE-BASED ARGUMENTS to bolster their points and political philosophy, they will look like bungling fools to the enormous group of responsible folks who don’t. So, only fellow bible-thumpers will listen to anything they have to say.

    THAT is the core problem with Adask’s efforts to enlighten people. It’s one thing to believe in and promote God, Jesus, the fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man. It’s another thing to shove the bible with its absolutely absurd atonement doctrine and creation story up the noses of intelligent readers, particularly when that and the bible’s other nonsense have nothing to do with the issues at hand.

    Alfred, every time you open your mouth or write about an issue and use the bible to bolster your points, you shoot yourself and your arguments in the foot.

    We humans differ from lower ordered animals because we each have personality, and a spirit fragment of the Heavenly Father indwells the mind of all normal-minded people. We have a civilizational duty to strengthen the family and improve the gene pool, and a community duty to keep criminals and evil philosophy out of government, even if we must resort to rebellion and assassination to accomplish it. THAT’s the point you should make.

    A criminal in government by departing from constitutional duties and obligations to keep the government in operation according to its strict limits, a government actor becomes “ultra-vires” and establishes his/her own private personal oligarchy, usually in concert with and support of sycophants and fellow travelers. Such an oligarchy, by using force of government authority becomes treasonous, and all its subscribers become traitors.

    Look carefully at the beginning of Article I of the Florida Constitution of 1838 (and other state constitutions) to see this principle emblazoned on the pages of history:

    —- excerpt From the FL Const. 1838 ————–
    http://www.law.fsu.edu/crc/conhist/1838con.html

    ARTICLE I.

    Declaration of Rights.

    That the great and essential principles of liberty and free government may be recognized and established, we declare:

    Section 1. That all freemen, when they form a social compact, are equal; and have certain inherent and indefeasible rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty; of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property and reputation; and of pursuing their own happiness.

    Section 2. That all political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and established for their benefit; and, therefore, they have, at all times, an inalienable and indefeasible right to alter or abolish their form of government, in such manner as they may deem expedient.

    ————– end of excerpt ——–

    See that? “at ALL TIMES an INALIENABLE and INDEFEASIBLE right to alter or abolish their form of government…”

    The 2nd paragraph of the Declaration of Independence says the same thing.

    ———– excerpt from Declaration of Independence ————–

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

    ———– end of excerpt ———-

    As I read that, it means that one need not sacrifice life, liberty, and property to stand up publicly against an ORGANIZED CRIMINAL OLIGARCHY operating under color of law while posing as legitimate government, IF one can accomplish the purpose without such sacrifice. That leaves three methods open:

    1. Political organization to drive massive force on the handle of an ice pick and shove its tip into the block of ice represented by government crime and criminal process (like letting the stupid vote and procreate).

    2. Assassination to cut off the heads of the evil reptile of criminals in government.

    3. Open, violent, bloody rebellion

    #1 avoids massive murder, bloodshed, incarcerations, and theft, but it might have become impossible, owing to suffrage for the stupid and irresponsible, and it often includes isolated murders, extortion, and other crimes like stuffing the ballot box.

    #2 typically results in the death of the assassin and confederates, but if the government-employed perpetrators of crimes and their financiers disappear, it does send a message to the enablers, and they lay-low at least for a while if they cannot catch the assassins and THEIR enablers.

    #3 wrecks everything and it will take decades or centuries to recover

    No matter how you look at this matter, managing government, and making it’s operatives and employees adhere to the law, from outside or inside the government, becomes fraught with personal difficulty and danger.

    Nevertheless, the People governed have these obligations:

    1. Learn and understand the laws (constitution, pursuant law, rules, etc).

    2. Gather and master the tools for investigation and discovery of crimes and criminal activities under color of law

    3. Use those tools to identify the specific individuals and their specific activities that violate laws or principles of good government, and to investigate those individuals and groups so as to expose all the dirt that can be found on them.

    4. Gather, master, and safely stash the tools for personal and family survival

    5. Organize politically and become hard core activists – become intensely dangerous to criminals running ultra-vires oligarchies and government enterprises under color of law.

    6. Target the evil ones for excision from government.

    7. Find and train replacements

    8. Excise and replace the evil ones.

    9. Establish a branch of government devoted to the above function of identifying, exposing, and prosecuting the criminals who would or do govern.

    10. Excise bar organizations from government, and put the licensing and discipline of lawyers under the executive branch of each state. Meanwhile, NEVER vote for a lawyer.

    Bob Hurt
    2460 Persian Drive #70
    Clearwater, FL 33763
    (727) 669-5511
    Email: http://r.beetagg.com/?48F181

     
    • Adask

      March 29, 2014 at 4:57 AM

      Bob, when you wrote “Alfred, every time you open your mouth or write about an issue and use the bible to bolster your points, you shoot yourself and your arguments in the foot,” you’re wrong.

      As I’ve reminded people repeatedly, I was sued by the Attorney General of Texas for $9 million per year and stood to be fined up to $20 million. The AG had invested 6 years and nearly $500,000 in that case against 6 other defendants before I was added as a defendant. The first three defendants paid $160,000 to one of the better attorney firms for their defense and got nothing for it but bankruptcy and divorce. After I was added as a defendant, I read the relevant law, saw the spiritual implications, “used the Bible to bolster my points,” and the Attorney General of Texas dropped his case against all 7 defendants.

      Perhaps you have also stopped suits by your states’ attorney general that had been ongoing for 6 years and where the AG had spent $500,000 on the lawsuit and you were threatened with fines of $9 million per year. But I doubt it. I doubt that any other pro se litigant has had a similar victory. I doubt that any other layman has “used the Bible to bolster their defense” with similar effect. But I have.

      My point is that the Bible can work to bolster anyone’s defense. I know that’s true because it worked for me.

      I did not “shoot myself in the foot.” With the grace of God, I relied on the Bible and won.

       
      • bobhurt

        March 29, 2014 at 12:56 PM

        Regarding the bible as a defense. I do not believe you have arrived at the correct conclusion about your MOOA argument. I explained it in my first comment. It has to do with the fact that humans have a personality and other animals don’t, and that we collectively attempt to self-govern, that government was established exclusively for OUR benefit, and that any effort to subvert it for other purposes cannot stand, under threat of assassination, rebellion, riot, mayhem, and the like, BY THE PEOPLE. Knowledge of THAT fact, not the nonsensical creation theory, keeps in check the people who run government and execute its laws.

        Just remember how the “Church of” Scientology got tax exempt status. It filed 200 lawsuits and its members 2000 lawsuits against the government for IRS abuses. That depleted the DOJ budget for tax litigation part way through the year. Texas AG looked like a fool for squandering so many resources on such a stupid issue. And so did the DOJ in the Scientology case.

        Why did the government go after Scientology and take away tax exempt status to begin with? Because its leaders aggressively engaged in retribution against its enemies. Now, of course, it says nothing against income tax, and ensures that its members pay their taxes. That’s the deal they worked out with the government lawyers.

        That church’s loyal members STICK TOGETHER and stick to the point. They function like an ICE PICK against a block of ice. Christian communities attack the block of ice with the flat of their hands, so to speak,and DON’T stick together under common leadership, so have only thinly scattered, not focused, resources.

         
      • J.M.

        March 29, 2014 at 11:12 PM

        To Alfred Adask,
        @ >My point is that the Bible can work to bolster anyone’s defense. I know that’s true because it worked for me.

        They don’t care about that. They only want you to DEFINE the word. To me, it’s an attempt on their part to discourage ANYONE else to understand what you understand. Of course I am a TROLL, ask Henry.

         
    • J.M.

      March 29, 2014 at 11:20 PM

      bobhurt
      @ >Alfred Adask is a soft-spoken sweetheart of a political activist, and he is a bible-thumper

      Yes he IS a sweetheart, but what is a bible thumper, in your opinion? Your definition may be different from someone else.What is your definition of, a bible thumper. We are supposed to be here to help each other, & learn from each other.

       
      • bobhurt

        March 31, 2014 at 4:50 AM

        A bible thumper is one who considers the bible the inerrant, infallible, holy word of God, IN SPITE of knowing or suspecting otherwise, and in spite of all the evidence to the contrary, and who then propounds its absurdities to others, expecting them to consider it an authority, and doing that with great presumption of authority and often pompously, like an old-timey Baptist preacher who lays the bible upon the pulpit and pounds on it while bombastically shoving his points in the faces of others. I use it as a term of derision, poking a little fun, to identify that kind of person, and to suggest that the bible-thumper propounds often erroneous points ONLY because they come from the bible.

        An example is the atonement doctrine into which preachers and parents inculcate children so vociferously and solemnly that the children grow up afraid to challenge it lest they burn in hell for eternity. What makes it absurd is that the so-called and self-appointed apostle Paul invented it from a deification of Jesus, the notions about hell from Judaism, and certain notions from mithraism and Greek philosophy. According to Paul one must believe in the sacrificial death of Jesus on the cross in order for that shedding of Jesus’ blood would like the blood of lambs offered in burnt sacrifices, somehow magically bribe the Heavenly Father into forgiving the puny sins of his other children. In other words, the Father ordered the murder of his only begotten perfect son, a being nearly the Father’s equal, as a human sacrifice to atone for the sins (or the sin nature inherited from Adam and Eve) of that son’s brothers and sisters on earth, and without that atonement man cannot have fellowship with God and will burn in hell forever.

        And all of that flies in the face of common sense, logic, and the direct contradictory teachings of Jesus in the very same bible that bible thumpers consider the inerrant word of God.

        Jesus never taught the atonement doctrine, and claimed the Father had sent him to teach the gospel. Jesus ordered his apostles to spread that gospel to every creature in every nation just before Jesus disappeared from view on Olivet for the last time. And just few hours later Peter started the diversion from that gospel, creating a new religion in the process, by taking those in the upper room down to the Temple court and preaching a long-winded sermon culminating in the “Risen Christ” message, totally ignoring and forgetting what Jesus had ordered him to do in the early morning sun that very same day.

        Bible thumpers claim God created the heavens and earth in 6 days about 6 years ago. They say this without regard to the fact that geologists and archaeologists have proven incontrovertibly that the universe is untold billions of years old.

        The problem with bible thumpers thumping the bible is that they make indifferent people and non-christians think they are intellectually dishonest at the very least or insultingly stupid at the worst, that so many of those other want nothing to do with Christians. You might recall the negative reaction of Protestants to JFK (a Catholic) becoming president, because many thought he’d shove the stultifying precepts of catholicism (including the worship of and prayers to Mary “the Mother of God”). Many (particularly liberals) harbored fears about George W. Bush becoming president because of his “born again” commitment to the bible. Most people of good sense simply don’t trust Christians because it seems patently absurd to believe everything in the bible, particularly linchpins of Christianity like the atonement doctrine and creation myth.

        From the Christian viewpoint, most who claim the bible is inherent infallible holy word of God do so becasue one must have that ridiculous belief in order to swallow nonsense like the atonement doctrine HOOK LINE AND SINKER. That’s how they hornswaggle innocent childrn into “getting saved”, a COMPLETELY different ideal from what Jesus obviously had in mind when he preached his gospel.

        Speaking of which, that beautiful gospel gets buried in, under, and by the atonement doctrine, so I’ll recite it for you. It inheres in these three tenets:

        1. Acceptance of the fact of the sovereignty of God
        2. Belief in the truth of the brotherhood of man
        3. Faith in the effectiveness of the supreme human desire to be like God… to do his will.

        This boils down to one thing – man can sincerely embrace his sonship with God, and grow to become like God. It’s that simple. And THAT is what gives man salvation.

         
    • J.M.

      March 29, 2014 at 11:43 PM

      @ >Interlocutory appeal in criminal proceedings.

      Hey Bob, Thanks Really do appreciate this.I just saved the information. Yes, I’m now back to saying I would buy a used car from you. Thank you Thank you Thank you !!!

       
    • J.M.

      March 30, 2014 at 1:33 PM

      Dear Bob Hurt,
      You gave & this overwhelms me because SO FEW do. You have been on my mind ever since you provided the link. I dreamed that you & I were talking eyeball to eyeball discussing things. ANYWAY it brings me pleasure to say to you that I was “informed” that YOU would provide the answer to me. Now, we have seen little babies throwing what is called a “temper tantrum.” We give the baby some little “item” the baby stops the temper tantrum & “checks” this new item out & I call this, curiosity. The baby then throws the item away & goes back into the temper tantrum, kicking his feet, shaking his fists screaming like a banchee,etc.Now, what is causing this? I don’t want to know what it’s called, I want to know what is CAUSING this temper tantrum. Thank you for any explanation you give.

       
    • J.M.

      March 31, 2014 at 12:56 AM

      Bob Hurt
      @ >Regarding the bible as a defense. I do not believe you have arrived at the correct conclusion about your MOOA argument.

      Thanks Bob. Very astute observation. I love to laugh, & even to to the extent it hurts, Bob Hurt.

       
    • J.M.

      March 31, 2014 at 6:21 AM

      Good morning Sunshine

      1. It is my Bible thumpin opinion that Joshua wrote about Moses death. which is a PART of the1st 5 Books of the Bible.

      You say, Bob Hurt, > It’s another thing to shove the bible with its absolutely absurd atonement doctrine and creation story up the noses of intelligent readers, particularly when that and the bible’s other nonsense have nothing to do with the issues at hand.

      Who is forced to read ANYTHING Alfred says? We seem to be overloaded with Intelligent readers but rarely an intelligent understander. Actually, I don’t think it depends on intelligence as much as wanting to be receptive. I hardly have any intelligence but I know this is why you will say that is the problem, in that only low grade or low class intelligent people will buy all that nonsense. I am so glad I am not very smart but I am also glad I am smart enough to understand I am not very smart. Anyway, I’m still looking forward to your response to my temper tantrum baby question. Once again I am most grateful to you for providing the traumatized link. I sincerely mean this. Also, I see that you do not speak with a forked tongue & try to be devious like many others responding, who use trickery, etc. I say what is on my heart & mind & even if Alfred Adask doesn’t like what I say, he sure has the power to stop me from saying anymore. I try HARD to be a straight shooter. Sometimes things can be said that are understood with the exact opposite meaning of my intent & purpose. But all we can do is try our best. But the devious people try their best too & they don’t need anybody to DEFINE what the word PREVAIL means.

      You have a wonderful life, you & yours.

       
      • bobhurt

        March 31, 2014 at 10:50 AM

        I mean to say the courts don’t give a hoot about the bible because it does not constitute part of US or State law. A judge has no need to take judicial notice of it because it is irrelevant. Maybe legislators had the bible in mind when creating certain laws, but no law defers to the bible as a reliable or senior source of wisdom or guidance. Alfred seems to want to make a big deal out of being created in God’s image, a theory from the bible that has no place in a court of law. I showed that he can easily deal with the assertion about man being a mere animal, and not an animal with PERSONALITY, through fact, logic, and common sense OUTSIDE the scope of any creation theory about man with respect to God’s image. Logically, if humans exist, some entity or mechanism senior to humansmust have caused of that existence. And since humans have personality and no other animal has personality, one could rightly deduce that the creator of man must also have, and the very minimum, personality or perhaps a pre-personal nature senior to personality. We can call that entity God RATIONALLY, without any reference to any holy book, especially one riddled with inconsistencies, errors, outright falsehoods, and weird social and religious philosophy like the Bible or the Qur’an.

        Just remember that rabid belief in the bible led to the Crusades bloody murder of hundreds of thousands of Muslims, the Catholic inquisition, the Salem witch hunts, and other balderdash no less heinous and insane than today’s Islamic terrorists rabid belief in the inerrancy of the Qur’an. Impartial observers classify Bible thumpers and Qur’an thumpers equally as intellectually dishonest goofballs or outright lunatics with judgment as trustworthy as that of a dog with rabies.

        Take note the insanity of teaching little children God ordered his special son’s murder and they’d better believe in that act as a sacrificial death to atone for their sin nature as well as their sins or they will burn in heaven. That freaks kids out and gives them a horrible idea of God. It causes the little ones to stumble, so to speak. Remember what Jesus said about the millstone around the neck of those who cause his little ones to stumble.

         
    • J.M.

      March 31, 2014 at 10:05 AM

      BobHurt
      @ >A bible thumper is ……………….

      I hear you Brother, Praise the LORD !! I hear you, & I like you too. You a straight shooter, YES U IS. Made me laugh my U no what off. Yeah, I know a little somethin baut dem hard shell Baptists, & dem snake handlers too. Really got it together don’t they. Aw-rite, les C what else you got here.

      @ >…..burn in hell forever.

      I don’t buy that B.S. either, & U right again, it IS ABSURD. Just like you say,> And all of that flies in the face of common sense, logic, and the direct contradictory teachings of Jesus in the very same bible that bible thumpers consider the inerrant word of God. SHO DEW !!! I’m with you, “overall.”

      @ > Re: Paul preaching a long-winded sermon

      Now wait a minute. How do you know this, i.e, it was long winded, were you there? lol, p.s. a little lol means from me, a he-he-he, little chuckle, LOL means what it means to everybody else. Anyway, I still hear you

      Re: your 6th paragraph. Right, this is why we have so many denominations. Can’t anybody agree on too much, if anything. I hear you.

      Re: Atonement doctrine. Not sure I’m following you on this as I don’t know what you mean by, atonement doctrine

      Re: > This boils down to one thing – man can sincerely embrace his sonship with God, and grow to become like God. It’s that simple. And THAT is what gives man salvation.

      Close enough, I hear you & THANKS. Once again you don’t pull no punches, & I like that. Just wish I had some credibility but you have to consider the source. I know, I understand You aw-rite wid me.

       
      • bobhurt

        March 31, 2014 at 11:46 AM

        I meant PETER preached the long winded Pentecostal sermon, See the story in Acts following the pouring out of the Spirit of Truth on all flesh. In that story, Peter goes into great detail about the history of the Jews and their religious beliefs. Long-winded. So first Peter creates a new religion based on the risen Christ, and later Paul invents Christianity further by codifying it in his letters and (probably) the book of Hebrews.

