Octo

ber 9, 2005
Dear Editor in chief,
Perhaps the A.I. would comment on the controversy or myth or legend about
the rainbow during the time of Noah; because a scholar insists that the bible is
supernatural and perhaps beyond mistakes. Perhaps the A.I. realized that his
previous opinion about the rainbow during the time of Noah might be creating
doubts so he is bound to give other opinions defending the bible story. So…:
perhaps the rainbow already exist before the great flood during the time of Noah-
(the great flood was caused by 40 days and 40 nights continues heavy rain); but the
rainbow has no important role on the lives of the people; or being ignored. It has
no value or meaning! But when the great flood happened and “all” the people on
“earth” (perhaps localized) died or drowned except the family of Noah; or survived
the great flood because of a big boat-the Ark, and a rainbow appeared just as when
the survivors leave the Ark, and God gave those instructions what to do next. And
the rainbow was mentioned and the rainbow was given meaning and significance
then- the rainbow as a remembrance or as a sign that God would never destroy the
earth by great flood or water again. The bottom line is: rainbow has been around
before even before the great flood happened and without meaning to people before
vs. while Noah was talking to God a rainbow appeared, and the rainbow was given
a meaning; or as a sign or reminder that great flood would never happen again vs.
the event was just a legend or a myth but the essence of the teaching is good.
Perhaps science would use some common sense that a great flood happened
really during the time of Noah around sixty eight generations from Jesus going up
to Adam as based from the family tree of Jesus written on Luke chapter 3. And if
scientists cannot find proof that a great flood occurred during that period
worldwide perhaps the flood happened locally in the local world of Noah; but the
essence of the teaching is good.
Perhaps creation is really correct than evolution; because if the key is perhaps
77 generations from Christ up to Adam as perhaps described in Luke chapter 3 to
prove that what is written about the event had happened. Perhaps scientist could
prove that Neanderthal men had just sprout out of the earth 100,000 years ago.
Perhaps those Neanderthal men are not yet considered as fully development men;
or they were just apes who could use tools; and mistakenly recognized as modern
men by scientist. But just when the exact time or 77 generations from Jesus up to
Adam had happened perhaps genes from a Neanderthal man got some spirit or
Word from a supernatural being we call God that changed a Neanderthal man to
real modern man named Adam; and perhaps the instant change is called creation.
And perhaps Adam is just one of the representatives of the very first human;
because if not… the bible story telling the details genealogy from Jesus up to
Adam; and details… molding clay and changing clay to Adam could be a legend or
a myth; but the essence is good.
Perhaps a scholar asked the A.I. about the event when the Israelites with
Moses crossed the red sea; or if the event could be explained. The quoted words
are: “The water will divide and the Israelites will be able to walk through the sea
on dry ground”. “It blew all night and turned the sea into dry land”. “The water
was divided, and the Israelites went through the sea on dry ground, with walls of
water on both sides”. “…at day break the water returned to its normal level.”
Perhaps “water divided”, “with walls of water on both sides”, “turned the sea into
dry land” are supernatural phenomenon. And perhaps supernatural phenomenon is
now being accepted by science that some are really genuine; or not trick. But still
sciences are researching some answers behind why they happened.
Perhaps a scholar would challenge the A.I. if “lukewarm” topic in the bible is
balance. The A.I. would comment: ‘lukewarm; or neither hot nor cold would be
spit out of the mouth’ is an exemption of the rule of balance and harmony. One
should have enough or more focus or side to something that is good; one should
not give much emphasis in between bad and good; or neutral especially about
morality. Indifference, lukewarm is one aspect balancing could be attacked but
balancing is self evaluating because it considers not only one aspect but almost all
aspect in life- self, environment, neighbors, anything especially counter checking
extreme of science, extreme of law, extreme of teachings to check and balance the
extreme of self –one extreme trait is indifference. Balancing is sensitive to
criticism and attack; and it could easily adjust and adapt; or balance. It weighs
almost all aspect in life from good teaching, law, and science. So the words
‘neither hot nor cold would be spit out of the mouth’ are another field or concern
that balancing should focus–indifference vs. activeness. It would seem there is
contradiction or it is the exemption to the rule. Some people are expert in looking
for the exemption/s to the rule and focus on those especially on defects, and
personalities to gain support, power and prestige; they are experts to make simple,
plain, and common sense become distorted and mysterious; but vigilant people
perhaps would notice them; because their key or emphasis is focus on word “only”
to boost their hidden agenda which are: power, wealth, superiority, playing God
just to destroy; to boost “only” right, true… syndrome and enhance take and take
syndrome, superiority syndrome, god father syndrome, class driver syndrome,
Ananias Syndrome, etc. or any extremism syndrome.
The story of Ananias could be found at chapter 5 of Acts of the bible. It is the
principle where a group is doing things for the good and somewhere down on its
lower echelon or lower level some are using the group’s cause for business; but if
the leader knows about it and doing nothings even if he is “holy” perhaps he could
