> So, you can't define 'enlightenment' or 'God'. What are you talking about? You have me confused with another poster Richard. I could give you many different versions of either belief from some of the various sources who hold such beliefs. What does that have to do with anything?
> > That's nothing to be ashamed of Curtis, so why not > just admit it, instead of making fun of poor > religious people? Are they poor Richard? I would think that since they are soooo tight with an all powerful deity they would be able to see my skepticism in a compassionate light. You know the paternal feeling that it is Curtis who is the poor one, with his lack of ability to believe in any of the versions of invisible, but sports event influencing, big daddies in the sky, or within his heart or in the beauty of a sunset or the scent of orange blossoms floating in the wind or in the imagined cannibalistic ritual of drinking the blood of Jesus and eating his flesh in a church. And what is poor Curtis to do when he dies in his state of sin and lack of enlightenment when faced by the almighty OZ who demands an explanation from him for not being like the people who saw his miraculous sign of Mary's face in a piece of burnt toast sold on Ebay...have a little pity on my wretched soul Richard. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard J. Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > As a TM teacher, you should be able to define > > > 'God' and 'enlightenment', > > > > Curtis wrote: > > Why does it always have to do with sex with you > > Richard? > > > Non sequitur. > > So, you can't define 'enlightenment' or 'God'. > > That's nothing to be ashamed of Curtis, so why not > just admit it, instead of making fun of poor > religious people? >