        Paul even had the gall to call down curses (Galatians 1) on anyone who professed a gospel different from his. Oops, I guess he forgot about the gospel Jesus taught for 4+ years AND about the fact that John Zebedee was still preaching in those days, and we have no reason to think they ever corresponded. Paul didn’t care what John thought, apparently.

         
    • J.M.

      March 31, 2014 at 5:42 PM

      BobHurt, My Man,
      March 31, 2014 at 11:46 AM
      Re: Your entire message.

      Once again, all I can say is, I like you because you say what is on your heart & mind, you don’t pull no punches, you just tell it like you see it, & I like that. I try to be the same way. It’s WONDERFUL to have someone to exchange messages with that even tho we see some things different we an still be friendly with each other. This is great. Yes indeed. But, for some reason, it does not seem to “stay” this way for long. I do not know of ANYTHING else but the Bible that sooner or later ends up, in discussing it, in bitterness & downright hatred. Why is this? I don’t get upset with ANYBODY for not understanding the Bible like I do but they, ALL OF THEM get EXTREMELY upset with me & start spittin out venom & hateful remarks, say in a hateful tone that I am going to HELL & BURN for EVER & EVER & EVER & EVER & EVER & EVER & EVER & just can’t get ENOUGH EVERS in it. Why is this?? Well anyway, I hope it does not end up this way with you & me.Once bitten twice shy? I have been bitten so many times & I just keep on asking for more bites, I guess, & ain’t no doubt I will never change. Guess I’m a GLUTTON for punishment, at least in that area. Anyway, lets STAY friends. Ohhhh, btw, What do you think of applying ridicule to anyone when finally we cannot “persuade” anyone to see it our way? Do we then start ridiculing that particular “one?” Is this the time to start using ridicule? Or, should we not do that? tell me whatcha think. Let’s stay friends.

       
      • J.M.

        March 31, 2014 at 11:33 PM

        BobHurt, my buddy,

        @ c> Paul even had the gall to call down curses (Galatians 1) on anyone who professed a gospel different from his. Oops, I guess he forgot about the gospel Jesus taught for 4+ years AND about the fact that John Zebedee was still preaching in those days, and we have no reason to think they ever corresponded. Paul didn’t care what John thought, apparently.

        Whooopee, You right again. Quit being right so much, I am not to be outdone. Remember now, I know what the word “prevail” mean too. Yah, po Paul. You right !!! He sho did have a lotta GALL He had summ else that rhyme widduh word GALL too. I kinda like Paul. Once upon a time I didn’t want to have anything else to do widdim. Made me so mad tryin to understand what the hell he was tryin to say, I put the Bible down on the flo & kicked it like it was a football. Talk baut bean highly disgusted is an understatement. Doan see it that way no mo. Something happened. It’s a long story.

        Paul didn’t care what John thought, apparently.

        Pantly so. It do “appear” to be that way. I “thought” so too. Now remember, I said I “thought” so, didn’t say I think so. Let’s stay friends now.

         
      • bobhurt

        April 1, 2014 at 8:36 PM

        Generally I think people should remain friends and treat one another with love and respect.. All of us should aspire to become infected with the Master, about whom one might (and someone DID) say this:

        7. The Acme of Religious Living

        (1101.5) 100:7.1 Although the average mortal of Urantia cannot hope to attain the high perfection of character which Jesus of Nazareth acquired while sojourning in the flesh, it is altogether possible for every mortal believer to develop a strong and unified personality along the perfected lines of the Jesus personality. The unique feature of the Master’s personality was not so much its perfection as its symmetry, its exquisite and balanced unification. The most effective presentation of Jesus consists in following the example of the one who said, as he gestured toward the Master standing before his accusers, “Behold the man!”

        (1101.6) 100:7.2 The unfailing kindness of Jesus touched the hearts of men, but his stalwart strength of character amazed his followers. He was truly sincere; there was nothing of the hypocrite in him. He was free from affectation; he was always so refreshingly genuine. He never stooped to pretense, and he never resorted to shamming. He lived the truth, even as he taught it. He was the truth. He was constrained to proclaim saving truth to his generation, even though such sincerity sometimes caused pain. He was unquestioningly loyal to all truth.

        (1101.7) 100:7.3 But the Master was so reasonable, so approachable. He was so practical in all his ministry, while all his plans were characterized by such sanctified common sense. He was so free from all freakish, erratic, and eccentric tendencies. He was never capricious, whimsical, or hysterical. In all his teaching and in everything he did there was always an exquisite discrimination associated with an extraordinary sense of propriety.

        (1102.1) 100:7.4 The Son of Man was always a well-poised personality. Even his enemies maintained a wholesome respect for him; they even feared his presence. Jesus was unafraid. He was surcharged with divine enthusiasm, but he never became fanatical. He was emotionally active but never flighty. He was imaginative but always practical. He frankly faced the realities of life, but he was never dull or prosaic. He was courageous but never reckless; prudent but never cowardly. He was sympathetic but not sentimental; unique but not eccentric. He was pious but not sanctimonious. And he was so well-poised because he was so perfectly unified.

        (1102.2) 100:7.5 Jesus’ originality was unstifled. He was not bound by tradition or handicapped by enslavement to narrow conventionality. He spoke with undoubted confidence and taught with absolute authority. But his superb originality did not cause him to overlook the gems of truth in the teachings of his predecessors and contemporaries. And the most original of his teachings was the emphasis of love and mercy in the place of fear and sacrifice.

        (1102.3) 100:7.6 Jesus was very broad in his outlook. He exhorted his followers to preach the gospel to all peoples. He was free from all narrow-mindedness. His sympathetic heart embraced all mankind, even a universe. Always his invitation was, “Whosoever will, let him come.”

        (1102.4) 100:7.7 Of Jesus it was truly said, “He trusted God.” As a man among men he most sublimely trusted the Father in heaven. He trusted his Father as a little child trusts his earthly parent. His faith was perfect but never presumptuous. No matter how cruel nature might appear to be or how indifferent to man’s welfare on earth, Jesus never faltered in his faith. He was immune to disappointment and impervious to persecution. He was untouched by apparent failure.

        (1102.5) 100:7.8 He loved men as brothers, at the same time recognizing how they differed in innate endowments and acquired qualities. “He went about doing good.”

        (1102.6) 100:7.9 Jesus was an unusually cheerful person, but he was not a blind and unreasoning optimist. His constant word of exhortation was, “Be of good cheer.” He could maintain this confident attitude because of his unswerving trust in God and his unshakable confidence in man. He was always touchingly considerate of all men because he loved them and believed in them. Still he was always true to his convictions and magnificently firm in his devotion to the doing of his Father’s will.

        (1102.7) 100:7.10 The Master was always generous. He never grew weary of saying, “It is more blessed to give than to receive.” Said he, “Freely you have received, freely give.” And yet, with all of his unbounded generosity, he was never wasteful or extravagant. He taught that you must believe to receive salvation. “For every one who seeks shall receive.”

        (1102.8) 100:7.11 He was candid, but always kind. Said he, “If it were not so, I would have told you.” He was frank, but always friendly. He was outspoken in his love for the sinner and in his hatred for sin. But throughout all this amazing frankness he was unerringly fair.

        (1102.9) 100:7.12 Jesus was consistently cheerful, notwithstanding he sometimes drank deeply of the cup of human sorrow. He fearlessly faced the realities of existence, yet was he filled with enthusiasm for the gospel of the kingdom. But he controlled his enthusiasm; it never controlled him. He was unreservedly dedicated to “the Father’s business.” This divine enthusiasm led his unspiritual brethren to think he was beside himself, but the onlooking universe appraised him as the model of sanity and the pattern of supreme mortal devotion to the high standards of spiritual living. And his controlled enthusiasm was contagious; his associates were constrained to share his divine optimism.

        (1103.1) 100:7.13 This man of Galilee was not a man of sorrows; he was a soul of gladness. Always was he saying, “Rejoice and be exceedingly glad.” But when duty required, he was willing to walk courageously through the “valley of the shadow of death.” He was gladsome but at the same time humble.

        (1103.2) 100:7.14 His courage was equaled only by his patience. When pressed to act prematurely, he would only reply, “My hour has not yet come.” He was never in a hurry; his composure was sublime. But he was often indignant at evil, intolerant of sin. He was often mightily moved to resist that which was inimical to the welfare of his children on earth. But his indignation against sin never led to anger at the sinner.

        (1103.3) 100:7.15 His courage was magnificent, but he was never foolhardy. His watchword was, “Fear not.” His bravery was lofty and his courage often heroic. But his courage was linked with discretion and controlled by reason. It was courage born of faith, not the recklessness of blind presumption. He was truly brave but never audacious.

        (1103.4) 100:7.16 The Master was a pattern of reverence. The prayer of even his youth began, “Our Father who is in heaven, hallowed be your name.” He was even respectful of the faulty worship of his fellows. But this did not deter him from making attacks on religious traditions or assaulting errors of human belief. He was reverential of true holiness, and yet he could justly appeal to his fellows, saying, “Who among you convicts me of sin?”

        (1103.5) 100:7.17 Jesus was great because he was good, and yet he fraternized with the little children. He was gentle and unassuming in his personal life, and yet he was the perfected man of a universe. His associates called him Master unbidden.

        (1103.6) 100:7.18 Jesus was the perfectly unified human personality. And today, as in Galilee, he continues to unify mortal experience and to co-ordinate human endeavors. He unifies life, ennobles character, and simplifies experience. He enters the human mind to elevate, transform, and transfigure it. It is literally true: “If any man has Christ Jesus within him, he is a new creature; old things are passing away; behold, all things are becoming new.”

        (1103.7) 100:7.19 [Presented by a Melchizedek of Nebadon.]

         
    • J.M.

      March 31, 2014 at 9:19 PM

      @ > I mean to say the courts don’t give a hoot about the bible because it does not constitute part of US or State law. A judge has no need to take judicial notice of it because it is irrelevant. Maybe legislators had the bible in mind when creating certain laws, but no law defers to the bible as a reliable or senior source of wisdom or guidance. Alfred seems to want to make a big deal out of being created in God’s image, a theory from the bible that has no place in a court of law.

      O-key-doak. Well then Alfred was apparently in a Lawless Court. Why were the charges dropped?

      @ > I showed that he can easily deal with the assertion about man being a mere animal, and not an animal with PERSONALITY, through fact, logic, and common sense OUTSIDE the scope of any creation theory about man with respect to God’s image. Logically, if humans exist, some entity or mechanism senior to humans must have caused of that existence. And since humans have personality and no other animal has personality, one could rightly deduce that the creator of man must also have, and the very minimum, personality or perhaps a pre-personal nature senior to personality. We can call that entity God RATIONALLY, without any reference to any holy book, especially one riddled with inconsistencies, errors, outright falsehoods, and weird social and religious philosophy like the Bible or the Qur’an.

      O-key doak. There are different ways to get the job done.You sing umm your song & I’ll sing umm mine. It’s the end result that matters. I hear you.

      @ > Just remember that rabid belief in the bible led to the Crusades bloody murder of hundreds of thousands of Muslims, the Catholic inquisition, the Salem witch hunts, and other balderdash no less heinous and insane than today’s Islamic terrorists rabid belief in the inerrancy of the Qur’an. Impartial observers classify Bible thumpers and Qur’an thumpers equally as intellectually dishonest goofballs or outright lunatics with judgment as trustworthy as that of a dog with rabies.

      Right again. I believe the Messiah DID say he is not come to bring peace but a SWORD. However, I understand this to mean that because of those who DO believe in “his way” This will cause wars, battles, etc., AND from those who DO NOT believe in his way. The cleverness IS, in many instances, the enemy calls itself Christ like.

      @ >Take note the insanity of teaching little children God ordered his special son’s murder and they’d better believe in that act as a sacrificial death to atone for their sin nature as well as their sins or they will burn in heaven. That freaks kids out and gives them a horrible idea of God. It causes the little ones to stumble, so to speak. Remember what Jesus said about the millstone around the neck of those who cause his little ones to stumble.

      I understand & you are right again It’s just that It ain’t inspired of / from the Creator, it is inspired from Satan. You do believe there IS an adversary don’t you? Don’t be a cherry picker now & let’s stay friends.

       
      • bobhurt

        April 1, 2014 at 11:44 PM

        I believe Jesus had more to say about his bringing peace than you have mentioned, and maybe the authors of the bible stories did not quote him correctly. I typed in a search term for my favorite book and received the following quotes:

        http://www.urantia.org/search/book_search/%22bring%20peace%22

        Paper 180 – The Farewell Discourse
        … provision for your support as seems best. I have come to bring peace, but it will not appear for a time. (1944.3) … peace to the soul of the individual believer, it will not bring peace on earth until man is willing to believe my teaching wholeheartedly …

        Paper 150 -The Third Preaching Tour
        … — peace will not always attend your preaching. I came to bring peace on earth, but when men reject my gift, division and turmoil result. …

        Paper 52 – Planetary Mortal Epochs
        … At another time he said, “Think not that I have come to bring peace upon earth.” (597.3) 52:6.2 Even on normal …

        Paper 165 – The Perean Mission Begins
        … You preach peace on earth, but my mission will not bring peace in the material affairs of men — not for a time, at least. …

        Paper 157 – At Caesarea-Philippi
        … hear not. It is not the purpose of true religion merely to bring peace but rather to insure progress. And there can be no peace in the …

        Paper 160 – Rodan of Alexandria
        … save his life must lose it. Think not that I have come to bring peace but rather a soul struggle”? True, after we pay the price of …

        Paper 195 – After Pentecost
        … (2081.6) 195:8.6 Secularism can never bring peace to mankind. Nothing can take the place of God in human society. But …

         
      • J.M.

        April 2, 2014 at 5:47 AM

        To:Bob Hurt,
        > I mean to say the courts don’t give a hoot about the bible because it does not constitute part of US or State law.

        Tell me about it, I hear you. deed I do. I am beginning to “see” that our exchanges is one of those ways that show how “God” works in mysterious ways. Can’t get anywhere with any other Christians considering the “end result” of the matter(s). Have been crushed in my heart & soul & to the extent I DO & HAVE asked for this cup to be removed. I only desire to “finalize” my exchanges with you, & IF citizenquasar responds to my messages to him, I hope to be able respond back to him. I am not going to leave anymore comments to anyone else regardless of what he/she says about me. I don’t trust anybody else because of what has transpired over & over & over. I cannot endure anymore ridicule & mockery of reading other comments mocking my “God”, The Elohim. One day this WILL be understood CLEARLY. In the meantime, IF I fail in my struggle to ENDURE, & I admit I am faltering in this regard, but I hope to be able to pick up the pieces & start over & try again, bu tI am weary of picking up the pieces. I have reached that “fine line” of going over the deep end. BUT, I DO ENJOY exchanging messages with you, at least so far. I do hope we can part in a friendly way if & when it comes to this. You may read a comment from me to another commenter & think of me as a smart ass or rude, crude, etc., but I respond the way I do to some people the way I do because of remembering the repeated degrading ways he/she responded to me previously. This has not only been a “test” for me, it has been a sore trial. I have experienced the highest of highs & the lowest of lows, but the lows override the highs. Best to you & yours.

         
    • J.M.

      March 31, 2014 at 9:44 PM

      @ Remember what Jesus said about the millstone around the neck of those who cause his little ones to stumble.

      Please do me a favor & go over to the “Un Christian thread” & tell good ol boy moonie with the teeny weenny peenie this. Well no, don’t do this. That thread is already UGLY enough. It should be PRISTINE but moonie SPITS in the face of anything good. I’ll take care of ITS worthless Hindquarters later, IF I have not been banned. I understand I get 3 strikes, before I get banned. I wish it was 3 strikes per thread. I would use 2 per thread on IT, >>>>>MOON aka The personification of EVIL. Then again, People say I’M Mr EVIL, not Big Daddy moonie boy. They are the ones exchanging “friendly” messages with each other, even thanking each other for “exposing” me. It’s the so called “Christians” One even has the name of Christian. Hang in there Brother Bob.

       
      • bobhurt

        April 1, 2014 at 11:48 PM

        I believe Jesus’ comments went something like this:

        (1761.2) 158:8.1 Entering Capernaum at twilight, they went by unfrequented thoroughfares directly to the home of Simon Peter for their evening meal. While David Zebedee made ready to take them across the lake, they lingered at Simon’s house, and Jesus, looking up at Peter and the other apostles, asked: “As you walked along together this afternoon, what was it that you talked about so earnestly among yourselves?” The apostles held their peace because many of them had continued the discussion begun at Mount Hermon as to what positions they were to have in the coming kingdom; who should be the greatest, and so on. Jesus, knowing what it was that occupied their thoughts that day, beckoned to one of Peter’s little ones and, setting the child down among them, said: “Verily, verily, I say to you, except you turn about and become more like this child, you will make little progress in the kingdom of heaven. Whosoever shall humble himself and become as this little one, the same shall become greatest in the kingdom of heaven. And whoso receives such a little one receives me. And they who receive me receive also Him who sent me. If you would be first in the kingdom, seek to minister these good truths to your brethren in the flesh. But whosoever causes one of these little ones to stumble, it would be better for him if a millstone were hanged about his neck and he were cast into the sea. If the things you do with your hands, or the things you see with your eyes give offense in the progress of the kingdom, sacrifice these cherished idols, for it is better to enter the kingdom minus many of the beloved things of life rather than to cling to these idols and find yourself shut out of the kingdom. But most of all, see that you despise not one of these little ones, for their angels do always behold the faces of the heavenly hosts.”

         
    • J.M.