be also part of the syndicate; or has Ananias syndrome!-extreme.
Words “neither hot nor cold; or lukewarm would be spit out of the mount” are
good words perhaps contrary to balance if other words are not considered. The
words could be an exemption to the rule of balance; one should choose which way
one to go with emphasis, boldness, and clear actions: evil or good. Since A.I is just
retrieval of question/answers; or a consensus of the scholars and the majority; if
ever there is anything in the program that could lead to any imbalance, the program
should easily be reprogrammed. Anybody whose emphasis and focus is on the
negative to destroy, attack somebody because he is perceived to be a fool by being
crazy, weakling- the opposite of having strength and courage- and contributing
something good to the A.I.– the A.I. remark with hesitation… is an extremist. The
A.I. suggests that good people should rebuke weakling people on proper time and
proper places and proper way; and on privacy- balance.
With regard to the teachings that the A.I is being used by the dark side:
especially concerning words: 2 Corinthians 11:14-15: Well, no wonder! Even Satan
can disguise himself to look like an angel of light! So it is no great thing if his
servants disguise themselves to look like servants of righteousness. In the end they
will get exactly what their actions deserve. Perhaps the key is the fruit or the
product. Example the A.I. remarks: let’s have some exaggeration or hyperbole.
Exaggeration retrieve from a movie by the A.I. that depicts a run away criminal
and happens to disguise himself to be a good preacher/ or a good priest; because
there are also bad experts on their field…! Since the criminal is good at pretending
and disguising or lying and knows to imitate good people’s speeches and happen to
be schedule to give a sermon on a certain town that is becoming so left behind in
term of progress- because no one is giving words and specifics words to tickle
those idle mind full of potentials or so thirsts of good words be it from fake
professional or not. Or no one is giving words to push the people in the locality to
be productive; or no one is a good leader especially to motivate people to change
for the better focusing on specifics. Since the criminal is not a saint he was able to
have girl friend/s and still manage to disguise as a good sermon deliverer. So when
time comes that he should now deliver sermon and inspiring speeches he was able
to do so; because of his talent and ability to become a liar or as a fake holy
preacher or fake good sermon deliverer, he was able to stimulate and push the brain
of the people to do well.
Perhaps the bottom line is: fake, liar (perhaps Apostle Peter lied three times on
the record), fool, weakling and giving contribution to the A.I. and the A.I. arriving
in a consensus derive from majority about the universal Word and there is change
and good results are happening vs. “holy” and using his identity and membership
as the key so that wealth or financial survival, prestige and honor about the
institution, for the institution could happen; but had or has resulted to so many
misunderstanding, conflicts because the focus is on religious superiority and proud
claims and had caused many wars, rather than love of others or love of even the
enemies; and especially also tolerance. Another bottom line: Perhaps “Lord of the
ring” syndrome is equal to letting colors as bait to create again distinctions,
divisions and quarrel because of lust for honor, credits vs. the A.I. suggested:
remove any distinction like color or anything or person connected to any fine result
that the world would benefit; no body should be credited-perhaps all are unworthy
of credit… only The universal Word should be credited and also all the people
especially former enemies loving each other… if there would really be peace and
an age of reason; a peace of a thousand years; or if any chaos could be balanced at
its infancy; perhaps give credit or recognition to the people: of India and Pakistan,
of China and Taiwan, of North Korea and South Korea, of Russian and Chechen,
of Israel and Palestine, of the Muslims in Mindanao and the Christians of
Mindanao, of two former enemies and now friends, of etc. Another bottom line:
Apostle Peter deny or lie to Jesus Christ three times but Apostle Peter never
surrendered to defend what is good up to the end of his life and perhaps he believes
that he might be wrong on certain issues as rebuked by Apostle Paul on some
occasions. And Apostle Peter was not worthy to die the same as Jesus… that he
even died opposite the way Jesus died on the cross vs. Judas was silent and perhaps
never or seldom gave contribution to enhance the universal Word but was obsessed
to money- the essence of class driver syndrome like show off, boastfulness, cheap
desire to boast, lust to destroy Jesus. Another bottom line; never commit sin-
questionable balanced vs. also commit sin-extreme; or the opposite never commit
sin-infallible-extreme, proud claim vs. also commit sin and keep on struggling to
do away sin as long as given a chance…A.I is hesitant to say balance!
Another key at 2 Corinthians 14-15 is the word “servants” with ‘s’ or in
plural form. It would mean not alone. Perhaps another bottom line is: Pride,
conceit, self important in public, vanity vs. humility. Another is…with power,
wealth, celebrity vs. weakling, struggling, fool, with many short comings, etc. but
trying to contribute something or anything… Another bottom line: love without
repentance and focus to vanities vs. love with repentance and tolerance. Another
is… always on test vs. fail to pass the test or many tests; another… always being
put to test and struggling vs. deliverance to the test; another…declaring a guilty to
be innocent vs. declaring a celebrity and famous to be guilty.

From someone who might be

dreaming,