Hello, Cy, OMF II - Part 2

First topic message reminder :

And for the insane, or other wise, we present:

Schroedinger's Cat is not Alone

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1004.4206v4

Beatriz Gato, Beatriz Gato-Rivera
(Submitted on 23 Apr 2010 (v1), last revised 31 Mar 2011 (this version, v4))
We introduce the `Complete Wave Function' and deduce that all living beings, not just Schroedinger's cat, are actually described by a superposition of `alive' and `dead' quantum states; otherwise they would never die. Therefore this proposal provides a quantum mechanical explanation to the world-wide observation that we all pass away. Next we consider the Measurement problem in the framework of M-theory. For this purpose, together with Schroedinger's cat we also place inside the box Rasputin's cat, which is unaffected by poison. We analyse the system identifying its excitations (catons and catinos) and we discuss its evolution: either to a classical fight or to a quantum entanglement. We also propose the BSVΨ scenario, which implements the Complete Wave Function as well as the Big Bang and the String Landscape in a very (super)natural way. Then we test the gravitational decoherence of the entangled system applying an experimental setting due to Galileo. We also discuss the Information Loss paradox. For this purpose we consider a massless black cat falling inside a massive black hole. After that we outline a method to compute the contribution of black cats to the dark matter of the universe. Finally, in the spirit of Schroedinger, we propose that next generation double-slit experiments should use cats as projectiles. Cat interferometry will inevitably lead to the `Many Cats' interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, allowing to shed new light on old mysteries and paradoxes. For example, according to this interpretation, conservative estimates show that decision making of a single domestic cat will create about 550 billion whole universes every day, with as many replicas of itself.

Progress is still being made.........

MJ12 came up again, but this time I brought it up.  My speculation was seriously prompted, I believe.  It was not denied.  Because it was time sensitive, I will not discuss it until the time is less sensitive.  

At the SfA this morning I announced my intentions regarding the SoT.  No one besides John C raised any immediate objections.  

After the meeting, John and I went over the five biblical references to the SoT..... 3 in the gospel of John and two in 1 John.  

John espouses the usual rejection that the SoT was never intended to incarnate, and I accept the rationale of that assertion, but do not accept it as definitive, not in light of John 16:12ff.  Wonderful.  

But, or so, the story does not logically stop there.  If you're gonna do the third person, you might as well do the second, also.  That is the only way to maximize the coherence and minimize the external intervention.  That is what I've been doing for the past twenty years.  It's a bit late to walk that back.  Yes?  

The biggest question, for me and many others, would simply be the timing.......

The biggest problem is to explain that Creation is, and is not, forever.  It's finite to us, and eternal to God.  


4:45-------

There is a common assumption within the prophetic tradition that Creation will be erased, in the End.  It will have served it's salvational purpose, and so it can be dicarded in favor of the new heaven and new earth.  

This is not a logical resolution.  Would God erase His own memory? I doubt it, even if it were possible.  

Can God erase Hell?  Erase evil?  Erase the memories thereof?  

Why not just forgive and forget? No, Creation is a work of art.

Individually, we can extirpate our sins. We may not wash away the stains, because the stains are an essential aspect of the BPW.



(cont.)

True C.......

Has contacted me again by PM.  I'm not sure that he has read any of the above, after he managed to set off a tempest in our teapot.  He makes no reference to it.  

Rather, he asks that I contact him before the 'end of the world', and makes reference to Matt 24:3 and 2 Cor 6:2.  

I am positively averse to pm's.  I'm not into privacy...... just ask Ron.  If there is something worth saying, then we should say it to all who have ears.  Yes?  

3 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?

4 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you.

5 For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.

6 And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet.

10:30----------

Meanwhile, the mj business remains on a semi-active hold.  IOW, I have not decided to leave for the Trieste, just yet, seeing if there is a better offer.  

SfA next meets on the eleventh.  I've volunteered to give presentations on gravity and on my version of the 'Descent....'.  It is almost official that Bill S will be inviting more participation from the rest of us.  


12:30---------

Had a convo with John C about developments at GFC/SfA.  The upshot was his strongly urging that attend to the semi-active hold.  I am attempting to check out my travel options, in that regard.  If my presence is desired or even needed, I will be available, as usual.  


3:10-----------

Convo with Bill L, who encourages me to stand my ground vis-a-vis the ronster.  If there were to be an mj meeting, it would almost certainly be within the conus.  What I don't know is about the other putative guests.  So I continue to sit by the phone.  Yes I do.  

And yes it does seem that the princess has been broadcasting their tarmac delay, according to David.  

In the meantime, I have a rush order on http://www.amazon.com/The-Book-God-Response-Bible/dp/0300048653 on the recommendation of Bill L.  

And I also need to get back to Eisenman, while waiting for a call from Paul.  And then I also need to get back to Nakayama, yes I do.  

I have proffered to John C to be the devils's advocate relative to the endtimes, or, more specifically, to be the AC's advocate.  


4:10----------

Convo with Paul Z who commends these two items, both from Jack......

http://media.physics.harvard.edu/video/html5/?id=COLLOQ_YIN_092914

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1412.3950.pdf  

It's hard to keep up, isn't it?!  

And there is a special physics visitor to NB/SF.  And I'm also prepared to be there, as well.  


And, also, there is this, just off the internet.......

http://www.amazon.com/Who-Wrote-The-Dead-Scrolls/dp/0684806924




(cont.)

I've been reading the three above mentioned books regarding the first century in Jerusalem.  There is a shorter version of Eisenman's James, which David and I recommend.  

I'm trying to remember what I volunteered to talk about at SfA, besides gravity.  It had something to do with the endtimes, I believe.  

Sam tells me that Frontline/PBS has a series running now on the apocalyptic movements in Jerusalem in the first century.  

There was something about interpreting Revelation as a warning.  There was also something about love and monism.  I was also saying that our apologetics should not become an apology for science.

I think I got it finally....... it was about consciousness and the mind body problem. No, more specifically it was about the sapience gap, the soul gap, between humans and animals. Yes, that will be an opportunity to get pretty deeply into the BPWH.



(cont.)

Sam and I celebrated last evening........ another year older and still alive.  Is there anything else to celebrate?  Sure there is...... the mere fact that we, humans, continue to muddle through some very difficult times in our history.  

Aren't things in the process of getting worse?  Yes, quite possibly for most of us..... and quite possibly for our children.  

Burn, baby, burn?  

Not quite yet, evidently.  

Does the world need to be saved, yet?  

Saved?  Many think that almost everybody who should have been saved has already been saved, thank you very much!  We are ready to scram right out of here, on a moment's notice.  The gang's all here and accounted for, and there will always be a few stragglers to round up at the last moment.  

We were ready two-thousand years ago, and look at all the suffering since then.  Has the wait been worth it?  

Most would say yes, but what does that say about tomorrow?  

What about the unborn?  What about right-to-life?  

Does not the number of saved souls increase every year?  That would depend a lot on the Islamic question.  

What is the Islamic question?  There is the numbers question.  Are we counting cummulative souls?  Are we subtracting the unsaved?  Do we calculate ratios?  What is God's score?  What is Satan's score?  Who is winning?  

Aren't we just supposed to keep our noses to the grindstone?  Just keep putting food on the table, building churches and winning souls?  What else can the Lord ask of us?  Eat, pray, love?  


9:30-----------

IOW, aren't we supposed to mind our own business, and let God mind his business?  

Am I the only one sticking my nose where it doesn't belong?  And I even stick my nose into Satan's business....... the occult and demonic realms.  