      April 1, 2014 at 11:00 PM

      To:Bob Hurt
      @ > Generally I think people should remain friends and treat one another with love and respect.. All of us should aspire to become infected with the Master, about whom one might (and someone DID) say this:

      Right. Same here, I understand this too, just like you do. We are still cooking with a fire & not a wire. I hear you, Bob.

      @ > 7. The Acme of Religious Living

      I am presuming this is the forerunner of all the information that follows in your message.

      @ > (1101.5) 100:7.1 Although the average mortal of Urantia cannot hope to attain the high perfection of character which Jesus of Nazareth acquired while sojourning in the flesh, it is altogether possible for every mortal believer to develop a strong and unified personality along the perfected lines of the Jesus personality. The unique feature of the Master’s personality was not so much its perfection as its symmetry, its exquisite and balanced unification. The most effective presentation of Jesus consists in following the example of the one who said, as he gestured toward the Master

      Help me out here on this. I remember, back many years ago, it at least “seems” like it was the or, A “Urantia” BOOK, or, Bible, I was studying, but I cannot say for sure. ANYWAY, before I respond to anymore of your message, please tell me IF there IS a Urantia Bible or Book. IF so, there is something I want to ask you. Otherwise, I see & agree with what your entire message says, i.e., the information you supplied, gave etc.

      I do not know if you will get this message, I’ll just have to wait & see. All I can do is try to send it. But, if you do get this message, & you do not hear from me anymore, after this, it will be because, of computer problems, or something I have no control over. IF you get this message, just answer yes, there is a Urantia Book or Bible & we’ll go from there. ok ??

       
    • J.M.

      April 2, 2014 at 6:09 AM

      To:Bob Hurt,
      @ >Yes, The Urantia Book exists.

      Thanks. Bless your heart. Because of what I want to know, & being that I am very tired, let me try & get some rest, before I ask you about something written in this Urantia Bible. I am walking on thin ice & I want to make sure I ask the question as clear as I can which still may be cloudy. Just keep shooting straight with me as I believe you have been.

       
    • J.M.

      April 2, 2014 at 2:48 PM

      Bob Hurt, my friend, I hope,

      wow. The link to the “Urantia Book” was right in front of me & I didn’t see it, until now. Strange how I can be looking directly at something & yet not see it. Guess I’m the only one that has ever experienced this. ANYWAY, I do not want to read the entire book, at this time, to see what was said that jumped out at me like a Jack in the Box, pops up, so let me ask you this. There was something said, & I’ll have to paraphrase it, but The Urantia Book said that all the truth for the 1st time in history was now available & in this Book & all people are now without excuse & wrong for saying all the truth was never made available. Now, Bob, please try & understand that I am not saying this IS what it really does say, I’m trying to say this IS my memory of what was said. IF you are familiar with ANYTHING close to this that IS written in the Urantia Book, please tell me & correct me on what I may be misunderstanding about what I THOUGHT was said. I wish I KNEW where this paragraph, or statement IS in the Urantia Book, I would cut & paste it, but I don’t want to, at this time, read the entire Book trying to find it. So, are you aware of anything that IS said that is CLOSE to, or nearly close to what I am tring to say, that the Urantia Book does say? I have given you ALL thumbs up on you comments, at least I think I have. Maybe I missed one or two.

       
      • bobhurt

        April 2, 2014 at 7:10 PM

        The Urantia Book’s authors purport it to be the fifth epochal revelation of truth to the people of this world. FYI, it does NOT classify the bible as one of those revelations, but it does acknowledge the Planetary Prince (500K years ago), Adam and Eve (38,000 years ago), Machiventa Melchizedek (4,000 years ago, and Jesus of Nazareth (2,000 years ago) as epochal revelators. The Urantia Book differs from all of them in that it has arrived in written form rather than by mere word of mouth, and so its detractors will not likely succeed in perverting its message as, for example, Paul perverted the message of Jesus. The book contains 196 papers authored by a diverse array of non-human personalities. I personally consider it a masterpiece of American Language literature. It enjoys philosophic consistence from cover to cover in its 2000+ pages. The Fatherhood of God and Brotherhood of Man constitute the underlying theme of the book’s teachings.

        Drop everything and read it all, right now. It’s a life-changer.

         
    • J.M.

      April 2, 2014 at 11:46 PM

      @ > It is my Bible thumpin opinion….”
      Excuse me, Bob. It is my Bible SEMI thumpin opinion. By this, I mean, I do not understand the ENTIRE Bible. I cannot say that which I do not understand is false. How can I ?? I cannot prove it is true or false, meaning the parts of it that I do not understand. I ain’t THAT DUMB or DENSE, Does this make sense???

       
    • J.M.

      April 3, 2014 at 12:03 AM

      Bob Hurt

      @ > Melchizedek of Nebadon

      Is this “man” ( [Presented by a Melchizedek of Nebadon.]

      @ >a Melchizedek of Nebadon???

      What IS, a Melchizedek of Nebadon??? >”A< Melchizedek of Nebadon ???

       
    • J.M.

      April 3, 2014 at 1:53 PM

      Bob Hurt,
      @ > “The Urantia Book’s authors …”

      Are these “authors” Men, or, “Angels? Also, do you know why a red letter reply button is in the bottom right hand corner on some messages & NOT on some other messages??? Also, do you know what this “icon” <?? IS to the left of Rate This, means? What will happen IF I click on it. Are you still my buddy?

       
    • J.M.

      April 3, 2014 at 2:04 PM

      To: Bob Hurt,
      @ > I mean to say……”

      Dear Brother, I understood what you were saying from the git go, OR, IF I did not know for sure what you were referring to, I tried to explain why, e.g. Atonement Doctrine. I tried to explain I don’t know how to respond to your “atonement doctrine” because, &, I still do not know what you mean or understand about this, atonement doctrine.

       
    • J.M.

      April 3, 2014 at 2:19 PM

      @ > First of all, the bible’s primitive and allegorical nature makes it anything BUT a credible source of information on the creation

      What man thought out or of other man intelligence mind(s) source(s) besides Paine, brought you to this conclusion? OR, did you have spiritual source helping you? We both agree, I think, there ARE Spirit beings.

       
    • J.M.

      April 5, 2014 at 8:09 AM

      Bob Hurt,
      wow again. Just noticed your e-mail address.What’s wrong with me?? Now I can talk with you via e-mail
      @ I meant PETER preached the long winded Pentecostal sermon.

      It don’t matter if it was James or John or Matthew or Mark or Luke or Timothy. What matters is, & once again, how do you know it was long winded? Is this your nice way of saying it was really a lot of long winded hot air? lol. I kinda like Peter too. I kinda like you too. You a straight shooter.

       
      • bobhurt

        April 5, 2014 at 10:28 PM

        Why do I say Peter gave a long-winded monologue on the Risen Christ? I believe you could venture into the book of ACTS, and read it for yourself. Then you tell ME whether you consider it long-winded.

        While you’re at it, see if you can find ANYTHING IN IT about the Gospel that Jesus had commanded him a few hours earlier to spread to the whole world.

        See if you can find anywhere in the writings of Paul or others a succinct recital of the actual gospel message that Jesus of Nazareth spent 4+ years teaching throughout much of the Levant, even in ARABIA.

        While you’re at that see how many Christians (especially bible thumpers) who can recite the tenets of that gospel which Jesus taught.

        Can YOU recite them?

         
    • J.M.

      April 5, 2014 at 9:46 AM

      Bob Hurt, my blog buddy,
      @ > I believe Jesus had more to say …..

      It is written in the Holy Bible that If everything he said was written down ALL the books in the world could not contain it. I believe this too. I also believe Jesus loves me too. Why? The Bible tells me so. It tells me this,i.e., he loves me. I can only speak for myself, & no one else.

       
    • J.M.

      April 5, 2014 at 11:13 PM

      To: Bob Hurt,

      @ >Why do I say Peter gave a long-winded monologue on the Risen Christ?

      I was playing around with you, Didn’t you see the little lol ? You did not “seem” to get upset before, when I said or asked the same thing. I “see” that you are now beginning to become upset. I do not want to upset anybody. Please, if you will, answer these questions for me as I have asked you before.And, I am only asking to hopefully understand.

      Re: “The Urantia Book’s authors …” Are these “authors” Men, or, “Angels? Also, what do you think of the Book of Mormon? Let’s stay friends now & please don’t be upset with me.

       
    • J.M.

      April 6, 2014 at 12:03 AM

      @ >The Urantia Book has significantly better credentials than, and differs in numerous other ways from, the bible.
      It’s a SHAME that Moses, Abraham, Daniel, Ezekiel, et.al did not have access to this Urantia book, doancha think? Apparently, they & everyone else who have lived & died are lost & it’s all over rover for them. Why did “God” wait so long to finally make available this ALL TRUTH & available for the first time, & at this late date, Urantia Book? Seems to me IF he is the Father for at least some people, & kept ALL truth hidden from them, he did not really care much for them.

       
    • Dea Lawman

      July 9, 2015 at 4:25 AM

      Bob Hurt,
      @ First of all, the bible’s primitive and allegorical nature makes it anything BUT a credible source of information on the creation.
      \
      This is a merely matter of your opinion. Too many people want the bible to mean what they want it to mean. If the Bible is the inspired word of “God” then it IS as credible as credible can be. It’s how it it is translated in places that causes doubts, problems, etc. BUT, researching helps. There ARE WAYS to find out what the Bible really means but most people don’t have the TIME for that. Also, it is not a matter of IQ or intellectual capacity, it is a matter of the heart. We have a lot of heart problems.

       
  9. charles

    March 28, 2014 at 3:06 PM

    You asked what we think…I think most people who end up on juries aren’t going to be able to follow the MOOA logic. Most don’t even understand the idea of jury nullification.

     
    • J.M.

      March 31, 2014 at 6:27 PM

      Charles, HOWDY,
      @ > Most don’t even understand the idea of jury nullification.

      I do. I know what it means.BUT, it takes TWELVE of us. NOT two or three. Least that’s how it once WAS.

       
  10. Sam Kadasky

    March 28, 2014 at 4:22 PM

    By the way, Toland, what happened in that “man or other animals” trial you were involved in?

     
    • Toland

      March 28, 2014 at 5:39 PM

      He pled guilty and got a suspended sentence.

      At first he considered a “man or other animals” defense, but inquiries here and elsewhere failed to turn up the definition of “animals” used in the law.

      In the words of Alfred Adask, the meaning of a law “depends on the definitions of the words used to express that law”.

      Ignorant of the legislature’s definition of “animals”, and lacking an authoritative alternate definition of this word (the Bible does not define it), he decided to cut his loses and take the offer.

      If we had more time to do research, maybe things would have turned out different.

       
      • J.M.

        March 29, 2014 at 5:58 PM

        Toland
        @ > “Lacking this basic information (mostly due to time constraints), he figured taking the offer of a suspended sentence was better than going to trial.Lacking this basic information (mostly due to time constraints), he figured taking the offer of a suspended sentence was better than going to trial.”

        Huh??? Mostly due to time constraints ?? We are only given 3 score + – 10. I think I can safely say, not much more than a hundred years, at best. BUT, I don’t think 1,000 years of life would be enough TIME for “some” people. Sooo, your “friend” lost, huh. Ohhhh Noooo. What a surprise.

         
      • J.M.

        March 30, 2014 at 8:08 PM

        Toe-land
        @Adask said: “Whatever the “animals” in the MOOA laws may be, they do not include the men made in God’s image.” What is your source for this information?

        I will not tell you the source. It will be useless, an effort made in vain.But, here is the reason why, & it is from the source.TOO !!

        2 Cor 4:4 >Satan, who is the god of this world, has blinded the minds of those who don’t believe. They are unable to see the glorious light of the Good News,

        NOW, I wonder who THEY, are? This is what puzzles ME. Who ARE THEY? THEY is not DEFINED. Soooo this is insufficient as to WHO, “they” means because they, is not DEFINED. RIGHT? Of course it’s right. If anyone doubts this, you know who to ask.

         
      • J.M.

        April 2, 2014 at 11:08 PM

        @ > Adask said: “Whatever the “animals” in the MOOA laws may be, they do not include the men made in God’s image.”
        @>What is your source for this information?

        It’s a well hidden & kept secret secret. Not even the ELITE know about THIS secret.

         
      • J.M.

        April 5, 2014 at 9:02 AM

        Toland aka TOEJAM

        @ > If the facts are against you, argue the law. If the law is against you, argue the facts. And if both the facts and the law are against you, attack the other attorney.”

        @ > If the facts are against you, argue the law.
        No No No. You argue definitions.

        @ > If the law is against you, argue the facts.
        Nope, you argue definitions here too.

        @ >And if both the facts and the law are against you, attack the other attorney.”

        No !!! You attack Alfred Adask, & do so once again with definitions. Street definitions in my opinion are the best definitions. I think there is a URBAN dictionary you can use. hope this helps.

         
      • J.M.

        April 5, 2014 at 9:20 AM

        @ > In the words of Alfred Adask, the meaning of a law “depends on the definitions of the words used to express that law”.

        Toeland, Are you able to define the word, ANIMAL? Understanding what the word ANIMAL means, should make the lights come on. I’m really trying to help you out here, & only because I ain’t got nothing else to do. Once you understand what animal ,you will know what man means in, MOOA. Pass this information on to your friends, Henry, Sam, et.al. et al means, others, kind after kind.

         
      • J.M.

        April 5, 2014 at 9:32 AM

        Toeland, Sam. Henry, ET.AL.,

        Once you understand what animal, MEANS, you will know what man means in, MOOA.
        Sorry, guess I did not type in the word, Means. Here is another way to look at it. Imagine that somebody asks you to name 3 animals. If you are able to do this, e.g., DOG,HORSE,COW, THEN you will know what man means. It’s simple. Man in MOOA means, man animal. The HOG is an animal, aka, HOG animal, so is the PIG, e.g., pig animal. It ain’t really that hard to understand.

         
      • Roger

        April 5, 2014 at 9:49 AM

        Hello again J.M.

        I am sure Toland knows what HE means by “animal”.

        Toland wants to find out what THE LEGISLATURE that wrote “man or other animals” meant by “animal”?

        What HE means by “animal” and what THE LEGISLATURE meant by animal are obviously different because what HE means by “animal” EXCLUDES man.

        What THE LEGISLATURE meant be “animal” INCLUDES man.

        Please try to grasp this before posting more personal attacks.

         
      • J.M.

        April 5, 2014 at 10:01 AM

        @ > Adask said: “Whatever the “animals” in the MOOA laws may be, they do not include the men made in God’s image.”
        @ > What is your source for this information?

        Who are you asking this question to? I hope it’s not Alfred Adask. He doesn’t have a clue as to the answer to that question. Neither do I. It appears nobody knows the source. Oh wait a minute, yes there is a source. You can look it up in yo funk-N-Wagnawls In-Sike-Clo-Pededier. OR it may be found in the Urban street dic.

         
  11. Bobby G

    March 28, 2014 at 6:55 PM

    A thought occured to me. If we can use the MOOA as our defense that we are not animals and therefore not subject to the drug codes/laws, couldn’t we just as easily use the MOOA to show that WE ARE animals and therefore should be judged as any other animal (Has a court ever tried an animal for a crime?). Just a thought.

     
  12. Henry

    March 28, 2014 at 8:36 PM

    Perhaps you can clarify, because it’s not exactly obvious where Genesis 1:26-27 say what you claim.

    “And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.”

    This means man is not a “fish of the sea”, a “fowl of the air” of the air”, “cattle” or a “creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth”. The broad category of “animal” is not even addressed here.

     
    • Adask

      March 29, 2014 at 12:53 AM

      You folks are missing these points:

      1) Thanks to our 1st Amendment, our freedom of religion trumps their legislative intent;

      2) Degrading the people to the status of animals is an act of genocide and is not an issue the government will want to address in court;

      3) Hitler degraded Jews to the status of animals in the A.D. 1935 Nuremberg Laws; these laws were the legal foundation for the later concentration camps. Our government is treating us just as Hitler treated the Jews.

      4) At least 8 or 9 jurors on most juries will at least pay lip service to God, the Bible and the Christian faith. If a defendant can adequately understand and explain the spiritual significance of MOOA, some or all of those Christian jurors should feel obligated to rule in the defendant’s favor.

      5) No matter how weak a particular defendant may be, if he’s persistent and moderately competent, he might win with the MOOA argument. If anyone actually wins with the MOOA defense in court, they might thereby destroy: a) the war on drugs; b) the prison-industrial complex; c) the FDA; d) the big pharmaceutical firms; and e) American medicine. I.e., there are billions, perhaps trillions of dollars of profits and economic activity riding on laws that presume the people to be animals. Even if there’s only one chance in 100 that the defendant will prevail in court, in that unlikely event, the MOOA presumption could be destroyed and the resulting financial losses to all the industries that depend on MOOA laws might be enough to trigger an economic collapse. The potential economic loss is so enormous that the government should not be willing risk that loss to collect–what?–a few hundred or a few thousand dollars from the defendant.

      6) The MOOA strategy is not a “litigative” defense, per se. It’s a POLITICAL defense. It’s the political equivalent of having photos of the judge having sex with several goats. The court and system will be so reluctant to have those photos go public, that they may drop the charges against the defendant. Similarly, I don’t doubt for one minute that the system could’ve successfully prosecuted me (and others) when I was sued for $9 million per year under MOOA laws. I didn’t win because I’m a brilliant litigator. I won because 1) the Good LORD allowed me to do so; and 2) the MOOA strategy provided me with the political equivalent of photos of the judge having sex with the goats; and 3) I didn’t lose my nerve–faced with fines of $9 million per year, and offered a settlement where Ben Taylor need only take a Food Manufacturer’s License, we refused to settle–so the Attorney General dropped the case. Our victory had at least as much to do with our courage and faith as it did with the legalities of the MOOA strategy. The Attorney General’s office spent FIVE MONTHS trying to talk us into a settlement agreement. We never even considered a settlement.

