[continued from previous message]   
      
   >which had no occupants. In two seconds a man swiftly sat down in the   
   >chair next to me and I immediately "felt certain" that he was going   
   >to speak to me, and thus he did.   
      
   Probably because he sat down next to you.  If he had no intention of   
   talking to you, he would have chosen a seat farther away.   
      
   >After an exchange of a few words or   
   >so he went straight to posing a question to me - probably the main   
   >purpose for which he sat and spoke - which was, "What do you personally   
   >see as being the most important information in the Readings?", to   
   >which I immediately replied, "The statement that what is called   
   >intuition is God speaking to a person." This is the absolute truth: Once   
   >I gave him that immediate answer, he immediately said to me that the   
   >reason why he was currently at the A.R.E. was because he was ATTENDING   
   >THE CONFERENCE ON INTUITION [which conference I had no idea was in   
   >process]!   
      
   Hmmm... sounds odd.  You went all the way to the A.R.E., without   
   knowing what the conference there was about, and never saw any signs   
   posted about what it was about, and never heard anyone talking about   
   what it was about until this guy approached you to provide you with   
   this important bit of information?   
      
   I would suggest that if indeed you did wander down to the A.R.E. in   
   the confused manner that you say you recall, you probably saw some   
   sign posted or overheard someone saying "Oh, I'm fascinated by what   
   this guy has to say about intuition," or something and simply guessed   
   that that was the answer the guy was looking for on the grounds that   
   that was what people were talking about at that conference.   
      
   > We both then shared with each other that we were deeply   
   >affected by the experience and exchange of our meeting and then he   
   >left to continue with the conference [apparently he had been on a break].   
   >In sum, my personal experiences of intuition and gut feeling have, for me   
   >personally, been evidence and enough evidence that spirit God exists   
   >and that he and I have a living constant relationship. Plus there are   
   >other things I consider evidence and enough evidence of God's existence,   
   >but I am trying to not write a book here and thought I would at least   
   >share one of them.   
   >   
   >Evidence For Soul:   
   >   
   >Evidence for me, and enough evidence for me, beside some other things,   
   >that what I am is a Soul - or triune etheric being composed of   
   >consciousness + will + spirit,   
      
   You're assuming your conclusions:  the existence of a spirit is what's   
   to be demonstrated.   
      
   > temporarily inhabiting a physical house   
   >of clay [after having entered it through the soft-spot of the head,   
   >again according to The Edgar Cayce Readings (and sounds right to me)] -   
   >is that when the brain was stimulated and mapped, the researchers   
   >could, for example, make the person's arm move, BUT THEY COULD NOT   
   >MAKE THE PERSON *WANT* TO MOVE THEIR ARM! AHA! TO WHAT BELONGS THE   
   >WILL?   
      
   Depends on why they're moving their arm.  If they're hungry, they may   
   be lifting it to eat.  If they're angry, they may  be raising their   
   hand to beat the crap out of someone -- and if they're the *other   
   person* in this situation, they may be raising their hand to deflect   
   the blow!   
      
   >ACCORDING THUS TO SCIENCES' RESEARCHERS NOT THE BRAIN! SO ANY   
   >PERSON WHO SAYS THAT ALL THERE IS IS THE BRAIN AND THAT EVERYTHING   
   >DERIVES AND ARISES FROM THE BRAIN HAS TO GO BACK TO SQUARE ONE!   
      
   No, there's always a biological or psychological reason for why people   
   get up move around.  So science marches on, as successful as it's ever   
   been.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)