Yes, there is human curiosity.  Curiosity killed the cat?  

But then along came the j-man and the x-event.  This did open up the doors of inquiry.  Science was able to squeeze through that door.  

And now we are seeing if I can squeeze through that door.  Not without some serious cosmic cooperation.  Yes, I am an opportunist.  It is a question of being in the right place at the right time.  


Or, when I get to the head of the SfA class I could ask for a show of hands...... how many here are saved?  Would I be repremanded for asking such a personal question?  Has Danny O' never asked this question in the big hall?  

Why don't we ask it more often?  Is it not often on our minds?  Should it not be on our minds?  I can ask for a show of hands as to how many think this question, by me, now, would be inappropriate.  Fair enough.  

Is the state of our grace an objective fact?  Is anything objective?  Are there any objects?  Can persons be objectified?  Can souls be objectified?  Can there be objects without objectification?  Without pointing or 'baptism' or some form of intention?  What happens to our intentions when we are unconscious?  


Yes, I can ask the big questions.  Science says that the big questions don't count.  Ugly facts destroy beautiful theories.  I'm not sure I believe that.  Since when is truth not beauty?  Did I miss that class?  

There is no theory that has ever been proven or destroyed by any given set of facts.  That is a fact.  Preponderance of evidence?  If there ever were a subjective measure, preponderance would be that measure.  


10:30----------

And what about doubt?  Uncertainty?  It seems that religion thrives on certainty amongst the faithful.  Science thrives on certain knowledge.  

Science and religion conspire to support one another in how they have carved up the world.  It is rather like the judgement of Solomon.  

But neither side can afford to give ground.  Who has the high ground?  Despite the great hew and cry coming from the celebrity atheists, there is a general concession that science is tolerated just so long as it keeps laying its golden eggs.  If it ever steps off that nest, watch out!  


BTW, what you see above is my practicing for my first shot at the bully pulpit of the SfA, which should come early in the new year.  Once I grab that pulpit, will I ever let go?  The trick is to not actually grab it, but to keep threatening to do so..... whenever someone else attempts to do so in my stead.  Of course, Bill S is still the maitre d', but we can share the seating chart, I believe, optimistically, going forward, as long as I continue to persevere.  


Science vs. Religion.......... mind the gap. That's where the action will be.

Is there a gap? Well, according to the strictures of science, there can be no gap, because there can be no religion. Science cannot tolerate a single gap. That would be a foot in the door for something else.

OTOH, religion has hardly had a choice but to tolerate science. If there is a God and s/he is on our side, we can afford to be magnanimous. Yes we can.



(cont.)

Science vs. Religion.......... mind the gap. That's where the action will be.

Dan, you should ponder here on the finer points of science (in total) vs. life science vs. human technology (golden eggs) and religion. (Does Jack believe in a techno-god living on the horizon?)

What about Roger Penrose on the triad of mind-matter-eternal (Platonic) ideals? Each world is a projection onto the other (mind -> matter = memory; Platonic -> matter = physics; matter -> mind Platonic ideals, etc.) ...

If you get a chance, ask Ron about the takeover of western media by Kim in the battle Newt calls America's first lost cyberwar.

Gary,  

What?  Me worry?  

I don't think so.  Ron worry?  Well, he gets paid to worry, but not about the NK's or even ISIS.  He mainly loves to worry about the Chinese.  

Should you and I worry about the Chinese?  About the Russians?  About loose nukes?  

That depends on whether we think God/Valis plays dice with the world.  And that depends mainly on whether we think we are being visisted by ET's or UT's.  

As I recall, Gary, you are rather ambivalent/agnostic on this topic.  

Do you think it is an important topic, or don't you care?

So which should we and Ron be more worried about, the Visitors or the NK's?  Or the Chi-coms?  


12:30----------

It's time to get out your crystal ball.  

My crystal ball says that the dice playing is coming to its natural conclusion.  We can't afford many more snake-eyes.  




(cont.)

OK Dan, here's the China card for Ron:

The U.S. investigation into the recent hacking attack at Sony Pictures Entertainment has turned up evidence that does not point to North Korea as the "sole entity" in the case, but rather, raises the possibility that Iran, China or Russia may have been involved, an intelligence source told Fox News on Thursday.

Given the preponderance of UT intelligence on the developing situation, I suggest you apply the proper level of due diligence. Beware of mobius twists in the plot.

Gary,

I'm glad that you still have plenty of things to worry about.  

I'm thinking that we seem to be having less things to worry about, with advances on the various diplomatic fronts.  

But are we going to muddle through our environmental/resource depletion crisis?  I don't think we will be able to do that without a MoAPS.  

W/o a MoAPS, the impending resource crisis will trigger a second global credit crisis for which we do not have sufficient sovereign reserves to forestall, as we were able to do with the first one.  

Do I lay awake worrying?  No, I only lay awake putting the finishing touches on the BPWH/SWH.  


Back to GFC/SfA........

David Yue frequently uses a particular diagram to illustrate the connections between God and man.  It comprises two horizontal triangles, with the top triangle depicting God, separated by three columns from the lower triangle depicting us.  The three columns represent scripture, nature and direct communication, respectively.  

The problem with this diagram is that it has no time dimension.  In the seminar I will take the more Socratic approach....... there is something seriously wrong with this picture.......

We have the God of history being depicted as a Greek temple, a perfect picture of stasis.  Where is the dynamism?  Where is the 'physics'?  


The simplest expedient would be to add a vertical arrow of time, pointing upwards.  Darwin's second book was titled 'The Descent of Man'.  How about the ascent of man, an idea that was quickly adopted in the public mind?  This idea quickly developed into racism and social darwinism, not to mention Marx's dialectical materialism.  


2:30------------

Nonetheless, we are dealing with the prophetic tradition.  The prophecy therein deals with God's plan of salvation, or his divine economy.  The end of Creation is redemption.  

Messianic expectations ran high in Jesus' time and place.  Those expectations were more concentrated then, than at any time since.  This general expectancy is reflected especially in the Dead Sea Scrolls.  

Yet, that evangelical/messianic fervor has persisted up to modern times.  

There are very few dissenters from the general view that monotheism and evangelical optimism significantly contributed to the idea of human progress.  

It is mainly since WWII, however, that the whole idea human progress has become widely questioned.  Secular and sectarian apocalypticism has been on the rise.

The fragility and vulnerability of our global civilization has become all too apparent.  There is a concomittant loss of a common sense of direction and of the general expectation of a brighter future.  




(cont.)

At the GFC, I believe I can take my stand on the Book of Revelation.  That's where I start, that's where I end.  It can be my alpha and omega...... my talking point, my teaching moment.  

Does anyone really care about the Apocalypse of John anymore?  IMHO, it has thoroughly permeated modern culture, globally.  

I am a professional eschatologist, I profess the Eschaton.  I am in a much better position to do this than is anyone else.  I challenge you to find someone in a better position.  

My intention at GFC is to publicly challenge the Book of Revelation.  I'm not saying that it is not the word of God, or that it should be removed from the Cannon.  

No.  I am saying that I will use it to leverage my BPWH/SWH, which, necessarily is tantamount to my claim to being the Spirit of Truth.  

I am saying that the BoR comes with its own time stamp, its own 'sell-by' date.  That date is today, by my very own little reckoning.  

Do I endeavor to replace the Apocalypse?  Yes, but not with another book.  I replace it with human reason, simply by demonstrating the universal process.  

That's it.  

Most 'educated' Christians believe that the BoR became obsolete within our first millennium.  I tend to agree with that view, but with the above proviso, especially if that proviso makes reference to WMD.  