      7) Your friend who tried the MOOA defense may have lost because he didn’t understand that strategy well enough to actually present it in court. But he may also have lost because he lacked sufficient nerve (faith?) to go to trial. It’s entirely possible that a smooth-talking prosecutor persuaded your friend (perhaps with lies) to “cave”. Because your friend accepted an out-of-court settlement, he and the MOOA defense were not defeated–instead he AGREED and CONSENTED to lose. In his case, the MOOA strategy didn’t fail because it was never actually tried. Your friend failed insofar as lost his nerve and agreed to settle. In our case, the Texas Attorney General’s office and Judge John K Deitz spent five months trying persuade us to settle. In your friend’s case, I’ll bet the settlement talks lasted less than a day and perhaps less than an hour. Your friend caved quickly; we refused to cave ever. He lost; we won. You won’t win just because you’re smart or right. Your victory will also depend on your courage/faith.

      8) Finally, the only thing this system fears is public exposure. If the public ever really grasps the significance of the MOOA laws, there won’t be a politician, judge, prosecutor, or cop who’s safe. They don’t dare take MOOA to court and risk PUBLICLY exposing this act of genocide against the American people.

       
      • Toland

        March 29, 2014 at 4:28 AM

        My friend in Texas did not try the MOOA defense, though he thinks it has merit.

        He decided against the MOOA defense because he felt unprepared to implement it. He felt this way mostly because neither he nor I could turn up the definition of “animals” used by the legislature in writing the relevant law.

        Lacking this basic information (mostly due to time constraints), he figured taking the offer of a suspended sentence was better than going to trial.

         
      • bobhurt

        March 29, 2014 at 10:59 AM

        “8) Finally, the only thing this system fears is public exposure. If the public ever really grasps the significance of the MOOA laws, there won’t be a politician, judge, prosecutor, or cop who’s safe. They don’t dare take MOOA to court and risk PUBLICLY exposing this act of genocide against the American people.”

        The above assertion might prevail with today’s mix of people. However that mix keeps changing as the population becomes decreasingly intelligent and educated. Furthermore, the media seems bent on making a laughing stock of those who’d use the MOOA argument, pointing to belief in the creation myth, the bible-inerrancy belief, and the atonement doctrine belief as evidence of lunacy. A Jury of people who consider that lunacy might convict out of spite.

         
      • J.M.

        April 2, 2014 at 11:14 PM

        When People FEAR the Government we have tyranny. Fearful people are AFRAID to do ANYTHING except kowtow.& bow.

         
      • J.M.

        April 13, 2014 at 7:10 PM

        Adask,
        @ > You won’t win just because you’re smart or right. Your victory will also depend on your courage/faith.

        That’s right. But, I believe they don’t have any idea what you are saying & it may be because you are not defining what faith IS, mainly. But even IF you do define what faith means, IS, they will REJECT that TOO !! BUT, they do USE the “Source” of your beliefs & quote certain scriptures only to MOCK & RIDICULE & WORSE. I can prove this, & by their own words.

         
    • Adask

      March 29, 2014 at 1:17 AM

      Are you suggesting that use of the word “animal” in relation to Genesis 1:26-27 could not be metaphoric? Are you suggesting that God’s express reference to the “fish,” “birds” and “cattle” was insufficient unless it also included a complete list of every kind of animal that was or would ever be alive on our planet? Maybe even include all the “animals” on other planets in other solar systems?

      If God didn’t expressly mention microbes and penguins, must we presume that those creatures could not be included as animals?

      In the end, I’m not particularly concerned with how “animals” may be defined. I will probably accept almost any definition of “animals” that you offer–provided that it does not include “men made in God’s image”. I’m primarily concerned with the Biblical definition of man as the only creature made in God’s image. Whatever the “animals” in the MOOA laws may be, they do not include the men made in God’s image.

      I’ll even agree that some (like you, Henry) are “animals” so long as you agree that some men (like me) are made in God’s image.

      Henry, you may not understand the MOOA argument, or you may refuse to understand the MOOA argument, or you may deny its validity in order to intentionally dissuade others from believing the MOOA argument.

      But, after investing six years and nearly $500,000 in prosecuting a lawsuit against seven defendants that was initiated and ultimately controlled by the FDA, the Attorney General of Texas thought there was so much legitimacy in the MOOA argument that it simply stopped prosecuting the case. Therefore, those who contemplate the legitimacy of the MOOA argument can believe you, Henry (who claims the MOOA defense is illegit) or we can consider the Texas Attorney Generals Office which simply refused to proceed in a case they’d invested 6 years and nearly $500,000 when faced with that argument.

      Lessee–whose evaluation of the MOOA defense is more likely to be accurate? Henry’s? Or the Attorney General’s?

       
      • Toland

        March 30, 2014 at 4:53 PM

        Adask said: “Whatever the “animals” in the MOOA laws may be, they do not include the men made in God’s image.”

        What is your source for this information?

         
      • J.M.

        April 1, 2014 at 7:22 AM

        Adask,
        @ > I’ll even agree that some (like you, Henry) are “animals” so long as you agree that some men (like me) are made in God’s image.

        Absolutely & I am convinced this applies to a few “more” too. But, please tell me what or WHO you think this moon, poster IS?

         
    • J.M.

      March 30, 2014 at 2:56 PM

      Henry, Clarify???

      1. Perhaps YOU, Henry can clarify WHY we can LEAD a horse to water but we CANNOT make the horse drink.

      2. Perhaps you can clarify, Henry WHY we cannot teach a pig to sing. Perhaps you can clarify, WHY YOU ask a question, & your question is answered, at least as best as possible, and a response is requested from you but you REFUSE to respond. Perhaps you can clarify this TOO as to the reason WHY you refuse to respond.

      WHY IS THIS ???

       
      • J.M.

        March 30, 2014 at 11:48 PM

        Toland
        March 30, 2014 at 4:39 PM

        @ >“How many a debate would have been deflated into a paragraph if the disputants had dared to define their terms! This is the alpha and omega of logic, the heart and soul of it, that every important term in serious discourse shall be subject to strictest scrutiny and definition.”

        @ >– Will Durant, in The Story of Philosophy

        The ANSWER for YOU Toland & your kind IS,

        For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.…

        —Paul of Tarsus, A Story of TRUTH from The Holy Bible

         
    • J.M.

      April 6, 2014 at 12:21 AM

      @ > And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.”

      @ >This means man is not a “fish of the sea”, a “fowl of the air” of the air”, “cattle” or a “creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth”. The broad category of “animal” is not even addressed here.

      WOW !!! What an EYE OPENER !!! Thanks heaps.

       
    • J.M.

      April 6, 2014 at 6:19 AM

      Toland
      March 30, 2014 at 4:53 PM
      @ > Adask said: “Whatever the “animals” in the MOOA laws may be, they do not include the men made in God’s image.”
      @ > What is your source for this information?

      What is your source for this information? If you mean what is Alfred Adask’s source, & If I remember correctly, it is from wikipedia or something like that. Maybe it was Black’s Law Dictionary. But it really doesn’t matter. The “answer” is clearly give by, Henry, in Henry’s message on, March 28, 2014 at 8:36 PM. It is on this thread. Case closed, or it should be. Here is the clincher, “ Henry’s post says; And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.”

      Henry says,>This means man is not a “fish of the sea”, a “fowl of the air” of the air”, “cattle” or a “creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth”. The broad category of “animal” is not even addressed here.”.

      I, J.M., am going to rely on what Henry says. Case closed.

       
    • Dea Lawman

      July 9, 2015 at 4:52 AM

      Henry,
      Use the void-for-vagueness doctrine. Maybe that will help you & Toland & Roger. Also, The Supreme Court has made it clear that “[n]o one may be required at peril of life, liberty or property to speculate as to the meaning of penal statutes. All are entitled to be informed as to what the State commands or forbids.] The Court also has devised a minimum standard of clarity: “The constitutional requirement of definiteness is violated by a criminal statute that fails to give anyone of ordinary intelligence fair notice that his contemplated conduct is forbidden by the statute.” Accordingly, “a statute which either forbids or requires the doing of an act in terms so vague that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application violates the first essential of due process of law.” Note the terms that the Court used to describe who must be able to understand what a criminal statute means: “all,” “men of common intelligence,” and “a person of ordinary intelligence”—not lawyers, law professors, or judges. Also, check out The Lacey Act. Maybe that will help. In addition, as the late Harvard Law School professor William Stuntz put it: “Ordinary people do not have the time or training to learn the contents of criminal codes; indeed, even criminal law professors rarely know much about what conduct is and isn’t criminal in their jurisdictions.Most people learn the criminal code through an informal process. Religious precepts, morals, customs, traditions, and laws are the glue that holds society together and keep it from becoming the war of all against all. Individual men learn these mores from family members, friends, schoolmates, coworkers, the news media, and others at home, church, school, work, and play. Not surprisingly, what people learn in this nation are the rules, policies, and mores of this nation. Just as the French, Argentineans, Laotians, and Senegalese learn the rules demanded of them in their own countries, what children, adolescents, and adults learn in this country are the laws and mores of America.

       
  13. Bobby G

    March 28, 2014 at 10:59 PM

    By golly Henery, you are correct. Your observation compelled me to search Strongs Concordance Of The Bible, and I could not even find the word “animal”. Therefore, it must be a Webster;s word and not a biblical word.

     
    • J.M.

      March 30, 2014 at 8:33 PM

      Bobby G, YOU respond to Henery & say,

      @ > By golly Henery, you are correct. Your observation compelled me to search Strongs Concordance Of The Bible, and I could not even find the word “animal”. Therefore, it must be a Webster;s word and not a biblical word.

      Why certainly he is correct. EDUCATED people ARE always correct. ASK E.T. Henery is also correct in this sense TOO. Bobby G YOU ask & say, in pertinent part, to me, J.M. on March 24, 2014 at 6:49 PM

      How can we know 100% that “God created the heavens and earth”? Can that statement be proven? Sure, there are some truths in the bible, but there are some things that are incorrect, false, etc. Any thoughts J.M.

      Yes, I just gave them. I am going to move forward & watch the DRUNK COP video again.

       
  14. Henry

    March 29, 2014 at 3:23 AM

    Adask said: “Thanks to our 1st Amendment, our freedom of religion trumps their legislative intent”

    I appreciate your taking the time to explain your theory, but there’s something about this that does not compute for me.

    I think everyone reading this blog agrees that the 1st Amendment, i.e. the Constitution, trumps the intent of the legislature, so we can consider this a settled point.

    What I don’t get is how the concept of “A trumps B” even applies in this case. There doesn’t seem to be a conflict between your use of a definition of “animal” that excludes man made in God’s image and the MOOA legislature using a definition of “animal” that includes man made in God’s image.

    It’s not an either/or situation. A difference of definitions only implies when you say “animal” you mean one thing, and when the legislature says “animal” they mean something different. Both definitions can coexist. Legislation often defines words differently, even bizarrely, without injury to users of the standard definitions.

    Perhaps you can clear up a lot by answering one question. I’d appreciate it….

    Exactly how would the legislature using a definition of “animal” that is inconsistent with your religious definition infringe on your freedom of religion?

    Adask said: “Are you suggesting that God’s express reference to the “fish,” “birds” and “cattle” was insufficient unless it also included a complete list of every kind of animal that was or would ever be alive on our planet?”

    I think we agree that, in Genesis 1:26-27, God appears to grant man dominion over all the other creatures God created.

    However, this passage does not put all these other-than-man creatures under a single heading which could be translated as “animals”.

    Therefore, Genesis 1:26-27 does not make it inconsistent with Biblical doctrine to use a definition of “animals” that includes man made in God’s image.

     
    • Adask

      March 29, 2014 at 4:42 AM

      You talk about definitions, but WHOSE definitions? The States government’s? The Federal government’s? Black’s Law Dictionary’s–and which edition? Definitions are various, numerous and constantly changing. Except in something like Genesis 1:26-28 that makes clear that “man” alone is 1) made in God’s image; and 2) given dominion over all of the “animals”. The “man” created on the 6th day is distinguished from all other living creations by the fact that he, and he alone, is made in God’s image. Based on that distinction, man is given dominion over all other creatures that are not made in God’s image. These other creatures, not made in God’s image, fit into the general classification of “animals”.

      When our government uses the MOOA language, they classify “man” as just one particular kind of “animal”. But, the man made in God’s image cannot be an “animal” because he is made in God’s image and the other creatures (“animals”) are not. Thus, government’s MOOA laws don’t recognize the distinction we find in Genesis 1:26-27. But, under my freedom of religion, I do recognize that distinction and I am entitled to do so by my faith.

      More, this distinction is not simply based on some silly-assed and overly-technical reading of the law. This distinction is evidence of spiritual warfare and evidence of genocide being perpetrated against the American people by the national government. Visit http://www.genocidewatch.org and you’ll find the 8 Stages of Genocide” at http://genocidewatch.org/genocide/8stagesofgenocide.html. Read item #3 (“Dehumanization”) and you may realize that this MOOA insight is no game. People may live or die depending on their understanding of MOOA. Concentration camps be be built and occupied under the pretense of MOOA. The New World Order is probably based on MOOA laws.

      Insofar as you fail or refuse to grasp the MOOA concept, you may be contributing to the deprivation of our God-given, unalienable Rights, to the existence of a police state, to the construction of concentration camps that might one day rival Auschwitz’s ability to execute and dispose of “undermenschen” and “animals”. And some of the people who will lose those rights, suffer under a police state, and wind up penned or even executed in some concentration camp could be your parent, spouse, children or even you.

      Today, you may be too young, naive or ignorant to give a damn if you philosophy may cause people to die. You might be a government agent who thinks the camps will never pen government employees. But who does government spy on most intensely? The average American or the government employees who, like Edward Snowden, have access to inside information?

      No one is exempt from the disabilities imposed by MOOA laws.

      But if you don’t understand that, I don’t give a damn.

      I can’t afford to waste my time trying to personally educate everyone who visits this blog. If you want to understand MOOA, I’ve probably published about 40 articles on the subject. You can find a list of all those articles under the “Categories” on the right side of this blog. Look for the “Man or Other Animals” category at the top of the list. Click it. It’ll take to a list of all the articles I’ve written on the subject. If you want to understand my notions read all of those articles.

      If you don’t want to read them, that’s fine with me, but don’t waste my time with any more of questions. Why? Because I don’t have time to take everyone by the hand and personally “escort” each of them through the MOOA “lesson”. If I answer all of your questions today, and all of someone else’s questions tomorrow and someone else’s next week, how many hour do you suppose I’ll spend trying to bring people are who too unintelligent, ignorant or lazy up to speed on MOOA?

      If you have any more questions, ask J.M. Maybe he can answer you. I don’t have time.

      If you really want to understand, read my other 30 or 40 articles. If you’re too lazy to make that effort, fine–but don’t expect me to devote more time to you and anyone else who’s too lazy to read what’s already available.

      But, if you insist in polluting this blog with your doubts, I’ll bar you (again?) from this blog.

      If you want to criticize the MOOA concept, start your own blog and do it there.

       
      • J.M.

        March 29, 2014 at 10:33 PM

        @> If you have any more questions, ask J.M. Maybe he can answer you. I don’t have time.

        I’m not “God.” BUT, I believe “God” YES, EVEN “God” would have a hard way to go trying to explain it to MOST of these people. THEY would even tell “God” We are not accepting it because you are not defining it. It seems to me “God” is going to have to define it in a way that they will NEVER ask him to define anything else.

         
      • EDOMS THORN

        March 30, 2014 at 10:09 AM

        Would some one cite the Names and dates and where it says this? How, Who, and Where and When?

        Thanks in advance.

         
      • J.M.

        April 2, 2014 at 11:27 PM

        To: Alfred Adask
        @ >But if you don’t understand that, I don’t give a damn.

        The ONLY thing they do give a damn about is finding fault with you. I honestly & sincerely believe this. Hell bent & determined to belittle & find fault with you, but, in a subtle way. You say, God created man in his own image. They ask, what is your source for that information. They ARE LOST. I am too but not THAT LOST. Then again, there but for the grace of “God” I would be on their side, I guess. .

         
      • Roger

        April 3, 2014 at 12:58 AM

        Me personally, I don’t want to criticize. I would like to believe this MOOA theory but first I have to take a look at it. So i don’t understand why the intent of the legislature when they said “animals” is a no go area. Isnt the intent of the legislature a subject we should spend alot of time on?

         
      • J.M.

        April 3, 2014 at 4:46 AM

        I@ If you want to criticize the MOOA concept, start your own blog and do it there.

        This IS NOT their PURPOSE. Their purpose is to destroy your stand & belief, the SAME as Martens/Jetlag. They are using a WORSE approach. They REJECT YOUR SOURCE. Martens/Jetlag used the SOURCE but TWISTED the MEANING of the source. Here is WHY

        For even though they knew (of, or, heard about) God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.…

        Toland, Henry, Sam, DON’T even KNOW of “God” BUT, they do exchange the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.…with their 50 cent word definitions. When they reject the source, YOU beat a DEAD HORSE. They do know the definition of PREVAIL just like Martens/Jetlag knew, Let us PROCEED. My dear friend Alfred, the ONLY way you are going to PREVAIL with animal men like Henry,Toland, & Sam IS IS IS, start building 3 more UNDERTAKER BUILT COFFINS, the WAY you know HOW to BUILD THEM. In fact, BUILD as MANY as you CAN. For there WILL be MORE coming in, KIND after KIND to take their place. I cannot write well. STILL, I think you will see what I’m trying to say.

         
      • Toland

        April 3, 2014 at 4:07 PM

        Hi, Roger.

        I’m not sure why you think the legislature’s definition of “animal” is a no-go area? We’ve been probing this area for some time now, with few protests.

        The reason being, as you say, the intent of the legislature deserves our attention. In fact, as Al Adask says, the intent of the legislature IS the law.

