About
Reviews (4)
14 March 2013
I never read it wholly or even partially and just started it
0 of 4 found this helpful I read a little bit of this, and it was a little too wishy-washy, "get in touch with your inner Jesus" as my old and former (pleonastic construction in literalistic usage of the inherently figurative term "old friend") friend Sean Dixon would say of the Jesus freaks, for Malachi Martin. I'm not Jewish, but I really only see Christ as a means to an end, frankly, and so my purpose is not to love Christ but to come to an absolute love of God and man. Which might make me either bad or badass (reads [figurative sense of "reads", i.e., i.e.], ["," reads, PAUSE FOR A SECOND {second defined as the time it takes to say the word "mississippi" or "one hundred" or "one thousand"}] somewhere in between [in between means in among the range of betweens, "in among the range of betweens" is something William James understood under the influence of drugs but no normal human being does in normal everyday life except subconsciously] cool, which is a complement, and bad, which is pejorative/derogatory), and I intend to be neither ("but" is not used but ", and" is used in stead of/in place of/in lieu of "but" since according to J.K. Rowling's fictional character of Albus Dumbledore in Harry Potter "it is our actions/choices (same difference [same difference is a William Jamesian term]), Harry, not our abilities that define who we are". I do believe that actions and choices are logically, theologically and philosophically equivalent.
14 March 2013
I have no idea if this is a good DVD set or not
1 of 9 found this helpful I never watched this one. I believed that I learned more for the promotional ad than from the actual DVD, which is in fact certain because I never watched any of the DVDs, not even the introductions. I like most about it the historical usages and examples provided by the brilliant professor. What I dislike about it is that it reveals so much of the truth that it makes me doubt my own ability to come to the truth on my own, such that I would only want to learn it if I had no interest in writing sentences as part of my nature in the cosmos/world/spacetemporality. However, I am glad for the promotional ad and having watched it because it has given (gave and continues to give) me pleasure to know that there is a scientific basis for the construction of sentences, but I would not want to go beyond this basic knowledge for reasons pertaining to my "soul" ("soul" as defined by the 1960's-1940's triumphant Catholic American culture TOS Star Trek, which "soul 'soul'" (one might say soul's soul, or soul of the soul [{but not soul of souls, which would be a "soul 'soul "soul"'"} I herebefore referred to the truer sense of the word soul which any usage of the term soul indicates if only briefly and in vaporous form] loves my nature (reads [reads in Latin, id est or in English i.e., namely, to wit, et hoc genus omne], temporal essence) so much it is as if my nature is part of my soul although strictly speaking it is not), though my soul (reads, permanent [reads in this here place, eternal] essence) is Catholic because it is utilitarian (my guardian angel is a free-market amoralist or as they say, an angel almost of Limbo [which I hope it is still theologically correct to believe in]) with the very weakest of (but still a positive one) believes in the goodness of the divine plan and cosmology. After all, my calling is to be the Kurt Goedel of scholastic philosophers and not to be a mythologist or a writer and so I do not need to know how to write.
14 March 2013
My former boss likes it publicly on Facebook
1 of 2 found this helpful I never read this but my former boss recommends it publicly on Facebook. I think I might have read one or two words, but I was never inclined to read it, assuming it might have been against my vocation to read it I was never tempted to read it, I think it might help someone like my granddad but not someone like me, and I believe that it is probably equivalent to the "Catholic" faith (my capitalization of adjectives is analogous to the capitalization of German nouns in that it is something I believe would ideally in English be universal to all Adjectives [here using the German capitalization for the noun/substantive {though all nouns are substantives, but not all substantives are nouns, they are logically, philosophically and theologically equivalent in Bri"ngh"anspeak}, Adjective]), but I may still read it someday just to see so I am keeping it for later.