When the BoR came back into currency, it was during the Reformation, when it became a weapon to be used against the Papacy.  

And, now, post WWII, the BoR has been a key component in the evangelical revival since that time.  


11:45------------

Since WWII, apocalypticism has gone mainstream, but with few, if any, metaphysical strings attached.  Where there are any such strings, they tend to come in the form of ET cults.  Allow me, however, to use the more general label of cargo/contact cult.  

But we should not jump to denigrate cults.  Since when are we (GFC) not a cult?  Since when is Science not a cargo cult?  

Science comes complete with its own faustian bargain or judgement of Solomon.  This came with Rene Descartes' vision of 1619.  

Yes, we have failed the judgement of Solomon.  We have sold our souls to save our lives, with respect to the scientific hegemony of modern times.  

5 Don’t you remember that when I was with you I used to tell you these things? 6 And now you know what is holding him back, so that he may be revealed at the proper time. 7 For the secret power of lawlessness is already at work; but the one who now holds it back will continue to do so till he is taken out of the way. 8 And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will overthrow with the breath of his mouth and destroy by the splendor of his coming. 9 The coming of the lawless one will be in accordance with how Satan works. He will use all sorts of displays of power through signs and wonders that serve the lie, 10 and all the ways that wickedness deceives those who are perishing. They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. 11 For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie 12 and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness.

Out of this passage comes the notion of the katechon...... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katechon . An interesting notion.




(cont.)

9am-------------

Objectivity is the name of the game for science.  With the soul and gravity as joint topics, we can use objectivity to subvert scientific materialism.  

How will we fit the BoR into this context?  


10:30--------------

Enroute to BwNWR on the Eastern shore.  

Speaking of objectivity, we need to look at dispensationaliism, wrt SfA and the objectivity of scripture.


9pm------------

So, yes, I am challenging the objectivity of the BoR, in favor of its historicity and its spirituality.  We must use the utmost discerment when approaching the BoR.  

IOW, we should not always take an egocentric view when reading scripture. We should not always take the most literal view.



(cont.)

2:20---------

The Book of Revelation hinges upon the advent of the Antichrist.  The timing of this advent is the central mystery of the salvation economy.

2 Thess 2:7 -

For the secret power of lawlessness is already at work; but the one who now holds it back will continue to do so till he is taken out of the way.

This is the Ketechon/Restrainer.  This was generally seen as being Rome in its secular and/or sectarian guises.  Thus we also have the prophetic significance of the notion of the 'last Pope'.

We have the Vatican to thank for restraining the AC?  But, as is oft pointed out, in restraining the AC, it also delays the Parousia.  Damned if you do, damned if you don't.  

Me?  I'm gonna have to point the finger at the Cartesian conspiracy of the two Magisteria..... the religious and scientific hegemonies relative to the Cartesian division of the world between themselves.  

Thus do we have the juxtaposition of the AC and the Parousia.  Together they are the Apocalypse, which is the cosmic unveiling.  This is how the sky falls, how Atlas shrugs.  Then we see face to face.

The Katechon is the Catechism of the world, the sacrements of both religion and science.  


Closely associated with the Katechon, we have the two witnesses, also associated with the endtimes.  

I suspect that these are the same entities as the katechon, i.e. the two magisteria, but being referenced by two different writers.  


4:20----------

And I'm hardly the only one to venture this fairly obvious identification.  Their removal precipitates the apocalypse.  I fancy myself as the repo-man.  I subvert the demi-truths with the whole truth.  Apres moi, le deluge.  

What I need now is an OT ref for K/2W.  

We also have the grand deception and the great apostasy to juxtapose with K/2W.

And, btw, what about gog and magog?



(cont.)

GSB/SSR wrote:OK Dan, here's the China card for Ron:

The U.S. investigation into the recent hacking attack at Sony Pictures Entertainment has turned up evidence that does not point to North Korea as the "sole entity" in the case, but rather, raises the possibility that Iran, China or Russia may have been involved, an intelligence source told Fox News on Thursday.

Given the preponderance of UT intelligence on the developing situation, I suggest you apply the proper level of due diligence. Beware of mobius twists in the plot.

Mobius twists indeed, Gary. And a nod to the UT intelligence, in all its various forms - a team effort....your mobius twist is much closer to home than most system inhabitants realize. Someone is trying to frame Russia. I think Putin has some of his nation firmly restrained, but a few parts can't help but flinch and react, so he walks a thin line between maintaining appearances expected in the face of illicit assault, and knowing the mobius is on borrowed time. 2 years to go. The mobius requires the last one to clean up its mess, so the danger zone lies in the first if it cannot be further interdicted. If we cannot straighten out our own house then the mediation between mankind and the others will go to the one perceived as having to conducted himself the most responsibly throughout. And that probably won't be the multi-national house housing the mobius.

Cy
Synchronicity's Apprentice

Cy and Gary,

May you and all the OM'ers have a happy New Year, and I'm hoping that all is well in the meantime.  

Ron was quite sure that NK did not have the depth of hacking talent necessary to pull off the Sony caper, although they might have contributed financially or logistically.  I'm not the only one to suspect an inside job/connection a-la Snowden.  


I'm sad to report that David Yue of SfA died just before Christmas.  It was termed a 'sudden cardiac death'.  He had just walked into his lab at Hopkins, when he told one of his students that he was having a heart attack.  He lost consciousness immediately.  At 57, he had no previous health issues.  He leaves three college age sons, one at Harvard, and his wife, Nancy, who also frequently attended our SfA sessions.  There are a dozen students and post-docs in his calcium transport Lab at JHU/Medical.  
-------------


I'll wager that you've not heard, generically, of the microtubule organizing centers (MTOC's).  One or more of such centers are almost always present in eucaryotic cells.  The MTOC's are usually comprised of a pair of centrioles plus the pericentriolar complex (PCC).  I'll wager that the PCC is the most complex and least understood aspect of cellular dynamics.  The best known of these centers is the centrosome, which is associated with spindle formation in cell division, and commonly pictured in the reasortment of the chromosomes.  

In as much as cells are self-organizing, the PCC's are the sites of that organization.  By necessity, the PCC's are ill-defined, rather as the brain is ill-defined, internally.  It is the organelle that is not an organelle.  It has no bounding membrane.  Sometimes it will function in the absence of centrioles.  It is a somewhat ghostly presence within the cellular matrix.  They are the foci of that matrix.  

Pericentriolar material structure and dynamics...... http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/369/1650/20130459

Instead of a membrane, the PCC has a dynamic scaffold/skeleton.  This scaffold is called the centromatrix.  


3:30-----------

My very speculative suggestion is that the PCC might serve to model some of the self-organizing aspects of the world.  

The best hope of studying the PCC would be to develop an in vitro version of it, but much effort in this regard has not succeeded.  

The PCC might also point to the limits of the mechanical modeling of biological processes.  

Aspects of the dynamics of the PCC could offer suggestions for ontogenesis in general.  Each PCC could be a microcosm.  Would this be by pedagogical design, or as the result of some Occam-like efficiency?  

I was also wondering if the subject/object polarity might by elucidated hereby.  The intangible subject accrues to itself various structures and functions.  And, while we're at it, do biological membranes have anything in common with event horizons, or with string-related membranes, for that matter?  

PCC's are the most complex self-organizing systems that we know of.  I am, of course, suggesting that reality is self-organizing, into a configuration of subject/object polarities.  This is somewhat the idea of the Taoist yin/yang cosmology, although I'm not aware that it has been presented as a cosmogony.  