        Thus the search continues for a definition of “animal” that INCLUDES man, so the phrase “man or OTHER animals” makes logical sense. (We credit the MOOA legislature with at least making logical sense, if not virtue.)

        Here’s one from the Oxford English Dictionary:

        animal
        n.
        1. A living organism that feeds on organic matter, typically having specialized sense organs and nervous system and able to respond rapidly to stimuli.

        Hope that clears things up a bit.

         
    • J.M.

      March 30, 2014 at 6:44 PM

      Henry, YOU say,
      @ >Now consider this:

      Yeah Right. Why don’t YOU, Henry, consider that a spiritual consideration, from the RIGHT source is WORTH taking into CONSIDERATION? ALL of you ONLY understand ANYTHING FROM YOUR OWN “intellectual capacity” & NOT FROM a “higher intelligence.” MAYBE someone else will take this under consideration. You people ARE going to eventually HANG yourselves & with your own words. I’m just gonna sit back & watch it happen. I never knew that snakes could slide with twists & turns backwards but you & your kind are experts at it. You must be influenced by moon, aka echo ears.

       
    • J.M.

      April 2, 2014 at 11:01 PM

      @ > God appears……..”

      Don’t be looking forward to this, this appearance.

       
    • J.M.

      April 5, 2014 at 6:30 PM

      Henry,Sam, Roger,Toland
      @ > J.M. tries to shut down inconvenient speech.

      RIGHT !!! EXACTLY!!! adjective
      adjective: inconvenient causing trouble, difficulties, or discomfort.

       
      • Roger

        April 5, 2014 at 8:45 PM

        Henry : “J.M. tries to shut down inconvenient speech.”

        J.M. : “RIGHT !!! EXACTLY!!! …”

        Exactly? LOL I’m amazed anyone would admit that. You’d be a model citizen of a Soviet republic where speech that causes “trouble, difficulties, or discomfort” gets shut down on a routine basis.

         
    • J.M.

      April 5, 2014 at 9:54 PM

      Henry,Toland, Roger,Sam, et.al

      ALL of you should at least be able to see that I do try HARD to be helpful as Manly as possible. Now look, I am NOW at liberty to reveal the legislative intent secret. This will make the lights come on for ALL of you. The SECRET is, in the WORD, ANIMAL. The 4th letter in the word, ANIMAL, IS, M. The 5th letter in the word ANIMAL, IS, A. The 2nd letter in the word ANIMAL, IS, N, When you put these letters together, it spells, MAN. The code is now unlocked & made a matter of Public Record. HOWEVER, keep in mind that once you figure their legislative intent out, they change it & re-word it.Also remember the 2 score & 10 + or – time element. Good Luck.

      Sincerely,
      Jim Madison, Jus Sanguinis, Jus Soli, Sui Juris
      aka, J.M.

       
      • J.M.

        April 5, 2014 at 9:58 PM

        EXCUSE ME !!! I mean the 3, THREE score + or – 10, defined as,.Not much time.

         
    • J.M.

      April 6, 2014 at 12:29 AM

      Roger, Henry, Toland, Sam, et.al

      @Roger
      @April 3, 2014 at 12:58 AM

      @Me personally, I don’t want to criticize. I would like to believe this MOOA theory but first I have to take a look at it. So i don’t understand why the intent of the legislature when they said “animals” is a no go area. Isnt the intent of the legislature a subject we should spend alot of time on?

      Right, I agree. Just try to keep in mind that we only have a limited amount of time on this earth. Any cemetery should give you a possible hint or clue. We have 3 score + – 10
      ——————————————-
      @> Roger
      @ >April 5, 2014 at 9:49 AM
      @ >Toland wants to find out what THE LEGISLATURE that wrote “man or other animals” meant by “animal”?

      Final suggestion. Contact someone close to you that is in the Legislature. You are supposed to have “Representatives.”

      It is difficult for me to send my response to anyone, at times, when there is no red letter reply button to click on.

      @ > Please try to grasp this before posting more personal attacks.

      I need you to define what attack means, in YOUR mind, not from any dictionary,etc.

      Yours Truly,
      Jim Madison, Jus Sanguinis, Jus Soli, Sui Juris
      aka, J.M.

       
    • J.M.

      April 11, 2014 at 10:12 PM

      Henry
      @ > Adask said: “Thanks to our 1st Amendment, our freedom of religion trumps their legislative intent”

      @ > I appreciate your taking the time to explain your theory, but there’s something about this that does not compute for me.

      Why does it not “compute” with you & yet it DOES compute with me AND Alfred Adask? What is WRONG with US, i.e. ME & Alfred & maybe one or two more??? Dance with me Henry. Let’s ROCK.

       
      • Roger

        April 12, 2014 at 2:56 AM

        Henry,

        Please don’t help make the comment sections of this blog any more pointless and boring than the troll has already succeeded in making them.

        This means please don’t feed the troll by responding to provocations like this one.

        Thanks.

         
  15. Bobby G

    March 29, 2014 at 8:08 AM

    Al – great response. You seem to have settled the issue (for me at least). Of course the term “animals” doesn’t appear in the Gen. texts, but it doesn’t need to. The meaning of the texts clearly show that man is seperate from cows, lions, birds, etc., whereas those animals were not created in God’s image. The legislators chose to use the word “animals”, denoting all types, and included man among them. Issue settled. Good job, Al.

     
    • Sam Kadasky

      March 29, 2014 at 6:09 PM

      Bobby G,

      If everything’s been settled, maybe you can explain it to me then, because I’m still trying to understand this topic.

      You said, “The legislators chose to use the word “animals”, denoting all types, and included man among them.”

      Why is this a problem exactly? The legislators are hardly alone in using a definition of “animals” that includes man. From the Wikipedia article titled “Animals”, for example:

      “The word “animal” comes from the Latin word animalis, meaning “having breath”. In everyday colloquial usage the word incorrectly excludes humans – that is, “animal” is often used to refer only to non-human members of the kingdom Animalia…. The biological definition of the word refers to all members of the kingdom Animalia, encompassing creatures as diverse as sponges, jellyfish, insects, and humans.”

       
      • Toland

        March 29, 2014 at 9:41 PM

        Sam K.,

        I am also still investigating in this topic. Specifically:

        Why should referring to both man and non-man using a single term, i.e. “animals”, be considered a denial of the Biblical distinction between man and non-man?

        If the Bible supplied its own definition of the word “animal” (in translation), the answer would be obvious, but the Bible does not do this.

        Grouping fundamentally different things together in a single broad category, and giving that category a label (e.g. “animals”), is not a denial of the fundamental differences among those things.

         
      • J.M.

        March 29, 2014 at 10:01 PM

        @ >The word “animal” comes from the Latin word animalis, meaning “having breath”

        Whoever made this statement is saying, Man IS an animal. Why? Because we breathe. To me, this is degrading The one that breathed into Man, the breath of life, for it is saying “He” The breather, also has/had animal breath. Once again, the word superficial comes into play, AT BEST. BUT, I personally don’t believe it’s a matter of being superficial in & of itself from or for whoever said this.. I SEE that it’s a matter of trying to use a subtle suggestion to belittle & mock “God.” AND HIS creation of Man. This does sound like something Sam, Henry,< ?Jetlag & Toland will affirm/say. Anyway, It's degrading The Creator, i.e. the LIFE giver to believe this even IF we are not aware of it. BUT, I believe YOU, whoever YOU are, ARE AWARE of this. Here we go again & again & again.

         
      • Henry

        March 29, 2014 at 10:34 PM

        Hi, Sam.

        Your cited Wikipedia definition of “animal” as “having breath” closely parallels the Hebrew “nephesh” which means “a breathing creature”.

        This word “nephesh” is translated “soul” in following verse:

        Genesis 2:7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

         
      • Toland

        March 30, 2014 at 12:56 AM

        Henry,

        A certain amount of debate on this blog has been premised on the assumption that the Bible does not provide a definition of the word “animal”.

        Your comment suggests this assumption may be incorrect.

        1. Wikipedia says the word “animal” is derived from the Latin word “animalis”, meaning “having breath”.

        2. According to Strong’s, the Hebrew word “nephesh” means “a breathing creature”.

        3. The near identity of these two definitions is evidence that “nephesh” is the Old Testament’s word for “animal”.

        In light of this conclusion, take another look at “nephesh” (translated “soul”) in the verse you cited:

        Genesis 2:7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

         
      • Henry

        March 30, 2014 at 2:14 AM

        Toland, here’s another one.

        As already mentioned, from Wikipedia:

        “animal” (English) = “animalis” (Latin) = “having breath”

        Now consider this:

        “psyche” (Greek) = “breath”

        Therefore:

        “animal” (English) = “psyche” (Greek)

        This word “psyche” (G5590) is translated “soul” here:

        1 Corinthians 15:45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

         
      • Toland

        March 30, 2014 at 4:39 PM

        “How many a debate would have been deflated into a paragraph if the disputants had dared to define their terms! This is the alpha and omega of logic, the heart and soul of it, that every important term in serious discourse shall be subject to strictest scrutiny and definition.”

        — Will Durant, in The Story of Philosophy

         
      • Sam Kadasky

        March 31, 2014 at 3:54 AM

        Toland,

        I’m thinking the advice given in this article is worth a try.

        “Are you a man made in God’s image, or an animal?”

        Any answer your adversary gave would be interesting.

        Questions for your consideration:

        Would you expect your adversary to answer: “Both, I am a man made in God’s image AND an animal”?

        I mean, isn’t “both” the expected answer from someone who says “man or OTHER animals”?

         
      • J.M.

        April 6, 2014 at 6:38 AM

        Sam Kadasky
        March 29, 2014 at 6:09 PM
        @ > I’m thinking the advice given in this article is worth a try.

        From who? The advice given from who? The advice given from you, & Toland, & Henry, & Roger, paints a picture & says everything that NEEDS to be said. No more advice from anyone is necessary. ALL you fellas just need to get together & decide your method of attack toward the gov-co, when & IF any of you are ever charged with a violation of the drug laws.

         
    • J.M.

      April 1, 2014 at 8:13 AM

      Bobby G, et.al.,
      @ >Al – great response. You seem to have settled the issue (for me at least).

      Seem to have??? We MUST have a conscious CONVICTING knowledge of the issue.

       
  16. Peg-Powers

    March 29, 2014 at 12:40 PM

    Dear hurt-bob:
    For better understanding, you might research the origin, acceptance, and usage of the word “hu man”. We all tend to kick that one around without much thought. Personally, I am offended if I am called a human being—-aren’t you? Why is it not correct enough to say MAN? or WOMAN? It appears that evil is never satisfied unless it can turn simple truth on its head…..black is white, white is black. Babylon purposefully breeds confusion and evil concepts among our people, and it trends toward a genocide within our nation, as Alfred says. Most law enforcement, district attorneys, and judges are now primed and ready for such action. For money, power, and a pension they have sold out and there is no turning back. The trains, buses and barbed wire camps are waiting to be filled.

     
    • bobhurt

      March 29, 2014 at 3:15 PM

      Why I use the word Human –

      Adjective: human
      1. Characteristic of humanity
      2. Relating to a person
      3. Having human form or attributes as opposed to those of animals or divine beings

      Noun: human
      1. Any living or extinct member of the family Hominidae characterized by superior intelligence, articulate speech, and erect carriage

      Noun: Hominidae
      1. Modern man and extinct immediate ancestors of man

      [WordWeb.info]

      I don’t want to say “man or woman” when “human” means exactly the same thing.while including children. I wonder why you want to make a big deal out of this to begin with, especially when you know what I mean, and SHOULD know the definition of the word “human.” Maybe you didn’t before, but now you do, so you can resume using it in reference to sentient PEOPLE.

      If you want to focus you worries on something worthy, lobby against suffrage for and procreation by the stupid and the irresponsible. We have stupid laws because we have bad quality legislators because bad quality people elect them.

      I learned long ago in the manufacturing business that to have an ideal produce you must perfect the PROCESS of creating the product and re-engineer as necessary to ensure that nothing bad comes from the factory. That relieves you of most of the cost of technical support and eliminates return of defective products.

      We (Alfred) complained about a bad product of government, the MOOA law. We need to apply the above principle to it so as to eliminate such bad products in government. To do that we have to stop stupid and irresponsible people from voting, and to accomplish that most easily, we need to stop them from coming into existence. It should become illegal to procreate an inherently stupid child

      Focus on THAT issue for a while.

       
      • J.M.

        March 29, 2014 at 6:40 PM

        Bob Hurt,
        I can relate to your surname. I am a man, but, I HAVE “HUMAN” Nature. It is WRETCHED. It IS Deplorable. It is that downward PULL to do EVIL.But, we can struggle against it. IT AIN’T EASY, but it can be overcome. It IS a choice we have to go along with this “downward pull” OR FIGHT IT. It’s EASY to go along with this “downward pull.” Most people choose the EASY way. At least this is how it seems to me. And, most people TRY & TRY HARD to STOP us from trying to OVERCOME the WRETCHED, DEPLORABLE DOWNWARD PULL, in so many diverse ways.

         
      • bobhurt

        March 29, 2014 at 10:30 PM

        Human nature is wretched? Where’d you get that idea? Have you not seen the magnificent accomplishments in civilization building, art science engineering technology,medicine, etc? That does not come from wretchedness. It comes from the craving in almost every person’s heart to know and become like God, and from decent family conditions, and from education and building of individual knowledge and wisdom. The wretchedness you see is the paucity of “humanity” among people who have yet to develop a majestic and well-balanced personality. Inherent capacities cannot be exceeded, and some people get off to a bad start because of deficient or misguided parenting and education, including misguided religious instruction (like the creation and inerrancy myths). But within those constraints, every person can achieve relative perfection who sincerely proceeds step by step to pursuing truth, beauty, and goodness in life. The Master said “be you therefore perfect”, “Go and sin no more”, “forgive your brother seventy times seven”, “If you forgive the sins of others against you, your heavenly Father shall forgive your sins” etc.

        BECOMING LIKE GOD IS HUMAN NATURE. And the prospect that we can become unrecognizeably like him as Jesus did (“If you have seen me you have seen the Father”)… well I find that absolutely invigorating, exciting,and inspiring.

         
      • J.M.

        March 29, 2014 at 9:00 PM

        @ > I learned long ago in the manufacturing business that to have an ideal produce you must perfect the PROCESS of creating the product and re-engineer as necessary to ensure that nothing bad comes from the factory. That relieves you of most of the cost of technical support and eliminates return of defective products.

        Wouldn’t it be wonderful IF we had Lawyers with integrity that would put this much thought into THEIR Profession as YOU put into yours. Everybody has their “gift.” What a great barter system we could have or, a FAIR & honorable exchange in Trade.IF we all pulled together instead of trying to pull each other apart & through all kinds of devious ways. I would buy a Used Car from you, Sir,Bob Hurt. & based upon your comment.

         
      • J.M.

        March 29, 2014 at 10:53 PM

        @ well I find that absolutely invigorating, exciting,and inspiring.

        Thanks. Human Nature & “Creative ability” are two entirely different things. You create something, & somebody else destroys it because he/she is JEALOUS of your creation through his/her HUMAN NATURE. I said BEFORE I WOULD buy a used car from you. I’d beginning to have 2nd thoughts about that statement. I ALWAYS try to SEE the GOOD in somebody. You believe anything you want to, so can I. I SEE it one way, you see it in a different “light.” I am also aware of someone else who APPEARS as an angel of LIGHT THROUGH his/her servants. BUT, I am also aware that “some” of these people are NOT AWARE of this.

        @ > It should become illegal to procreate an inherently stupid child

        Kind begets kind

        Good night, I’m going to lay down & try to rest.

         
      • J.M.

        March 30, 2014 at 5:55 PM

        Bob Hurt,
        @ > Why I use the word Human –

        Part of the following comment is not meant for you. Bob Hurt, It does not bother me 1 iota what ANYONE calls me,e.g., human being, person, etc., EXCEPT IT does concern me about HOW the words ARE used & their meaning in Statutes, etc.. SOME words ARE CLEAR on their face as to the meaning in legislation, ordinances, etc., & do not need an explanation, e.g. Man OR “OTHER” ANIMALS. BUT, It, Man or “other” Animals & as to what Man or other Animals means, cannot be perceived, understood, etc. by educated derelicts as this is, or should be OBVIOUS. Please respond to my message to you about the “temper tantrum” baby. Thank you

         
      • J.M.

        April 3, 2014 at 1:31 PM

        Bob Hurt, my buddy, I hope.
        @ >Why I use the word Human –

        What is wrong with using the word, Man??? Man, contains two less letters, saves on INK & printing costs especially when you take into consideration the VOLUMES of paperwork that must be prepared to even DEFINE a WORD, e.g. “OTHER”. Know what I mean, Bob

         
  17. Peg-Powers

    March 29, 2014 at 4:48 PM

    Thanks, but your research falls short….and basically, you have proven my point.

     
    • J.M.

      April 2, 2014 at 10:55 PM

      @ >Thanks, but your research falls short….

      We ALL fall short of something, well, at least most of us do. Not everybody does I guess, fall short of something. I thought today was Tuesday.evening. Went to listen to the Radio program, but, no dice. I missed the entire Radio Program. I don’t even know what day it is.It’s a sad story.

       
  18. J.M.

    March 29, 2014 at 5:07 PM

    1.Think I can safely say that everyone reading &/or commenting has “heard” the word, “superficial.”
    2.Think I can safely say also, tha everyone will define it “differently.” It depends on their depth of perception of what the word, superficial, IS.
    3. Only “God” is able to cause the “blind” to SEE. Some people have different degrees of blindness, yes, including me, too. Even the Apostle Paul, said, we see through a glass darkly. BUT, we at least can see something. Some people cannot SEE ANYTHING except what they want to see, & this IS where it STOPS.

