Oh, that Daymon Smith . . .
Posted: October 11th, 2013, 9:49 am
. . .he's a trouble maker, that one.
=))
Sorry, but I really had to laugh on this one:
http://daymonsmith.wordpress.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Here is the fake "conference preview" site he and a buddy came up with (last years conference):
http://genconpreview.wordpress.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Here is the fake blogster he came up with: (Love the composite picture.)
http://genconpreview.wordpress.com/about-me/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I wasn't sure where to put this, but there IS a gospel message involved if you think about it:
=))
Sorry, but I really had to laugh on this one:
http://daymonsmith.wordpress.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Here is the fake "conference preview" site he and a buddy came up with (last years conference):
http://genconpreview.wordpress.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Here is the fake blogster he came up with: (Love the composite picture.)
http://genconpreview.wordpress.com/about-me/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I wasn't sure where to put this, but there IS a gospel message involved if you think about it:
In other words, a god of truth generates faith because he or she has power by knowing and speaking truth; not by using power to create “truth” which is by definition subject to change, further “revelation” or administrative-procedural adjustment. The kind of power now bound up with “the priesthood” is no more than social power, and that is the power to create a very limited bit of “truth,” and more importantly, creating consumers of that tiny truth: a great many minds who think that their limited bit of truth is all the truth that can be had, in what must now seem like a very rotten, wicked world. If a computer can closely imitate not only the procedure for making truth, but also the content, and is only limited by not having a mouth, a set of lungs, and a pulpit, then that is a notion of truth found among a people who cannot but be in captivity. Captivity to what? To something other than the voice. How does one escape from such a thing? It can, I suppose, be rejected in hope of something less powerful, and more able to take the weak things of the world as one’s force for good, for all they need is to hear the voice, and to live by hope according to their faith.