7:45------------

The PCC's may point to a non-membrane bound origin of life.  Is there a counterpart for the origin of the cosmic self?  Or does the mind have a membrane?  


On a related note, viruses are now thought to have evolved in tandem with the earliest life forms, if not themselves being the earliest such form.  

One might wonder if thought forms could have existed 'before' minds.  There could have been evolution by association and coherence.  Did coherence come from the self, or the self from coherence?  How could there be coherence without something to cohere?  

Did cycles evolve out of CTC's, or CTC's out of cycles?


(cont.)

Another POV is that MTOC/PCC's might represent a sort of primordial soup, out of which more structued forms 'evolved'.  

The general idea is that potentiality logically precedes actuality.  To be is to relate, and the self is the most related entity in our immediate purview.  

Why is there something, rather than nothing?  Is it possible that nothing might exist?  Unless nothing is necessary, possibility is possible.  The possibility of possibility would therefore be a necessary existence.  

What is the possibility of unobservable existence?  What of the center of the Earth, or the dark side of the Moon?  Do they argue for unobserved existence?  Not really.  

Observation is not easily defined.  Like anything that can be linguistically designated, it is intentionally normative or normatively intentional.  

If we cannot conjure unobservable objects, then objects are normatively intentional.  There cannot be objects without objectification, i.e. objectifiers.  Do PCC's objectify?  

Does a microtubule objectify?  Do centrioles objectify?  To organize something is to objectify it.  

Who organized cells?  I am, of course, suggesting that we organize them.  The CTC organizes cycles, and we organize the CTC, with a little help from the cosmic self, of course.  

Who organizes the PCC's?  It's just not clear, now is it?  However, more than any other component in the cell, the PCC structures and restructures the cell, and what is a cell without structure?  Without structure, it is no object.  The PCC's are structurers, and so they are objectifiers.  They must, thereby, embody subjectivity.  

Given panpsychism, which must be posited to a degree, then the PCC's function rather like our brains, wrt cells.  The nuclear DNA constitutes the cellular memory.  


10:15-----------

But wait, you say, our brains are highly structured.  True, but not our minds.  The PCC's are the mind/brains of the cell.  The mind-like aspect of the PCC's is just more objectively obvious than is that of our own brains, looking from the outside, that is.  

What about for bacteria, i.e. prokaryotes?  I would suggest that a bacterium is just a membrane-bound PCC.  Clear enough?  

What then is a virus? A virus is a dehydrated PCC with a few strands of DNA that will convert other cells into proper hosts for the PCC like phase of its life cycle.




(cont.)

I'm sure you've heard the phrases 'in-vitro' and 'in-vivo', e.g. we've all heard the expression 'in-vitro fertilization'.  In fact, we've all heard the discussions of artificial life.  

'Vitro' means 'glass', so human IVF may also referenced under the topic of 'test-tube babies'.  The first test-tube baby was brought to term in 1978.  

Artificial life....?  No, that refers mainly to computer simulations of living systems.  

What I meant to refer to is 'synthetic' life.  Still not it...... Try 'artificial cell'.  

Most informed folks believe that artificial cells have already been or are just about to be produced.  

As far as we know, I'm the best informed opposing view.  My opposition comes from several areas of concern.......

1.)  Artificial intelligence

2.)  Holism vs. reductionism

3.)  Teleology

4.)  Paranormal phenomena

5.)  Mind-brain problem

6.)  The problem of objectivism



2:35--------------

The fact is that no life form has been artificially produced.  I'm tempted to wager that life cannot be produced from 'scratch'.  Would I wager the BPWH on that claim?  I might wager half of it.  

One of the longest debates between science and religion has concerned the origin of life...... did life arise by chance?  I don't know of any scientist who has contested that claim, other than those in the employ of religious institutions, e.g. those who espouse intelligent design (ID).  

But here's an argument I'm not hearing.....  Forget the spontaneous generation of life.  Could a life-form be assembled in the lab?  

Almost everyone, including the IDers believe so.  In fact, the IDers see God, qua Creator, as acting like a lab technician.  The simplest life-form is, by definition, a prokaryote.  

But check this out, under artificial cell.......

By 2014, self-replicating, synthetic bacterial cells with cell walls and synthetic DNA had been produced. In January of that year researchers produce an artificial eukaryotic cell capable of undertaking multiple chemical reactions through working organelles.

It seems that no one has the wherewithal to challenge this claim.  It sounds like I've already lost my wager, but then we have to read the fine print.......

So far, no completely artificial cell capable of self-reproduction has been synthesized using the molecules of life, and this objective is still in a distant future although various groups are currently working towards this goal.

It seems that we have a contradiction here.......

It seems like we have all the components of a cell, but only in the 'distant future' might we be able to put the parts together.  What is the catch?  IMHO the catch is the MTOC and whatever is its prokaryotic equivalent.  I have found no reference to a prokaryotic MTOC.  But I haven't actually looked.  

Actually, no organelles have been artificially produced.  I am using the prokaryotic cell as a proxy for any eukaryotic organelle.  

Here is the giveaway, under 'centrosome'.......

Centrins have therefore been present in the common ancestor of eukaryotes. Conversely, they have no recognizable homologs in archea and bacteria and are thus part of the "eukaryotic signature genes." Although there are studies on the evolution of the centrins and centrioles,no studies have been published on the evolution of the pericentriolar material.

We have here a double whammy wrt MTOC's...... there are evolutionary pathways to every eucaryotic component except for the 'psuedo-organelle', the controsome/MTOC.  

If I wish to hedge my bet slightly, I would draw the artificiality barrier at the centrosome.  But, in the meantime let's continue with the prokaryotes.  


4pm-------

When I search under 'MTOC homologs' I run into Apicomplexa.  The malarial parisites are of this phylum.  This phylum is lacking in centrosomes, and it may be unique among eucaryotes in that regard.  

Apicomplexa are in the kingdom of protista, a grab-bag of simple eucaryotes that fit nowhere else.  Many owe their simplicity to being obligate parasites.  

I also need to take into account the production of spores.  


11:30--------

A question arises as to whether it might be easier to artificially produce a bacterial spore rather than a functioning bacterium. I see no comments on this possibility. However, the mere fact that dehydrated bacteria can regenerate would seem to favor the possibility of an in-vitro assembly of bacteria. Such spores, however, do not figure in the production of artificial cells. Even eukaryotic spores can be regenerated after millions of years of dormancy.




(cont.)

Happy New Year, everyone!

Dan: Have you considered that The Creator might have considered the necessity of making reality 'hacker proof' to keep reality hackers (like Jack!) out of the reality-generating operating system?

It seems to me that quantum randomness -- http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/pub/quantum-randomness/2 -- is a necessity and that appearances to the contrary (paranormal, etc.) might be signs of the 'UTH hackers' trying to get inside.

One might assume Jack was 'hi-jacked' by some low level UTH phishing program ... Perhaps CTC are indeed forbidden? One might then wonder of the trouble brewing in the CTC bubbles of UTHackers ... Skinwalker Ranch comes to mind here ... but I digress ...

I would like to discuss something with you, perhaps next week? Have a great weekend!

Thank you, Gary.  Happy New Year to you, Cy, volunteer staff, members and guests at OM.  

What may the new year bring to our best possible little world?  


Hacker-proof reality........?  

Yes and no.......

Let me suggest that Reality is optimally hackable.  The Rapture will be our ultimate Hack.  

The way to optimize the hackability of the world is to optimize its intersubjectivity/interoperability.  Virtual worlds are our training wheel for the real thing.  