     
  19. timmy

    March 29, 2014 at 7:39 PM

    People like Bob Hurt make me laugh out loud. He quotes the Declaration, and even its clear reference to all our rights being sourced in our Creator. That is the foundation that led directly to the greatest freedom and prosperity in the history of the planet. (Until atheists and “rationalists” began to systematically dismantle it…) Then he proceeds to essentially call the founders irrational fools. I’m not sure if it’s more hilarious or pathetic.

     
    • bobhurt

      April 2, 2014 at 12:33 AM

      I did not call the founders irrational OR fools. BUT one of their contemporaries essentially said the same as I said, only with far more prejudice. Google the three-volume AGE OF REASON by Thomas Paine. My point is that today advances in science, geology, astronomy, etc prove the creation theory is essentially bunk, not the question of whether God exists or created everything, but that he created everything in 6 days. And similar nonsense.

      When people stand up and swear that every word in the bible is true, THAT makes other, more rational and intellectually honest people realize the speaker is delusional, dishonest, or a fool. The only people who stick to the inerrancy are those who NEED the bible’s inerrancy in order to convince themselves and others that other nonsense, like Paul’s atonement doctrine, is ALSO true, which it is not and cannot be, as I have simply brusquely explained. So you see, it’s a house of cards of phony beliefs which anyone with integrity and common sense must see as ridiculous.

      Smart people know better than to believe obvious baloney, but that does not mean they should discount everything in the bible just because it contains some myths, allegories, prurient literature, and tall tales. After all, the book contains a lot of wisdom.

      What the world wants from Christians is SIMPLE HONESTY and SINCERITY. If you know something is wrong, you don’t yell to the world (or to yourself) that it is right. And that principle applies to bible beliefs. Christians and Muslims and all other religionists need to separate the wheat from the chaff in their dogmas and doctrines. When they become that honest, they restore others’ faith in them and their integrity.

       
      • J.M.

        April 2, 2014 at 9:59 PM

        To: Bob Hurt
        @ > I did not call the founders irrational OR fools

        That’s right. You most certainly did not call the founders irrational OR fools. A certain Poster also said Edward Snowden is a phony. Didn’t you know, Bob, there are at least two Posters on this Blog that are mind readers? Or, at least they think they are. Didn’t you know that?

         
      • J.M.

        April 3, 2014 at 12:46 PM

        @ > What the world wants from Christians is SIMPLE HONESTY and SINCERITY.

        Dear Bob. FINALLY, you say something I cannot buy. It seems to me what the “world” wants is everything to be understood, HIS or HER way. Let me ask you this. Does the Urantia Bible contain ALL I need to know, OR do I need something else in addition, some other book, etc? Also, I stuck up for you & responded to another poster or two for “putting you down.” I hope you saw this..

         
      • bobhurt

        April 3, 2014 at 2:28 PM

        I try to consider ad hominem arguments and criticism against me as requests for “more information” that will help minds struggling to understand. The URANTIA BOOK is not a bible. It is a 2097-page 1955 masterpiece of philosophically consistent American Language literature of 196 separately authored papers arranged in four sections dealing with the central and superuniverse, the local universe, the history of our world which the authors call Urantia, and the Life and Teachings of Jesus. Anyone who reads it can choose to embrace its teachings and live according to its wisdom inspiring encouragement, or not.

        I personally view the book as the centerpiece of an evolving banquet of truth both revealed by celestial persons and discovered in the evolving mind and soul of the willed creatures on this world and elsewhere throughout the Universe of Universes. While it stands alone as a composite of both divine and worldly sources, many other written works supplement it with information it does not contain. That means the so-called Holy Bible, Bhagavad-Gita, Qur’an, Book of Mormon, Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures, Emanuel Swedenborg volumes, and many other works contain religious truth of value. But I see The Urantia Book as senior to all of them because the revelations in it have arrived more recently than the others.

        In spite of this view, I acknowledge that the revelators intended The Urantia Book for the people or the current epoch. It might omit information that will become relevant to people 500 or 1000 years in the future. And some of what it contains might lack completion, and when readers in the future see it in light of new discoveries, it will not seem accurate. Oh well. Melchizedek did not reveal the whole truth to his followers, and neither did Jesus of Nazareth. You see, we must let our own minds do some personal discovery on their own, and not rely solely upon some written work for guidance.

        After all, our best guide, a spirit fragment of the Universal Father himself, resides in our minds, ever gently encouraging us to do the Father’s will and become like the Father as we venture into future eternity.

         
      • Toland

        April 3, 2014 at 4:12 PM

        “If the facts are against you, argue the law. If the law is against you, argue the facts. And if both the facts and the law are against you, attack the other attorney.”

         
      • J.M.

        April 3, 2014 at 5:17 PM

        @ >The URANTIA BOOK is not a bible

        I apologize. I thought, bible, meant, book.

         
      • bobhurt

        April 3, 2014 at 10:12 PM

        Obviously, in our context, Bible means a collection of disparate writings of mixed history, religion, myth, prurient literature, euphemisms, witticisms, and tall tales authored over a period 2000 years mostly in anonymity, canonized by self-established authorities, accepted by many, and taught to their children and proselytes, as the truth from God.

        The Urantia Book has significantly better credentials than, and differs in numerous other ways from, the bible.

        If you want to understand this fully, you need to read both books. I suggest starting with The Urantia Book. Oops, too late for that. But start on it as soon as you can. You don’t want to miss enjoying its sublime truths before you die.

         
      • J.M.

        April 4, 2014 at 9:01 AM

        Bob Hurt,
        @ > ! try to consider ad hominem arguments and criticism against me as requests for “more information” that will help minds struggling to understand.

        My Dear Bob,

        That statement will never be topped in my opinion & being that this is what I wish I was able to do, e.g., I went to bed with a heavy heart. I woke myself up laughing about this statement, >.”… “criticism against me (<you) as requests for “more information” that will help minds struggling to understand." whoooooopee. It's apparently my lack of "something" I am unable to be this way. Wish I knew how to see it your way

        I wish I could have seen my comments, as others, would have before I sent them for I NOW see, none of them would have been sent, except for & to you & palani. It is a deep mystery to me to know, at least at this time, that you & I are on two different trains & YET I have ENJOYED beyond words to explain our exchanges. You have made me happy. While on the other train, ALL on the "religion" train, it now appears, only saw me as a troll (I never knew what that word meant until others on the train I was on, said this is ALL I am, a troll). I did not understand their responses to me as "criticism." I understood their responses as ridicule, mockery, blasphemy, etc. I LOVE criticism, IF it is constructive. Then I am advised that the poison arrows that were shot deeply into my heart are trivial matters that I should not even be concerned about, It appears to be trivial that I can be called a LIAR, a deceiver, EVIL, I am a demon possessed devil, & this is just trivial & I should not be concerned about it. However, I sorta think IF the SAME thing was said to the "right one" it would not be considered trivial. There is a statement in the Bible I want to look up & discuss with you. I DO believe that point will be CLEARLY understood by most posters on this blog & I KNOW that even little ol mousie me AM able to CLEARLY write about it to the degree that 99% WILL know EXACTLY what I am saying. I know I STILL have a pretty good heart & NOBODY will convince me otherwise. Be back in a few minutes as it does not look like I am banned, at least yet.

         
    • J.M.

      April 2, 2014 at 10:11 PM

      @ >People like Bob Hurt make me laugh out loud.

      I like Bob Hurt because he is a straight shooter, pulls no punches, calls it as he sees it, does not use double meaning language, so as to when someone responds, he can say Nope, here is what I meant, so to belittle the responder. There is an EXPERT Poster on this Blog who KNOWS how to use & USES this kind of strategic thinking. HE or IT gets a KICK out of this. No need to say why. Bob Hurt’s BIG problem IS, he is not perfect like SOME people think he/she is.

       
    • J.M.

      April 5, 2014 at 8:30 AM

      @ > People like Bob Hurt make me laugh out loud.

      ME TOO, Yes indeed. We are just laughing about two different things we understand differently. Ain’t that FUNNY? Some people post only to poke fun then back up & run. That’s funny too. Especially CHRISTIANS. Christian means, CHRISTLIKE. No WONDER people don’t want to have anything to do with the Christian Religion.

       
  20. timmy

    March 29, 2014 at 7:40 PM

    These threads always make me think back to Johnny Cochran’s defense of O.J. Remember when Cochran asked the prosecutor “What is the nature of the person whom you seek?” It was not commented on but some believe that may have ended the case right there, and the rest was theatre. It sure was an unusual thing to be said in court…

     
    • J.M.

      April 1, 2014 at 5:32 PM

      timmy,
      @>“What is the nature of the person whom you seek?”

      Is there a way that I am able to gain access to any “source” so I can or may hear this statement. It IS interesting, at least to me.

       
    • J.M.

      April 2, 2014 at 5:09 PM

      Thanks Timmy.

       
    • J.M.

      April 2, 2014 at 10:14 PM

      timmy,
      @ >These threads always make me think ……………..”

      THIS IS GOOD !!! At least I think so.

       
  21. J.M.

    March 29, 2014 at 8:16 PM

    Why does ANYONE want to FIGHT A WINNER??? If Alfred Adask has a Royal Straight Flush, some of you folks are saying your pair of dunces, excuse me, DEUCES, there we go, Or your pair of FOSE beats him. HE WON !!! Why IS this not important? WHY doesn’t this matter? Do you people HATE The words of “God” that much? WHY does someone say the “Bible has nothing to do with it, & YET say certain Christian founding documents, e.g., The Statute of 1776, which flows FROM an understanding of the Bible, are important but not the Holy Bible???

     
  22. J.M.

    March 29, 2014 at 8:49 PM

    @ > Dear hurt-bob:
    naughty naughty naughty < he he

     
  23. EDOMS THORN

    March 29, 2014 at 9:45 PM

    Would some one cite the Names and dates and where it says this? How, Who, and Where and When?

    Thanks.

     
  24. J.M.

    March 29, 2014 at 10:20 PM

    Genesis1:26-28 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

    We have here the second part of the sixth day’s work, the creation of man, which

    we are in a special manner concerned to take notice of. Observe, That man was made last of all

    the creatures, which was both an honour and a favour to him: an honour, for the creation was to

    advance from that which was less perfect, to that which was more so and a favour, for it was not fit

    he should be lodged in the palace designed for him, till it was completely fitted and furnished for

    his reception. Man, as soon as he was made, had the whole visible creation before him, both to

    contemplate, and to take the comfort of. That man’s creation was a mere signal act of divine

    wisdom and power, than that of the other creatures. The narrative of it is introduced with

    solemnity, and a manifest distinction from the rest. Hitherto it had been said, Let there be light,

    and Let there be a firmament: but now the word of command is turned into a word of consultation,

    Let us make man – For whose sake the rest of the creatures were made. Man was to be a

    creature different from all that had been hitherto made. Flesh and spirit, heaven and earth must

    be put together in him, and he must be allied to both worlds. And therefore God himself not only

    undertakes to make, but is pleased so to express himself, as if he called a council to consider of

    the making of him; Let us make man – The Father, and,Son, consult about it, and concur in it; because man, when he was made, was to be dedicated

    and devoted to Father, and Son. That man was made in God’s image, and after his/their

    likeness; two words to express the same thing. God’s image upon man, consists, In his nature,

    and that of his soul. The soul is a spirit, an intelligent,

    immortal spirit, an active spirit, herein resembling God, the Father of spirits, and the soul of the

    world. In his place and authority. Let us make man in our image, and let him have dominion. As he

    has the government of the inferior creatures, he is as it were God’s representative on earth. Yet

    his government of himself by the freedom of his will, has in it more of God’s image, than his

    government of the creatures. And chiefly in his purity and rectitude. God’s image upon man

    consists in knowledge, righteousness, and true holiness, Eph 4:24; Col 3:10. He was upright, Ec

    7:29. He had an habitual conformity of all his natural powers to the whole will of God. His

    understanding saw divine things clearly, and there were no errors in his knowledge: his will

    complied readily and universally with the will of God; without reluctancy: his affections were all

    regular, and he had no inordinate appetites or passions: his thoughts were easily fixed to the best

    subjects, and there was no vanity or ungovernableness in them. And all the inferior powers were

    subject to the dictates of the superior. Thus holy, thus happy, were our first parents, in having the

    image of God upon them. But how art thou fallen, O son of the morning? How is this image of God

    upon man defaced! How small are the remains of it, and how great the ruins of it! The Lord renew

    it upon our souls by his sanctifying grace! That man was made male and female, and blessed with

    fruitfulness. He created him male and female, Adam and Eve: Adam first out of earth, and Eve out

    of his side. God made but one male and one female, that all the nations of men might know

    themselves to be made of one blood, descendants, from one common stock, and might thereby

    be induced to love one another. God having made them capable of transmitting the nature they

    had received, said to them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth – Here he gave them,

    A large inheritance; replenish the earth, in which God has set man to be the servant of his

    providence, in the government of the inferior creatures, and as it were the intelligence of this orb;

    to be likewise the collector of his praises in this lower world, and lastly, to be a probationer for a

    better state. A numerous lasting family to enjoy this inheritance; pronouncing a blessing upon

    them, in the virtue of which, their posterity should extend to the utmost corners of the earth, and

    continue to the utmost period of time. That God gave to man a dominion over the inferior

    creatures, over fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air – Though man provides for neither, he

    has power over both, much more over every living thing that moveth upon the earth – God

    designed hereby to put an honour upon man, that he might find himself the more strongly obliged

    to bring honour to his Maker.

     
    • J.M.

      March 29, 2014 at 11:01 PM

      @The soul is a spirit, an intelligent, immortal spirit

      Excuse me. That WAS/IS a big mistake The soul is a spirit, an intelligent spirit with the potential to become an immortal spirit.

       
      • J.M.

        March 31, 2014 at 10:56 PM

        P.S. Keeping in mind,the Messiah said, Fear him who is “able” to DESTROY BOTH body AND soul, in, guess where? You know where. Soul DOES “sometimes” mean nephesh chayyah, Other times, it means something other than just flesh & blood. Studying “as” the Bereans did, will prove this, at least it did so for me.

         
  25. gary Lee

    March 30, 2014 at 1:43 AM

    Once again, I feel compelled to ask, and again I apologize for asking the same question repeatedly, but WHERE, and more importantly, to WHOM exactly does all this MOAA apply? Answer is simple: IN THE UNITED STATES, which is a private corporation, located in the District of Columbia, and to “persons”, aka, “corporate entities”. It does NOT apply in The United States of America, c 1787, i.e. the several states of the Union. So , AGAIN, it is a matter (as Alfred might say) of VENUE. WHERE do you ‘live’? If you are NOT the ‘NAME”, the “corporate entity”/US citizen to which all those codes and statutes apply, the IT DOESN’T MATTER, and it becomes a debate merely for the sake of debate.

    Here is a quote from Mary Elizabeth,[Croft], whom I find very complementary with Alfred’s musings about MOAA, jurisdiction, this state/the state, etc.:

    “If it isn’t simple, it isn’t accurate.
    Published by admin at 1:48 pm under Knowing Who You Are

    “Lately, I’ve been reading ‘murder mysteries’. Invariably, people are dragged into the cop-shop and interrogated. When I read how people answer the infuriating questions, I always think: Hell, I wouldn’t have answered that question. I figure that the mere fact that the cops are asking any questions, at all, proves that they don’t actually know if the culprit murdered anyone, not to mention, isn’t this the job of a prosecutor in court? Isn’t it he who ought to be asking the questions? It’s all just more drama for them –thinking of creative ways to get someone to admit his guilt, only to fill their days because they have nothing more constructive to do.”

    “Once these people are in court, they are not only asked the same questions asked previously but also now to answer “under oath”. So as not to lie under oath, people say what’s true. Then, the prosecutor says, “But that’s not what you told the police. Did you lie to the police? How can we believe anything you say, now?” I’m always stunned that the alleged culprits don’t know how to respond to that idiocy. It’s so damn obvious: “Are you claiming there is a law against lying to police? If so, prove it. Was I “under oath”, then? Since you knew you would be asking me the same questions, now, why was I asked any questions, then? Wasn’t it so you can use that information against me? Isn’t this why you actually warn us, “anything you say will be used against you”? No one is obliged to answer hired thugs who are employed by corporations. If we had an actual government who hired real peace officers, then I expect we would be bound to answer their questions, but not when the purpose is trick people into incriminations and false confessions. Don’t talk to police, other than to say, “Am I going to have to answer these questions in court? If so, I’ll wait and tell my story, then.”

    When I read how people are treated, I always think, I would have said, “You say I murdered someone? Prove it. No; you don’t get to ask me questions. You wouldn’t have brought me in if you didn’t think I did it, so, what makes you think I did it? If what you think doesn’t prove I did it, that’s called ‘reasonable doubt’. Sorry, you lose.”

    The point is, and always has been, to WHOM does the MOAA even apply? Answer is simple: “persons”,whom only exist in the corporate United States, located in the District of Columbia, which you knowledgeable folks have posted the definition of numerous times. If you are not a “person”, the MOAA stuff DOES NOT apply to you in the first place.

    While a good debate can be fun, educational and entertaining, unless you are a “person” (and YOU know who you are!), there doesn’t seem to much reason to get one’s knickers in a twist, unless their corporate BS actually applies to you. IF you find yourself in that situation, perhaps a bit more time on Alfred’s site doing research, and extracting yourself from their corporate mess might benefit you immensely. : )

     
    • J.M.

      March 30, 2014 at 1:56 PM

      @ >So , AGAIN, it is a matter (as Alfred might say) of VENUE. WHERE do you ‘live’? If you are NOT the ‘NAME”, the “corporate entity”/US citizen to which all those codes and statutes apply, the IT DOESN’T MATTER, and it becomes a debate merely for the sake of debate.

      Where dis Alfred Adask “live” THEN??? YOU tell me WHY Alfred Adask WAS charged or accused of violating what we call an MOOA law.