The world has been 'wired' and weird from day-one.  We are just learning how to pull the strings.  That's why I try to stay on good terms with the officer on duty at the weird desk, even when MJ12 turns out to be a mirage.  

All day I've faced the barren waste
With out the taste of water... cool, water.
Ole Dan and I, with throats burned dry,
and souls that cry
for water... cool, clear water.

The nights are cool and I'm a fool.
Each star's a pool of water... cool, clear water.
And with the dawn I'll wake and yawn
and carry on
to water... cool, clear water.

The shadows sway and seem to say
Tonight we pray for water.... cool, clear water
And way up there He'll hear our prayer
and show us where
there's water... cool, clear water.

Keep a-movin' Dan. Don't you listen to him Dan.
He's the devil, not a man.
He spreads the burnin' sand with water.
Say Dan can't you see that big green tree,
where the water's runnin' free.
It's waiting there for you and me
and water.... cool, clear water.

I spent the morning reviewing our 'progress' toward synthetic life.  Am I worried about my gamble?  Half my kingdom for a synthetic bacteria.  Yes, I'm a little bit worried, but what fun is gambling without risk?  

Yes, it appears that we are now able to make a synthetic ion channel, hardly breaking into sweat.  

There is talk of a 'channelome', as one might speak of a microbiome, as if it were an additional organ.  

Besides some primordial RNA, the ion channels would have been the most critical components of the primordial cell.  We must be halfway to synthetic life.  But what about that Channelome?  Hey, when we take a shower, half our microbiome goes down the drain.  How many minutes does it take to replace it?  




(cont.)

8:30--------

If there has ever been a message for me in anything, I believe there is a message in David's sudden passing.  

It is the fact that, wrt the BPWH/SWH/(4M/K/SoT/X2), I too am living on borrowed time.  Nay, the whole world is living on borrowed time.  

Time to step up?  Maybe we'll get to see.  

But what about MJ12/13.....?

It doesn't seem like they're in any hurry, certainly not wrt any sort of BPWH.  If they were doing anything wrt the BPWH, they were standing on ceremony.  That's not my game.  

Not only am I second guessing MJ12, I'm also preempting God.  No wonder they don't like me at GFC/SfA.  

David once actually said that he was afraid of me.  No one else in the SfA would admit to that.  What was he afraid that I was going to do?  Was he afraid that my ego was going to explode?  

There ought to be at least one Christian in the world who is prepared to second guess God wrt to the Endtimes.  There ought to be one Christian with a vision for God's kingdom.  

Until we can find someone who is better positioned with a more powerful vision....... I guess I just have to follow in the footsteps of my buddy, Al Haig.  

GFC is probably about average wrt to evangelical churches.  Folks are comfortable with that.  Is there a competition?  Do we need to go the TV route?  Go global?  

We are content to rest on our laurels.  We are already saved.  We  have a vigorous community outreach, and we do send our fair share of missionaries to far off lands.  


11am--------

Had a lengthy convo w/ John Clement of SfA, and a shorter one with Bill Stever.  

On the 11th, Bill wants to start a ~3 session discussion of Evil.  I have volunteered to contribute/participate, and agreed to draw up a list of thoughts wrt Evil for us to discuss before and/or during the sessions.  

The convo w/ John was rather more wide ranging.  It did revolve around my inclination toward messianics........

We discussed the natures of both the first and second comings. Did Jesus ever have a human day? Did he suffer a lapse of faith on the cross. Did he save the world?

Does the atom bomb relate to the Endtimes?

Is the world material? I pointed out that there were two types of creation described in the Bible...... old and new testament. The new one favors a less materialistic view of the world.

The problem of evil depends somewhat on whether life exists only on Earth.

Catch you later........

I'm at church early this morning.  I want to continue my conversations with John and Bill concerning our response to David Yue's sudden passing.  I already have a call into the royal family, which is heading south, again, I believe.  

My little plan is to have the SfA focus on David's accomplishments and aspirations, especially the latter.  I would suggest that David had aspirations of which he was only partly aware.  And actually that these are aspirations which we all share.  

And the reason that we are only partly aware of these aspirations is that we have great ambivalence about them...... about meeting our Maker, that is.  

And I just introduced myself to Erik Becker who oversees the adult ministries, along with Ben Abell.  He will be calling us together to discuss the future of SfA.  


9am---------

Hey, sports fans, it's like I've been waiting for a sign. Aren't we all? I'm guessing that David may have provided this sign, bless his departed heart. And, yes, I'm willing to bet on it.




(cont.)

Noon--------

Well, sports fans, the saga continues, at the Search for Answers ministry at Grace Fellowship Church in Timonium, MD.  

As in the past three years, my primary interlocutor wrt GFC/SfA, since David Yue's sudden passing, has been John Clement.  

In order to provide a concrete focus, I have threatened to pull the plug, literally, on Bill Stever's continuing power point prsentations, until we have some issues resolved that may pertain to David's sudden demise.  

It may well be that David's death was just a very unfortunate occurance.  How could it be otherwise?  Am I suggesting that some good could be wrought, from a larger perspective?  If it spurs some of us into a greater sense of urgency wrt to our respective lives and missions, then his seemingly very untimely death might be redeemable in some small measure.  

It would not be difficult for GFC to put a restraining order on my continued presence at their facility.  My only recourse would be to make witness to my concerns outside, in front of the church, mainly by distributing a flyer, or series of flyers presenting my concerns to the general congregation.  

So this is how I might focus whatever may be my verbal skill.  What would I say on such a flyer........?  


1:15---------

----- Search for Answers........

--------- My personal testimony.........


1.)  I have been very fortunate to have been able to attend the Search for Answers for the last three years, and to have learned many things from David Yue and Bill Stever.  

2.)  Nonetheless, David's recent and tragically early passing has served as a wakeup call for me, personally.  

3.)  I have expressed this feeling to the SfA group, and, for understandable reasons, they have not accepted my interpretation, or my renewed sense of urgency.  So here I am, attempting to explain this personal urgency to you, the wider congregation.  

4.)  Christians have, from day one, been admonished to be prepared for the return of Christ.  This sense of historical urgency has provided the church with many opportunities for renewal over the past two millennia.  

5.)  Should we, Christians, not always be on the lookout for such historical opportunities?  I believe that we have such an opportunity at present, and this is what I have been hoping, for the past three years, to present to the Search for Answers.  

6.)  Up to this point, this sounds like a no-brainer.  But, I am 71 years old.  I was 69, when I first came to GFC, just to attend what turned out to be the last meeting of GFC's Creation Care ministry.  After that meeting, I discovered that the SfA was meeting just down the hall, and I've been coming back ever since.  

7.)  I have considered myself a Christian ever since my 'Sophia' encounter in 1977.  That encounter included my first personal encounter with the Bible, in particular I was quickly guided to John 16:12ff.  

8.)  At the time I was attempting a combined doctoral thesis in physics and philosophy at the University of Maryland.  I quickly discovered that my spiritual awakening would only be a hindrance in completing my graduate studies.  Nor did my probing curiosity lend itself to any conventional theological program.  I continued my studies on my own, while working part-time until 1991.  

9.)  In 1991, a second 'spiritual' episode imparted to me a palpable sense that my philosophical findings could be of timely significance to our historical situation.  There was the sense that I needed to call '911'.  It took me a few more months to find out who, in the US government, might have professional responsibilities that overlapped with my concerns about the future.  That person turned out to be Ron Pandolfi.  My continuing active pursuit of eschatological studies, including my three year commitment to the Search for Answers owes much to Ron's continuing interest and support in this regard.  

10.)  And how does this background relate to my present hiatus wrt SfA?  I have increasingly become aware of Ron's global connections within and through the international intelligence community.  You might naturally wonder why I have been spending so much time and effort at Grace, when my best friend has access to power centers around the world.  

11.)  I believe that it all goes back to John 16:12ff......  I mean it this way.......

There is the general sense within Christendom that God has, in the Incarnation, presented the world with His ultimate offer of redmption.  There will be no second chances, no second offers.  

In other words, God's offer of inifinite love comes with a expiration date.  The expiration date coincides with Jesus' return.  

I take exception to this seemingly arbitrary limitation on God's love.  That stance puts me beyond the pale of what most Christians consider an acceptable belief.  Thus my hiatus with the SfA.  

So, given this hiatus, why do I not avail myself of Ron's putative connections to go over the heads of GFC/SfA?  

Here is my excuse..........

My exihibit A is just a bumper sticker...... WWJD?..... what would Jesus do?  

Yes, that is what I ask myself in this context of potential Earth-shaking events.  And that is what I attempt ask my colleagues in the Search for Answers group.  But I would not be asking this question if I did not think there was a reasonably straightforward answer.  

The straightforward answer is that God has no need to revert to the status of a 'moral monster', which even my SfA colleagues consider the hallmark of Yaweh's sometimes very rough justice that was meted out in several of the Old Testament stories of divine vengeance.  


4pm----------

It is as if, especially as described in the book of Revelation, God had sent his only begotten Son with a 'sell-by-date' attached.  

Where is the Grace in that ultimate act of vengeance?  

Aren't most of us, here at Grace, here by God's grace?  Surely, God shed his Grace on us!  

Why did God not shed his grace on many of our neighbors and loved ones?  Why did God not shed his grace on Mohammed and the Muslims, just as an historical for instance?  These are questions that are begging for answers.  


These questions bring me back to David Yue's very recent memorial service, here at Grace.  Many of his professional colleagues attended and spoke in glowing terms of David's great skills as a scientific researcher and educator.  Only one of them spoke of his own spiritual conversion, and that was in an apologetic tone.  

How many of David's professional colleagues at Johns Hopkins University, who are equally committed to David's passion for scientific truth, are going to burn in Hell in perpetuity, because God did [not] shed his grace upon them, as He has upon you and me?  

If you turn to John 16:12ff, you will see that Jesus promises to send us the Spirit of Truth.  David has spoken eloquently about that Spirit.  Are not his colleagues at Hopkins trying their best to follow that spirit?  I certainly was, for all of my adult life, or so I thought, up until I was thirty-three.  It was only then that God shed his grace on me.  It was only then that I realized that the truths of science might only be relative truths...... that there was a higher truth that was great enough to encompass all the truths of science.  

Did not David believe in this higher truth?  Of course he did, as does every Christian.  

Do I have anything new to bring to this lofty table?  Perhaps only in as much as I am able to make a cosmic case out of it.  

What I am speaking of, hopefully, is the Mother of All Paradigm Shifts.  

In other words, I have come to the belief that science is on the verge of an historically unprecedented paradigm shift or gestalt switch, with respect to its grasp of the truth.  

Only thus might David's colleagues be rewarded for their life-long pursuits of truth.  Only thus might they not miss out on the love and redemption that you, David and I share.  


This MoAPS, this global outpouring of the Spirit of Truth, is what I propose in the stead of what most evangelical Christians suppose will be God's ultimate vengeance upon all the un-Graced.  

Is this suggestion not worthy of serious study and prayer?  

Would David not wish us godspeed in this endeavor?  


.

Ok, so I've explored the possibilities of acting out wrt my sense of historical urgency.  The effect of acting out, can only be temporary, at best.  Any longer term solution will require concerted action from within the 'system', as if that were possible.  

I believe that I can restrain myself from pulling the plug on Bill Stever's power-point.  I will attempt to prolong the discussion of the meaning of David Yue's passing.  Everyone will agree that there is a reason for everything, but will also agree that we are usually not able to ascertain that reason.  End of story, end of conversation.  


1:30------

I believe that the general sense of the SfA group will be to not dwell upon David's passing, but rather to focus on getting over, getting beyond this sudden loss.  For the next three weeks, that will mean getting on with the problem or question of evil.  
--------------

1:40---------

Bill returned my several calls, and invited me to not attend the next few sessions of the SfA, and that if I did, he would likely call 'JP'.  'JP' is the unofficial 'bouncer' at GFC.  I said that I would consider his request.  He said that, if I did not agree to his request by tomorrow, he would then call JP, regardless.  

Let us consider......... the options, here.......

This is the third time at Grace that I have been threatened with intervention by the civil authorities.  No calls have been made, to my knowledge.  

My first move should be to meet with JP.  I could do that, preemptively, today.  

I think I will head on over to Grace now....... but I should probably print up a couple of the above 'flyers', beforehand.  


5:20----------

I spoke briefly with JP at the church.  He was clearly not amused.  Ron seems to be the only one who is.  And, for all that you and I know, this is just another one of his practical jokes.  He may only be trying to get me in trouble.  And, 'tis true, I probably wouldn't still be at this 'game' were it not for his various provocations.  

I'm sure that, by this time, there is not a single member of the GFC who would not be quite relieved for me to remove myself from their church, and I frankly can't blame them.  

Can anyone blame them for being tired of my messy-antics?  Am I not just wasting everyone's time, including my own?  Should I not remain focused on the metaphysics?  I do have a political itch, and this is as close as I can come to pressing the flesh.  There is a sort of balance, here, between the intellectual side and the 'political'.  I do need this kind of ground-truth...... some sense of action, even if it is just going around in circles.  


Do I really think I can force someone to have a conversation with me?  What is the point?  I do need a focus group, even if it is a semi-captive one.  

I am provoking folks to think outside the good Book.  They believe that scripture is inerrant, in all matters, not just faith.  That is why Bill Stever has gone to such lengths to reconcile Genesis and Science.  I'm suggesting a much broader interpretation.  And, yes, I am very much into the mode of cherry-picking, but, we'll have to admit, there are some real gems.  


6pm---------

On Sunday, it will mainly be between Bill and me. I will sit down and say nothing. They might all get up walk out on me, for all I can guess. There is not much else they can do. Let the air out of my tires? Not too likely.



(cont.)

From: Dan Smith
Date: January 7, 2015 at 8:35:17 AM EST
To: Bill Stever
Cc: John Clement, Jeff Headlee, Carroll Young, Mark Kim, Rick Grills, Frank Ackers, Ben Abell, Erich Becker, JP Kahnert, Danny O'Brien, Sam B Hopkins, Princess Aliyah, Ron

Subject: Search for Answers - discussing evil - no powerpoint, please!

Yes, Bill and I seem to be at loggerheads regarding what I believe to be his over-reliance upon powerpoint presentations.

Yes, it is true that, of late, Bill has been demonstrating a greater tolerance for discussion within our little group.

Then came the shock of David Yue's sudden passing. I took it somewhat personally. I am taking it as a personal wakeup call. It has certainly added a sense of urgency to my own little mission in life. It has also provided me with a renewed focus.

I envision a global outpouring of the Spirit. Yes, this is a risky operation. It can be like playing with fire. But what is our alternative? Tribulation.... Armageddon?

How will this outpouring of the Spirit begin? Of course, it has already begun. It began 2,000 years ago. But, evidently, it has not been sufficient to prevent most of us from expecting tribulation and armageddon to break out almost any day now.