       
      • J.M.

        March 30, 2014 at 5:27 PM

        Where does Alfred Adask “live” THEN???

        It does appear also that I do have an eyesight problem. I don’t understand how I could not have seen that error, e.g., dis, instead of, does.

         
    • J.M.

      April 3, 2014 at 1:16 PM

      Gary sui juris
      @ > Once again, I feel compelled to ask, and again I apologize for asking the same question repeatedly, but WHERE, and more importantly, to WHOM exactly does all this MOAA apply? Answer is simple

      Yes the answer IS simple.Thanks for being COMPELLED to ask the SAME question REPEATEDLY & thanks SO MUCH for providing the SIMPLE ANSWER.

      Sincerely, jus sanguinis

       
  26. Bobby G

    March 30, 2014 at 9:03 AM

    Good point.

     
    • J.M.

      March 30, 2014 at 3:37 PM

      @ >Good point.

      The point I am trying to make & HAVE BEEN trying to make IS, The gov-co, aka Frank N. Stein only is concerned about CONTROL & keeping ITS SUBJECTS in LINE. My comment could ALSO be taken as belittling Alfred BUT it IS NOT meant like this. Gov-co DOES have the POWER, the JAILS, The Prisons, etc., to put us in IF & when we “GET OUT OF LINE, out of STEP, like marching in the MILITARY, or NOT STANDING AT ATTENTION ERECT OR STRAIGHT ENOUGH.” This IS NOT just a THOUGHT. I have been in the “military” & I KNOW what happens in BASIC “TRAINING.”

      The OUT is CLEARLY proven to ME at least by what Alfred Adask has said OVER & OVER & OVER & YET WHO is grasping it? I believe THEY ARE GRASPING but TRYING HARD TO ridicule in such a way that IT DOES NOT “appear” to be that way. B.S. ALL I see for the MOST part are people IGNORING his belief, i.e. what Alfred IS SHOWING. What makes my blood boil is, people IGNORING what Alfred SHOWS by continually CHALLENGING his STAND by wanting a DEFINITION. B.S B.S B.S. They are tryng to KILL his Stand. Discourage ANYONE.else from even wanting to understand. GOADING I CALL IT but DOING it in such a way that it “APPEARS” otherwise. YES, It DOES make me ANGRY. BUT I THINK RIGHTLY SO !!!

       
  27. Gary Lee, [Russell]

    March 30, 2014 at 7:59 PM

    JM: I am pretty sure if you ask Alfred, he will tell you that ALFRED ADASK (NOT Alfred Adask) was charged, as the courts CANNOT charge a living man, ONLY a ‘corporate entity’. The very reason Alfred’s MOAA defense stymies them isthe fact that he is NOT a corporate entity and leaves them with NO choices but to pursue others.

    Alfred’s MOAA defense is the means by which he challenges them to prove he is NOT a living man, but that he IS the corporate entity ALFRED ADASK, the entity they CAN charge. They cannot prove it, and they cannot charge Alfred Adask the living man with their corporate ‘crimes’, as he is not a party to their corporation and he has not agreed to follow their corporate rules (“statutes”).

    Alfred Adask lives in the Texas Republic, one of the several states of the Union, NOT in TX, the federal territory located in the District of Columbia. Had he been a ‘resident’ of TX, they COULD HAVE charged him, as he would be a ‘federal’ citizen, not a state Citizen of one of the several states of the Union styled The United States Of America. ALL federal ‘citizens’ are corporate entities.

    Look at the address of the ‘court’ in which ALFRED ADASK was charged with a ‘crime’. It is IN the federal territory TX, located in the District of Columbia, NOT in the Texas Republic.

     
    • J.M.

      March 31, 2014 at 8:01 PM

      @ > JM: I am pretty sure if you ask Alfred, he will tell you that ALFRED ADASK (NOT Alfred Adask) was charged………. ”

      Thanks. I’m pretty sure you are right. What makes you think I NEEDED to know this?

      @ > Look at the address of the ‘court’ in which ALFRED ADASK was charged with a ‘crime’. It is IN the federal territory TX, located in the District of Columbia, NOT in the Texas Republic.

      Thanks again. I didn’t know that either. Really appreciate you bringing me up to snuff on this too. BTW Do you, Gary Lee, SUI JURIS, ever read any other comments besides answers to your own comments? I know you don’t care to read any of mine& I don’t care either, but IF you do, I’m “pretty sure” you do not understand anything, or hardly anything I am trying to express. Why don’t you ask Alfred to ban me like so many others HAVE? Some have BEGGED him to do this, e.g., AL PLEASE !!!, AL PLEASE HOW MUCH LONGER ARE YOU GOING TO MAKE US SUFFER ENDURING THIS TROLL, J.M. PLEEEEEES AL PLEASE PUT A STOP TO THIS TROLL J.M. DEMONIZING THIS BEAUTIFUL CHRISTIAN BLOG, AL WHY CAN”T YOU SEE HOW EVIL J.M.IS ??
      We need to get back to business as usual AL, WHY CAN’T YOU UNDERSTAND THIS AL??? Then the response is, Al MUST be taking a LONG NAP, but for MONTH?? There MUST be SOMETHING we are not understanding here, & on &on & on.

      Hey Gary Lee sui juris, I really would appreciate it if you would respond to the Message of Alfred Adask, of, March 31, 2014 at 5:01 AM. I have some visitors here with me today & tomorrow & they ARE NOSY, I guess. Please respond to the message of Alfred, as requested above.

       
    • J.M.

      April 2, 2014 at 10:43 PM

      @ > Gary Lee, [Russell]
      @ >March 30, 2014 at 7:59 PM

      ok Gary Lee, [Russell] sui juris. I apologize. My BAD. Let’s try it this way.

      @ > JM: I am pretty sure if you ask Alfred, he will tell you that ALFRED ADASK (NOT Alfred Adask) was charged, as the courts CANNOT charge a living man, ONLY a ‘corporate entity’. The very reason Alfred’s MOAA defense stymies them is the fact that he is NOT a corporate entity and leaves them with NO choices but to pursue others.

      ok, I apologize. I didn’t know that. But I don’t know how to get in touch with him to ask him. I’ll try, but if I cannot get in touch with him, I’ll go on your pretty sure answer.

      @ > Alfred’s MOAA defense is the means by which he challenges them to prove he is NOT a living man, but that he IS the corporate entity ALFRED ADASK, the entity they CAN charge. They cannot prove it, and they cannot charge Alfred Adask the living man with their corporate ‘crimes’, as he is not a party to their corporation and he has not agreed to follow their corporate rules (“statutes”).

      Gary Lee, [Russell] sui juris, I will presume that Alfred’s MOAA defense, as you call it had the defense of YHWH ha Elohiym,as his defender. I hope this does not offend you,i.e.”this Defender.”

      @ > Alfred Adask lives in the Texas Republic, one of the several states of the Union, NOT in TX, the federal territory located in the District of Columbia. Had he been a ‘resident’ of TX, they COULD HAVE charged him, as he would be a ‘federal’ citizen, not a state Citizen of one of the several states of the Union styled The United States Of America. ALL federal ‘citizens’ are corporate entities.

      ok if you say so.

      Look at the address of the ‘court’ in which ALFRED ADASK was charged with a ‘crime’. It is IN the federal territory TX, located in the District of Columbia, NOT in the Texas Republic.

      Thanks. I’ll try to find this information.. Thanks for your help.

       
  28. Gary Lee

    March 30, 2014 at 10:57 PM

    JM, , I believe if you read Alfred’s disclaimer or ask him, he will tell you he lives in the Texas Republic, or he may refer to it as the State of Texas, one of the several states of the Union, NOT to be confused with the STATE OF TEXAS (TX) which is a federal territory located in the District of Columbia.

    If Alfred did, in fact, live in the District of Columbia, he would be a federal citizen, and he WOULD be a ‘corporte entity’, as ALL ‘federal citizens’ are corporate entities, hence they ARE subject to codes and statutes (corporate rules), ALL of which ONLY apply in the District of Columbia or the federal territories conveniently named things like STATE OF TEXAS (TX), or STATE OF CALIFORNIA (CA), which are also ALL located in the District of Columbia.

    I believe you will also find that Alfred Adask was never charged with ANYTHING, as the courts have no jurisdiction over a living man. Who WAS charged was ALFRED ADASK, the corporate entity created by GovCo. The whole point of Alfred’s MOOA defense is that he is a living man, NOT a corporate entity, and the MOOA defense is his means of putting GovCo on notice they have to PROVE he is NOT a living man. They CANNOT prove that, and of course the subject of this particular article was about whether or not the GovCo representatives, be they judge, jury, prosecutor, or whatever, were the ‘other animals’, in which case Alfred, according to the Bible, HAS DOMINION OVER THEM, NOT the other way around. If they deny being ‘animals, how can they then declare Alfred to somehow be an ‘animal’?.

    Thew ‘courts’ are corporate courts of equity and only have jurisdiction over corporations. Most people don’t know this and admit to being “residents” and subject themselves to the “court’s” jurisdiction, subsequently being tried and convicted.. Alfred clearly knows better, and the MOOA defense means the court must prove he is NOT a living man, and they cannot do that, hence, they finally dropped the case, as Alfred stood his ground and did not cave in to give them jurisdiction.

    The courts, like the IRS, will always offer to ‘negotiate’, and IF you are fool enough to ‘negotiate’, you place yourself right back under their jurisdiction. Same with IRS. They will settle for pennies on the dollar, NOT because they need the money, but because as long aas they can keep you filing, YOU keep placing yourself under their jurisdiction.

    Alfred has been on to their game a long time, thus stood his ground and did NOT take any of their ‘offers’, which would have put him right where GovCo wanted him: under their jurisdiction.

     
    • J.M.

      March 31, 2014 at 12:31 AM

      Gary Lee,you say in pertinent part,

      @ >JM, , I believe if you read Alfred’s disclaimer or ask him, he will tell you he lives in the Texas Republic, or he may refer to it as the State of Texas, one of the several states of the Union, NOT to be confused with the STATE OF TEXAS (TX) which is a federal territory located in the District of Columbia.

      I understand this. But you people are saying that if somebody is living in this “venue” using the proper name, upper & lower case letters, and IF the Man, ANY MAN, has the “proper qualifications” this Man cannot be accused of or charged with a violation of the MOOA laws. At least this is my understanding that this is what you are saying.

      @ I believe you will also find that Alfred Adask was never charged with ANYTHING.

      Who was put through the “trial”, TEST, for I think 6 years? WHO studied into this charge or what ever you want to call it & SAW the answer? Alfred Adask, OR the ALL caps Alfred Adask?

      ALSO, WHO suffered the STRAIN of having to spend 6 years of “negotiating” or whatever you want to call it, with the Attorney General, Alfred Adask, or the ALL caps Alfred Adask?

      What does the word, Shallow mean? What does the word, superficial mean? Why don’t you ask Alfred Adask IF it was HIM who fought back, or was it the ALL caps Alfred Adask? I may very well be wrong about imagining what Alfred Adask went through. Maybe it was all a joyride. Maybe he enjoyed it ALL the way from START to FINISH. IF so, THEN I am extremely SHALLOW & SUPERFICIAL MYSELF.

      ALSO, WHY is it that some people tell me how little I understand & when I let you know I may understand just a little bit more than you think I do YOU have nothing else to say? Why is this?

      I will appreciate your response to this message.

       
      • pop de adam

        March 31, 2014 at 1:34 AM

        from “Massachusetts general laws”

        Chapter 1

        Section 2. The sovereignty and jurisdiction of the commonwealth shall extend to all places within its boundaries subject to the concurrent jurisdiction granted over places ceded to or acquired by the United States.

        A major question to be answered might be: Is Massachusetts within or without the United States?

        Some argue that Massachusetts was among the grantors or creators of the United States and thus outside or without.

        Others argue that since Massachusetts signed on with this Union they are within or inside it.

        Upon reading the actual the above cited law, I am inclined to believe “massachusetts” believes itself is within the United States. They are overstepping a boundry when they leave federal territory or property.

        Now read section 1, and try to reconcile it with the above:

        Section 1. All persons who are citizens of the United States and who are domiciled in this commonwealth are citizens thereof.

        I think the correct interpretation is that “Massachusetts” or “Commonweath of Massachusetts” is an internal sub-corporation or department within the United States. Why and how could this state incorporate the Internal Revenue Code if it were otherwise? Worse why are people paying this same entity twice?

        Suppose one were to get a quit claim deed from the Bureau of Land Management whereas they rescided any claim to a property by sale. Could they or any of the sub-states ever make a good faith claim upon such, barring an actual injury?

        Just something I have been mulling over. -Pop

         
    • Adask

      March 31, 2014 at 5:01 AM

      First, I would not claim to be in or part of the “Texas Republic” (“Republic of Texas”). That entity existed for a few years after the Texas War of Independence that separated “Texas” from Mexico”Texas” but ceased to exist when “Texas” later joined the perpetual Union styled “The United States of America”. When “Texas” joined the Union, it ceased to exist as the “Republic of Texas” and became a State of the Union named “The State of Texas”. I currently claim to be within the borders of “The State of Texas”.

      Some doubt that “The State of Texas” is still a viable entity. But, if I recall correctly, in the Supreme Court case of “Texas vs White” (?) it was observed that a “State” normally consists of 1) a limited and defined territory; 2) a State government; and 3) the people who have joined that “State”. But even if a foreign or unconstitutional government attacks and seizes some or all of the territory of that State, the “State” continues to exist. More, even if some foreign or unconstitutional government overwhelms, supplants or destroys the de jure government of that “State,” that “State” continues to exist. In the end, the court ruled that the “State” was the people who were members of that State. Thus, so long as even one man continues to claim to be a member of a particular State of the Union, that “State” continues to exist. Obviously, if there’s only one man who claims to be member of The State of Texas, his claim will be ridiculed and unlikely to prevail. Even so, legally, “The State of Texas” continues to exist if only because I say it exists. Even if it exists only for me, it exists.

      What is missing right now from “The State of Texas” is the de jure, constitutional government. “The State of Texas” is still here, but the constitutional government of “The State of Texas” is not. Instead, the current state government appears to function as an “administrative district” and/or “territory” of the United States (not of The United States of America).

      Why would the current government be territorial rather than State of the Union? I can’t prove it, but I believe that answer is Article 1.10.1 of The Constitution of the United States which declares that “No State [meaning State of the Union] shall make any Thing a Tender in Payment of Debts.” Note that Article 1.10.1 only applies to States of the Union. It does not apply to the federal government, Washington DC or the territories. When the feds removed gold from domestic circulation in A.D. 1933 and then removed silver between A.D. 1964 and A.D. 1968, I believe that the governments of the States of the Union were thereby rendered insolvent and unable to function. Without a gold- or silver-based currency, the governments of the States of the Union could not impose taxes, fines or fees without violating Article 1.10.1. Without a gold- or silver-based currency, the governments of the States of the Union could not pay their officers, employees, suppliers or creditors without violating Article 1.10.1. Again, I can’t prove it, but I suspect that once the gold and silver were removed from circulation, and the governments of the States of the Union were rendered insolvent, those governments of the States of the Union were replaced with territorial governments of the United States that were not prohibited by Article 1.10.1 from conducting business with fiat, paper dollars rather than gold or silver coin. If that hypothesis is roughly correct, the shift from governments of the States of the Union to “administrative districts”/”territories” of the United States was probably achieved under the pretext of a “national emergency“.

      I.e., since the governments of the States of Union could not function constitutionally without gold or silver coin, there was an “emergency”. The feds stepped in to “help” during this emergency by creating the fiction of a territorial governments that could legally transact business in FRNs. I can’t say that analysis constitutes God’s truth, but it seems logical (at least to me). If I wanted to extend that argument, I might even claim that any possession of use of FRNs may be deemed as evidence that you have voluntarily entered into a “state of emergency” wherein your former constitutional protections are suspended for the duration of that “emergency”.

      The irony (or treason, depending on your point of view) in all of this hypothesis is that the “emergency” (loss of gold/silver money in circulation) that rendered the governments of the States of the Union insolvent was caused by the national government’s removal of gold and silver coin from domestic circulation. I.e., the national government caused the emergency, and then “magically” appeared to “help” our State governors and high officials to keep their jobs by accepting FRNs rather than gold/silver-backed currency.

      However, I have several, current instances in The Constitution of The State of Texas, Rule 1.23 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, Rule 15 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, and the congressional act of March 30, A.D. 1870 (that readmitted “Texas” to representation in Congress as one of the States of the Union) that each expressly refer to the proper name for this State of the Union as “The State of Texas”. The majority of those references are in quotes. Thus, “The State of Texas” is the exactly precise name of the State that is a member-State of the perpetual Union called “The United States of America”. Thus, “The State of Texas” is a “State of The United States of America”.

      But, so far as I can tell, “TX,” “STATE OF TEXAS” and “Texas” are not proper names for “The State of Texas”. Instead, “TX,” “STATE OF TEXAS” and “Texas” are proper names of a “state of the United States“. The “United States” and “The United States of America” are two entirely different jurisdictions.

      If you compare the constitution of The United States of America (which is the “Articles of Confederation” adopted in A.D. 1781) to The Constitution of the United States (A.D. 1787), you see that the “The United States of America” (created by the Articles of Confederation) includes only States of the Union. There is no proviso for Washington DC or any territories like Guam, Puerto Rico and “Texas” within “The United States of America”. However, if you read the “Constitution of the United States,” you’ll see that that entity does include proviso for Washington DC and territories.

      Thus, so long as you are located within “The United States of America,” you can’t be in a territory. But you could be in a territory if you were situated “in the United States”.

      States “of the The United States of America” (Union) are not states “of the United States”. Within the borders of The State of Texas we can claim to be men made in God’s image and endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable Rights–and are therefore “sovereigns”. However, if you admit by your conduct that you are in the territory of “TX, “STATE OF TEXAS,” “Texas,” etc. you may fall into the classification of “man or other animals” or otherwise (perhaps by your claim of U.S. citizenship) to be a subject of Congress. Because Congress has exclusive legislative jurisdiction over Washington DC and the territories, Congress appears to be the sovereigns over those territories in a form of government that could be described as an “aristocracy”. So long as you are deemed to be within any of those territories, you cannot be a “sovereign” and must be a subject.

      In any case, if anyone asks I will not claim to be a member of the “Texas Republic” and/or the “Republic of Texas” since that entity appears to me to have been dissolved when “Texas” first joined “The United States of America” as a State of the Union. I do, however, claim to be one of the “people” of The State of Texas–a member-State of the perpetual Union styled “The United States of America”.

      Second, it may seem odd, but up until now, it hadn’t expressly crossed my mind that the MOOA strategy not only expressly challenges any presumption that I’m an “animal,” but also implicitly challenges any presumption that I’m a corporate entity. Thanks for bringing that insight to my conscious mind.

      Once I declare what I am under oath, my adversary should have to refute that claim under oath. If I claim under oath to be a “man made in God’s image and endowed by my Creator with certain unalienable Rights,” it won’t be enough for my adversary to deny my claim by simply saying “No, you’re not!” Instead, my adversary won’t only have to deny that I am the kind of man I claim to be, he’ll have to declare under oath whatever it is that “they” presume me to be. Will anyone take the witness stand to swear that I am only an “animal”? I don’t think so. Will anyone take the witness stand to swear that I’m a corporation or some other kind of fiction? I don’t think so. Will anyone take the witness stand to expressly swear that I represent some corporation or have voluntarily consented to act as a trustee to represent some other beneficiary? It’s possible that they might try to allege that I’m representing some other fictional entity, but it’s unlikely that they can make that allegation stand. I feel confident that I can prove to most jurors’ satisfaction that I have not voluntarily consented to represent any entity.

       
      • palani

        April 2, 2014 at 4:46 PM

        Alfred

        I make no claim to be within any political entity. I belong to neither the Boy Scouts nor the Brownies. I was not born in any municipality. I was born in a watershed which may have a man-created name but whose borders were established by nature.

        Whether you declare you were born in the State of Texas, the Republic of Texas or the United States of America you are making a claim to certain rights and established duties. If you claim to be born in the City of Dallas (a municipality with certain territory attached) you might want to be aware that the City of Dallas is the officers appointed to represent the municipality. Claiming to be in the City of Dallas or making a claim of being born there places one in a corporate status. The claim actually creates the person and the person is a fiction. After you once deviate from reality every other event that happens to you is tied in some way to this fiction. In the end it doesn’t matter if you choose the United States, the United State of America, the State of Texas or STATE OF TEXAS. Each is a legal fiction and by your own words you agree to be a part of this fiction.

        The status of alien is a most interesting one. Practically everyone I have ever met holds this status. Here is an excerpt from Eirenarcha circa 1602

        the Commission itselfe seemeth to authorize the Justice of peace, no further then to provide for the Queenes people, of which number no Alien seemeth to be. But, why any Alien may not be bound to the peace, I doe not yet understand.

         
  29. Gary Lee

    March 31, 2014 at 12:56 AM

    JM, I really have NO idea what you do, or do not understand, and it is really not pertinent to Alfred’s post. Alfred Adask, the living man, was put through all the bullshit because GovCo is neither honorable nor honest. They are like any other tyrannical Government in history, and will do whatever it takes, even when they are wrong. Even when the KNOW they are wrong.

    They tried everything they could think of to try and make the man Alfred Adask answer for ALFRED ADASK, and Alfred is too smart to have fallen for any of it.

    I am unsure why you are making this something personal about yourself. Alfred’s post is about the MOOA defense and how it may actually be used against them by asking if they are, in fact, animals, thereby making them BENEATH Alfred, the man. It is NOT about you, or anything you do, or do not understand.

    I am not here to ‘debate’ ANYTHING. I posted MY thoughts on the subject, based on what Alfred wrote in this article, and 6 or 7 years of reading his posts. I am not interested in attacking, belittling anybody for their thoughts, nor getting into some philosophical debate personally about anyone who posts on Alfred’s site. I respect Alfred’s insights, and that, and that alone, is why I am here.

    There are a large number of contributors here who also have great insights. All of these make me think about what I THINK I know, and I learn new information all the time. THAT is why I am here, not to debate what somebody else knows, or doesn’t know. NOT MY JOB. My job is to learn.

     
    • J.M.

      March 31, 2014 at 1:58 AM

      Gary Lee,
      @ > J.M, I really have NO idea what you do, or do not understand, and it is really not pertinent to Alfred’s post.

      1. Well then please to not direct anymore of your comments to me & expect me to answer. You said what you wanted too & so did I. I am here to learn too, believe it or not. Do you not consider your message to me on March 30, 2014 at 10:57 PM a TEACHING message? I was supposed to LEARN something from it wasn’t I ??? Or if your message was not for my edification purposes, what was it for?

      YOU, Gary Lee said the SAME thing I was saying when YOU said, > Alfred Adask, the living man, was put through all the bullshit because GovCo is neither honorable nor honest. They are like any other tyrannical Government in history, and will do whatever it takes, even when they are wrong. Even when the KNOW they are wrong.

      This IS EXACTLY the way I feel about it too. Maybe this a VAIN statement coming from me, But I believe I know JUST as much about Alfred’s MOOA ordeal as you do. But I don’t think both of us put together KNOW what Alfred KNOWS about what he endured. To me, your message of / on, March 30, 2014 at 10:57 PM , where you start out about the disclaimer is telling me how little I know about Alfred & his MOOA Battle, & you are bringing me up to snuff. What did you think about Alfred’s message on the Standing Firm thread?? I would like to know what you think about that.

       
    • J.M.

      March 31, 2014 at 7:07 AM

      Gary Lee,
      You say, > I am not interested in attacking, belittling anybody for their thoughts, nor getting into some philosophical debate personally about anyone who posts on Alfred’s site.

      Do you think that I am???

      You, Gary Lee also say, > I respect Alfred’s insights, and that, and that alone, is why I am here.

      Me too, except when ANYBODY ATTACKS ANY POSTER that posts a “ring of truth” message, I will attack back in his/her defense. AND when anybody ridicules, Mocks, goads, etc. The Almighty “God” I will do my best to add my 2 cents worth as to why what they are saying is wrong. By attack, I mean as the message I DID get posted & in its entirety, on this thread, Toland
      March 30, 2014 at 4:39 PM. AND, when I say, “Its Subjects” I am saying this is what gov-co says we are. I AM NOT saying anyone is a Subject, I’m saying GOV-CO says we are Subjects, at least most of us. I KNOW I am considered a Subject & subject to Gov-Co Laws BUT I disobey them anyway. Also, if anyone wants to get down & DIRTY like “moon” I can get down & dirtier to IT.

       
    • J.M.

      March 31, 2014 at 11:03 PM

      SUI JURIS
      @ >J.M, I really have NO idea what you do, or do not understand, and it is really not pertinent to Alfred’s post.

      @ > J.M, I really have NO idea what you do, or do not understand,

      I understand that.

      @ >and it is really not pertinent to Alfred’s post.

      Probably not.

       
  30. J.M.

    April 2, 2014 at 5:21 PM

    palani, DEAR heart,
    @ > Whether you declare you were born in the State of Texas the Republic of Texas or the United States of America……..

    Seems to me just being born is the problem. No matter where we are born. It’s just being born. Remember the Perry Como song, about what people were born for ??? I wish I could have had a part in whether or not I wanted to be born, but somehow I missed the call, i guess. I like you a lot palani, I really really do.

     
    • palani

      April 2, 2014 at 5:34 PM

      @ J.M. “Seems to me just being born is the problem. ”

      The circumstance where being born is not a factor results in a classification of SPF. This stands for specific parasite free and considers the source of certain parasites to be a result of a trip down the birth canal. This is also called caesarian section but this name does not encompass the concept of avoiding parasites.

      Perhaps the parasites being avoided by having a caesarian delivery are those that might later ask ‘WHAT IS YOUR BIRTHDATE, CITIZEN?’ to which the proper answer would then be ‘I was not born.’ and let them guess how you arrived.

       
      • J.M.

        April 2, 2014 at 7:09 PM

        ‘WHAT IS YOUR BIRTHDATE, CITIZEN?’

        LOL. I recall “checking in” at a motel & there was a registration form, or whatever it’s called, to complete, fill out or in. You know what I’m trying to say. Anyway, Name here, address, etc. There was a word, Born ?______. I wrote, YES, in the blank space. Did I goof up by doing that?? Writing the word, YES ?? Let’s stay friends, now.

         
      • J.M.

        April 2, 2014 at 7:16 PM

        palani,

        Seriously. What does the icon <?? to the left of rate this, mean? I really don't know. I just gave you two thumbs up. I know what the thumb or down means.

         
      • J.M.

        April 2, 2014 at 7:21 PM

        I meant, I know what the thumb up or down means. But I really do not know what the icon to the left of, Rate This, means. Honest.

         
      • palani

        April 2, 2014 at 7:29 PM

        @ J.M. “What does the icon <?? to the left of rate this, mean"
        Probably to report a post with a problem.

        " I just gave you two thumbs up."
        Thanks. I gave myself one as well.

         
      • J.M.

        April 2, 2014 at 9:26 PM

        @ >Thanks. I gave myself one as well.

        You deserve it, & more so. I am giving myself a party. Just me & the blues.

        @ WHAT IS YOUR BIRTHDATE, CITIZEN? WHAT IS YOUR BIRTHDATE, SLAVE? WHAT IS YOUR BIRTHDATE, PEON? WHAT IS YOUR BIRTHDATE, SUBJECT? yes I know.

         
      • J.M.

        April 3, 2014 at 12:27 PM

        palani

        @ > “This stands for specific parasite free and considers the source of certain parasite…….”

        Do you consider me a parasite in this sense,>an animal or plant that lives in or on another animal or plant and gets food or protection from it.??? Your non response will be deemed to be, YES. I’ve been kicked in the you know what before & MANY times, so it won’t hurt as much this time.

         
      • palani

        April 3, 2014 at 6:40 PM

        @J.M. “Do you consider me a parasite”
        The phrase SPF comes from the hog industry. They go to extremes to keep disease from their operations and must have baby pigs that were surgically removed and not take that short trip down the birth canal where parasites are picked up.

        In the case of a birth certificate the parasite you pick up by the journey down the birth canal is government in general. Apparently now not only must conception be immaculate but you must avoid this short journey called ‘birth’ at all costs.

         
      • J.M.

        April 5, 2014 at 12:07 AM

        palani,
        Re: Parasite.

        I hope to be in Paradise with you, on that “day.” You will like me. I’m not really a bad guy. You never did answer my YES question re: BORN? See, the word had a question mark after it so I thought writing YES, answered the question. A set of numbers does not say whether we are born, does it? e.g. 4823, or, 1858. lol < this does not mean, laughing out loud, it means a little he haw, or, he he. I want to remain a student of yours, but I need you to tell me how I am coming along.

         
      • J.M.

        April 5, 2014 at 1:27 AM

        palani,

        palani, I posted the following on another thread, I think it was the last Radio Program thread.

        Excuse me, It looks like I gave out the wrong case, Brown v. Texas. palani knows a little something about a man, George Gordon. I remember George Gordon IS the one who provided this case about the Colored Gentleman carrying the TV in a White Neighborhood in the wee hours in the morning. I’ll try hard to see if I can find it. In the meantime, palani, if you are by chance reading this & know the specific case I am referring to, the one that George Gordon talked about, help me out here. THANKS !!!

        palani,are you personally familiar with the case, above, I am trying to describe? If so, will you please supply anything yo know about it, OR tell me IF there IS a way I can get in touch with George Gordon for more specifics. I once was a student of his too. Around $2500. Had to part ways when he taught Filing Title 42 sec.1983 suits. Still, he is a brilliant man & loves the Good Lord too, at least I think so. Satan has done a MARVELOUS job on deceiving ALL of us but in different ways. Help me out about the case above..

         
      • palani

        April 5, 2014 at 6:13 PM

        @J.M. “are you personally familiar with the case, above”
        Nope. Never looked it up.
        George (whom I have never met) can be contacted at http://www.georgegordon.com. Understand he is recovering from a broken back and wish him well.

         
      • J.M.

        April 5, 2014 at 7:55 PM

        palani,
        @ > April 5, 2014 at 6:13 PM
        oh my, a broken back. don’t know what to say.lost for anything to say.
        Thank you palani. You are a sweetheart too, “like” Bob Hurt says Alfred Adask is. Thanks for the link. Something will be told to me as to how to handle this matter. I know I need to wait for the answer. I will receive the answer & I will not proceed further until the answer is given. You are a rare jewel, palani..

         
      • J.M.

        April 5, 2014 at 11:36 PM

        palani,
        When I put in all caps the other examples of, ‘WHAT IS YOUR BIRTHDATE, CITIZEN? This was not meant or directed to you. It was my way of saying the same thing you did, by just adding a different word,e.g. citizen, peon, subject, slave. To me they all mean the same thing. I KNOW I am regarded as ALL these things by the gov-co. Who came up with this term, gov-co??

         
  31. J.M.

    April 2, 2014 at 6:57 PM

    Look at what punctuation can do with just a comma.
    No animal is given dominion over man.”
    No, animal is given dominion over man.”

     
  32. J.M.

    April 2, 2014 at 9:33 PM

    @ c> Probably to report a post with a problem.

    Or a Poster and a post with a problem. Now I see what is coming next. oh well

     
  33. J.M.

    April 3, 2014 at 12:56 PM

    Roger,
    @ > Me personally, I don’t want to criticize. I would like to believe this MOOA theory

    Roger, tell me something, WHEN does a THEORY cease becoming such? I KNOW ALL other posters are starving to know this too, i.e. WHEN a THEORY ceases to become, just a THEORY. Do I expect you to answer this? HELL NO. Make a liar out of me, & answer then.

     
  34. EarlatOregon

    April 3, 2014 at 1:22 PM

    .
    .
    .
    .
    RE: I make no claim to be with-IN any political entity.
    .
    .
    .
    Earl says:
    .
    .
    .

    Paul wrote of being AT Corinth

    “To the church of God which is at Corinth” …
    .
    1 Corinthians 1
    http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+1&version=NKJV
    .
    .
    .

    although the NIV is different.
    .
    “To the church of God IN Corinth” …
    .
    http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+1&version=NIV
    .
    .
    .

    To all of you Wordsmiths – “at ”
    seems to be Preferable.
    .
    .
    .

    Earl “at” Oregon
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .

     
    • J.M.

      April 3, 2014 at 5:37 PM

      EarlatOregon
      April 3, 2014 at 1:22 PM
      @ >To all of you Wordsmiths – “at ” seems to be Preferable.

      “at ” seems to be Preferable to who? I believe it is critical for us to know WHO prefers the, AT. What does the word, OTHER, mean? To say other animals, like, horse, ALL of the 4 footed beasts, e.g. Elephant, IS IS IS NOT enough to show what, other, means. We need a better definition of, “other.” In fact I suggest we PROCEED no further, until we can get this OTHER WORD understood. THEN, we can say. LET US PROCEED. And, Let us proceed as or, LIKE, EDUCATED people.

       
  35. J.M.

    April 5, 2014 at 5:46 PM

    @Roger
    @April 3, 2014 at 12:58 AM

    @Me personally, I don’t want to criticize. I would like to believe this MOOA theory but first I have to take a look at it. So i don’t understand why the intent of the legislature when they said “animals” is a no go area. Isnt the intent of the legislature a subject we should spend alot of time on?

    Right, I agree. Just try to keep in mind that we only have a limited amount of time on this earth. Any cemetery should give you a possible hint or clue. We have 3 score + – 10
    ——————————————-
    @> Roger
    @ >April 5, 2014 at 9:49 AM
    @ >Toland wants to find out what THE LEGISLATURE that wrote “man or other animals” meant by “animal”?

    Final suggestion. Contact someone close to you that is in the Legislature. You are supposed to have “Representatives.”

    It is difficult for me to send my response to anyone, at times, when there is no red letter reply button to click on.

    @ > Please try to grasp this before posting more personal attacks.

    I need you to define what attack means, in YOUR mind, not from any dictionary,etc.

     
  36. EDOMS THORN

    April 7, 2014 at 12:04 PM

    `

    `

    The most important thing to understand concerning …”The Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906″.. is WHO and WHY it was initiated! What resulted in it’s creation!

    The 1906 Act paved the way for the eventual creation of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and is generally considered to be that agency’s founding date,
    . NOTHING but evil comes from these “Progressives” (COMMUNIST/EDOMITE JEWS!) EDOM created Communism.

    …”The Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906 was a key piece of Progressive Era legislation, signed by President Theodore Roosevelt Under the law, drug labels, for example, had to list any of 10 ingredients that were deemed “dangerous” on the product label if they were present and could not list them if they were not present.
    Alcohol, morphine and opium, and cannabis
    were all included on the list of “dangerous” drugs. The law also established a
    federal cadre of food and drug inspectors that one Southern opponent of the
    legislation criticized as “a Trojan horse with a bellyful of
    inspectors.”Penalties under the law were modest, but an under-appreciated
    provision of the Act proved more powerful than monetary penalties.”…

    They call GOOD, BAD!

    Why are they doing this?

    “Society has no business to permit degenerates to reproduce their kind.”
    Theodore Roosevelt (Jew – real name: Rosenveldt)

    Check out this from a real Christian Patriot Woman…
    Obama’s Healthcare Plan is to ELIMINATE Healthcare!
    http*://.www.goodnewsaboutgod.com/studies/spiritual/home…/health_care.htm‎

    REMOVE he asterisk ( * )

     

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s