How can we pull the stops on the Spirit? I have suggested one possibility........ that I pull the plug on Bill's next powerpoint.


Bill,

I know that you mean well with all of your powerpoints. I know that I am the only one in the SfA group to have lodged a complaint.

But, when you use powerpoints to stifle discussion, you are stifling the Spirit in each of us. You are restraining the Spirit. You are being our Katechon, to use the biblical term. Many scholars believe that the Katechon may be the single most important concept relative to the timing of the Endtimes. The Katechon is better known as the Restrainer.

I submit that you understand this, even without being able to quote chapter and verse. Rightfully, Bill, and perhaps not actually consciously, you see yourself as our Restrainer.

John Clement believes, along with many others, that the Katechon is the Holy Spirit. This is ironic, because, when I first introduced myself to Ron Pandolfi, 23 years ago, I claimed to him to be the Holy Spirit. Now, 23 years later, he is on the phone with me about the advisability of pulling the plug. I think it is fair to say that, even in his often facetious mode, he is egging me on. Now, it is alleged (at least by me!) that Ron has access to popes and presidents, so why is he diverting me toward GFC/SfA? Well, Bill, don't we know that everyone is always trying to pass the buck. It looks like you and I are just the last in a long line of folks who happened to be in the right place at the wrong time. Maybe, sometime latter, we will be able to have a laugh or two about this, over a beer or two.

But, in the meantime, I realize that this is no laughing matter. Is it?

Dan

cc: Open Minds Forum

From: Dan Smith
Date: January 8, 2015 at 11:05:36 AM EST
To: Bill Stever
Cc: John Clement, Jeff Headlee, Carroll Young, John M Babich, Mark Kim, Rick Grills, Frank Ackers, Ben Abell, Erich Becker, JP Kahnert, Danny O'Brien, Sam B Hopkins, Princess Aliyah, Ron, Paul Zielinski, David Gladstone, Bill LaParl, Gary S Bekkum

Subject: Honoring David Yue

I'll be perfectly honest, David and I were at odds, for the three years that I was privileged to have known him.  During that time, despite much pestering on my part, I was only ever able to have a one-half-hour conversation with him.  The rest of my acquaintance was by personal observation.  

At the end of our one-half-hour conversation, at the local Starbucks, I asked why he was so reluctant to speak with me.  I think he was being very honest when he said that he was afraid of me, and this was only as he was driving away.  I never got to ask him why he was afraid.  

But I think I have a better understanding now, after his sudden departure........

I was informed of David's death, the day after Christmas.  The day before his memorial service, as I have tried to reconstruct it, using my web browser history, I came across the Greek word, Katechon.  Immediately, I sensed that I was onto something possibly Earthshaking.  On my next google search I put in Katechon - Leviathan.  At this point, I can only read the browser history, and it does seem a rather strange sequence, coming to me virtually out of the blue.  

Only now, a week later, is it beginning to make sense.  In the meantime, I have asked four of my independent research colleagues to check my thought process on this.  Their names appear at the end of the cc-list.  

Of course, the timing here may have been purely coincidental, but here is another, crucial clue.......

And this clue only occurred to me yesterday, and I have it in front of me right now.  It is David's favorite diagram.  All of us in Search for Answers know it well.........


And now I feel a bit like Scheherazade, but this is not an easy story for me to tell.  I can only ask for your continued kind forbearance.  


(cont......)

cc: OMF  

From: Dan Smith
Date: January 8, 2015 at 1:35:22 PM EST
To: Bill Stever
Cc: 18 others

Subject: Re: Honoring David Yue


(cont.......)


The diagram in front of me was also shown by David in several of his recent set of Reasons to Believe presentations to 100+ of us at Grace Fellowship Church.  It depicts two horizontal triangles.  The top one is labeled 'God', the bottom one is 'man'.  At each vertex the triangles are connected vertically by three 'columns' labeled 'Scripture, 'Nature' and 'Direct Communication', respectively.  

Over the past three years, every time David presented it, I knew there was something about it that bothered me, but, as I say, I was never offered the chance to discuss it with him, personally.

Nevertheless, before and after the memorial service, Nancy Yue went out of her way to hug me.  I was somewhat taken aback, and certainly at a loss for words.  As we all know, David was under a lot pressure, and it had occurred to me, that in our personal 'standoff', I had done nothing to help relieve the tension.  Yes, I confess, there was a tinge of guilt on my part.  

Was Nancy just being polite?  Had David not mentioned to her, his 'trepidation' about me?  Maybe, one day, we will find out.  

And it was just the day before that 'Katechon' had slipped into my head.  

I have mentioned this to John Clement.  I wondered out loud to him whether this might have been a communication from David.  John was taken aback.  He admonished me to not mention this in Nancy's presence.  

Nonetheless, right in front of me is David's third column, 'Direct Communication'.  John tells me that, in his understanding, the Katechon is that third column.  It is the Holy Spirit.  

Now, when you google Katechon, you will see, as I did, that it has also been associated with the Leviathan, the great monster, and this does correspond with John's interpretation the Apocalypse.  On his pre-tribulationist interpretation, the Antichrist will only be able enter into the Earth's orb when the last Christian has been removed, taking the Holy Ghost with them.  So, yes, the Katechon would be the Restrainer of the Antichrist.  

John may be correct about this, and this is the common view amongst bible-believing Christians.  Both John and Bill sincerely believe that I represent a threat to the faith and the faithful.  Ironically, the next most common interpretation of the Katechon is just that, i.e. The Threat to Faith.  Yes, it does seem that, with respect to what many suppose to be the greatest puzzle in the Bible, we are presented with diametrically opposed views.  

Within the tiny microcosm of GFC/SfA, do I, Dan Smith, represent Katechon#1 or Katechon#2?  

Bill's plan for this Sunday's session of SfA is to go ahead with his previously planned powerpoint presentation on Evil.  When I objected to this bussiness-as-usual plan, and threatened to 'pull the plug', he asked me to stay away from the Search for the next several Sundays.  He said that if I did not stay away, he would expect JP Kanhert to arrange to have me forcibly removed from Rm 190.  


(cont.......2)

cc: OMF

From: Dan Smith
Date: January 8, 2015 at 2:08:42 PM EST
To: Bill Stever
Cc: 18 others

Subject: Re: Honoring David Yue

(cont........2)  


So here we are, possibly this is the perfect little tempest in the best possible teapot.  

At this point, we should all take a deep breath and ask ourselves...... WWJD, what would Jesus do?  Don't we all ask ourselves this question every day?  

John Clement and I have diametrically opposed views about the Endtimes.  

I submit that, for the past three years John has been acting as a bully toward me about my obviously unusual spiritual beliefs.  I don't doubt that the entire membership of Grace Fellowship Church would agree with John Clement that I, Dan Smith, represent a potential threat to their faith.  Within this microcosm, they would be very inclined to believe that I represent Katechon#2.

I hasten to say that all of you may be correct.  Yes, I could, within this minuscule microcosm, represent the Leviathan/Antichrist.  

And, as I hope should be abundantly clear by now, I am quite prepared to put everything on the line to get this question resolved, ASAP.  

This is what will be coming down in Rm 190 at 11:15am this Sunday.  As they say, be there or be square!  

Dan

4:20---------------

Is this interesting and possibly globally significant or what....... http://kashmirreader.com/kashmiri-origin-ceo-plans-using-drones-to-preserve-valleys-wildlife-30364 ?

It has always been the plan that the Princess would spearhead the establishment of Kashmir as a nuclear free zone.  

From: Dan Smith
Date: January 8, 2015 at 5:29:15 PM EST
To: Bill Stever
Cc: John Clement, and 17 others

Subject: Re: Honoring David Yue

John,

I thank you for this thoughtful response.

But, yes, I consider this to be, yet another act of bullying, when you strongly suggest that I am insane, simply by my saying out-loud that I might possibly be in communication with the departed spirit of David Yue.

I referred you to one of David's last communications with us, where, in black and white, he presented his view that all of us were, potentially, in direct communication with God.

All that I am suggesting, beyond what David has already suggested, is that he might, now, possibly, be in a position to know things about Creation that we have a need to know. And he might be in a position to impart that knowledge to us.

I ask you, John, if this possibility is totally implausible.

Dan



From: John Clement
Date: January 8, 2015 at 4:21:37 PM EST
To: Dan Smith
Subject: Re: Honoring David Yue
Reply-To: John Clement

Dan,

First, as I have explained many times, Search for Answers is Christian apologetics group which means that we are interested in examining historical, archeological, literary/documentary or scientific discoveries and data which address the veracity of the Bible, none of which you have ever offered. It is not a forum for the display of personal problems simply because we are neither interested nor equipped to handle such things.

Second, it is absurd to say that I have bullied you. I have never bullied you; I simply and consistently disagree with you and so I oppose most of what you have wanted to do. In my personal experience, bullying is typically violent or threatens violence; mere disagreement does neither.

You are not a threat to either the Faith or the faithful. You are, however, a threat to the proper decorum and atmosphere of an adult class and study. Inasmuch as you propose to interfere with the class by throwing a childish tantrum if you don't get your way, you are a nuisance. Your resumption of the objectionable behavior in which you have engaged in the past is completely inappropriate and utterly unacceptable. You cannot reasonably expect to be welcome under such circumstances.

I think Bill is absolutely right to suggest to you to stay away for the next several weeks. I do have a suggestion for you, however, and it is a serious one.

Despite your stated dislike for psychiatrists and psychologists, I suggest that you contact Shepherd Pratt Hospital and try to join a group therapy devoted to personality disorders. You may then berate them with your theories of the endtimes and your various claims to be part or all of the Trinity or even the anti-Christ as you have mentioned here.

They may not agree with you, they may not listen to you, they may castigate you but you will have three distinct advantages with them which you do not have with us - they will be a captive audience, there's a good chance that no one will stop you and at least your outbursts will be consistent with the purpose of the group.

Please consider this alternative as it may "solve" your problem of getting people to listen to you. Frankly, we're not interested. At this point, your behavior has actually become insulting, especially in the immediate wake of the loss of David.

I should also mention that up until now, Bill and I have accepted your calls, listened to your gripes and tried to reason with you in order to allow you to continue to attend the SFA classes and benefit therefrom (we hoped). If, on the other hand, you persist with this approach to SFA, neither Bill nor I will be interested in having any further contact with you again whether in person, by EMail or by phone. You may, therefore, "lose our numbers" as the saying goes.

You have frequently acknowledged the clarity of my remarks to you. I hope this message is at least as clear. I cannot put it more bluntly than I have. In my opinion, it is very much in your interest to keep your distance for the time being and preserve our present but fading willingness to maintain contact.

If you do not follow our suggestions, then, at the end of the day, you will have established one more place where you are not wanted. I would think that you would have grown tired of that by now.

John Clement

(cont.)

Dan, John Clement's post to you seems short sighted. On the one hand he talks about personality, but then on the other hand he refuses to deal with Christianity on a personal level ... a level which you present him with in a profound way. Doesn't St Paul discuss spiritual communications? Yet Mr. Clement seems unaware of this.

Yes, there are perceived psychological issues that one can see in your conversation; however, everyone has some sort of psychology. So, why you are being discriminated against for conveying the Gosple through your personal psychology seems somewhat arrogant to me ... or could it simply be fear? When people do not understand something, they often fear it and flee. Jesus explained everything brought to him.

So, is Christianity more of a "Be True to Your School" Beachboys concept, or rather a sacrifice of one's sense of security for the sake of the Gospel? I'd suggest considering what the great race car driver Mario Andretti was quoted as saying when asked the difference between his driving and that of his competitors: "In the turns, I give it more gas, but they back off a bit".

From: Dan Smith
Date: January 9, 2015 at 8:28:30 AM EST
To: Bill Stever
Cc: John Clement, Jeff Headlee, Carroll Young, John M Babich, Mark Kim, Rick Grills, Frank Ackers, Ben Abell, Erich Becker, JP Kahnert, Danny O'Brien, Sam B Hopkins, Princess Aliyah, Ron, Paul Zielinski, David Gladstone, Bill LaParl, Gary S Bekkum

Subject: Bill Stever - facilitator or hinderer?

Bill,

First of all, I want to reemphasize that you should not take any of this as a personal criticism of you.  I strongly believe that the Earth, despite all appearances to the contrary, is at the spiritual center of God's best possible Creation.  

In as much as I may have been designated to play a role in our final spiritual awakening, you should consider yourself to be my best possible interlocutor in that regard.  Yes, you are now in the spotlight, and, very likely, you are just a deer caught in the headlights, but for the time being, you are my deer, for better or worse.  

All I am asking of you is to loosen up your tight grip on the proceedings in Rm 190, between 11:15 and 12:15 on Sundays.  

My understanding is that, if anything, the world is overdue for this final awakening, this final quickening of the spirit.  

The obvious alternative to the spiritual awakening that I suggest, is the future tribulation and armageddon that many Christians sincerely believe is being depicted in the book of Revelation.  I don't blame those Christians for taking that Book literally.  Obviously, that particular interpretation was foreseen as an important segue within the plan for our Salvation.  

And you may be wondering why Ron Pandolfi is willing to be seen as possibly supportive of my spiritual enterprise.  Is this not a gross violation of the US Constitution?  Perhaps it is, and perhaps he is prepared to fall on his sword, should the occasion arise.  Nonetheless, you can hardly claim that governments worldwide do not have have a vested interest in avoiding Armageddon.  As far as anyone can tell, Ron is representing that interest on my behalf, for better or worse.  I will, however, probably not be including him on this email list after this, for the time being.  

So, Bill, my very strong and sincere request of you is that, from now on, you spend more of your time and effort in encouraging us, in the Search for Answers, to help each other in searching our own souls for the answers to our ultimate concerns.  

Is this asking too much of you?  


Dan

cc: OMF  

Skai,

Thank you for your comments.  

Wasn't it Carl Jung, who invented/discovered the Shadow side of our personalities?  He was definitely onto something.  We all have ample reason to be afraid of our own Shadows.  

Famously, Jung pointed to the greatest source of Evil, which is our strong tendency to project our own Shadows onto others, in general, or onto the Other, in particular.  Thus do we have the idea of Satan that is more prevalent in Christianity than in any other tradition.  

And, yes, I'm sure that I am, somewhat deliberately, provoking others in the SfA to make that projection onto me, personally.  It is our repressed fears that are the most potent.  

Look, God has explicitly invited us to project our anger onto Him, as in, 'vengeance is mine', sayeth the Lord!  

Was that a smart move?  On balance, it was the best possible move.  But now we are challenged to transcend that angry God picture, that paints God as a moral Monster.  This is what the book of Revelation is about.  It puts God's anger right out on public display.  

John speaks of Apologetics, but how do we apologize for eternal Damnation? I don't think we can. I think we need to clean up our Damnation act.



(cont.)