Randy co-founded the ETC (Entertainment Technology Center) at CMU, working in particular on the Alice program (not the one of "Resident Evil" fame!), a computer based educational system for students.

His "Last Lecture" on "Achieving Your Childhood Dreams", which he made on the CMU campus about a year ago, has been watched by over 10 million people on U-Tube... and for a good reason: it is simply a "must see":

So rest in peace, Randy, and thank you so much for your legacy.

* * *

You may also be interested to wath the interview made in April of this year. It is broken down into 5 parts on Youtube: part 1, part 2, part 3, part 4 and part 5.

* * *

You may also be interested to read Prokofy Neva's take on Randy's Last Lecture in "Second Thoughts: Not Really The Last Lecture", although here are my views on Prok's post:

12 Blessed is the man who perseveres under trial, because when he has stood the test, he will receive the crown of life that God has promised to those who love him.

Trials will come and I must be strong to persevere in those circumstances.  If I am able to persevere when tested and tempted then I will become stronger in spirit.  A strong vision and a honorably mission will help ensure I am able to stand up to the trials.  At times these trials will come from the most unlikely of places and other times they will be obvious.  When I am weakest I must be most alert and seek strength from the Lord.

So, with that in mind, answer a question for me.  Are you living or are you dying? 

Honestly, I can say that last year I was dying.  I had ceased moving forward in my life.  I was depressed and I curled up in my tiny dorm room and kept completely to myself.  My spirit, if you like to believe in such a thing, had begun to die.  Only recently have I realized again what it feels like to be alive.  We all know the feeling.  You feel it when you walk outside on a warm night and a graced with the presence of a hundred million stars lighting your path.  You feel it in a kiss from the person you can't stop dreaming about.  You find it in a cool breeze that pushes the hair from your face.  It's in the sun when it warms your skin.  You feel it when you step outside yourself and do something you've wanted to for a long time.  You find it in a good book, a pleasant walk, a thrilling rock climb.  Its all around us and I've been lucky enough to grab a hold of it again. 

So again I ask, do you feel alive?  If not, what are you waiting for?

In all traditions, Spirit means breath or wind:

Our word Spirit is derived from the Latin Spiritus, which means breath. For the Greeks, the Spirit is known as Pneuma, a term which also means breath. The Hebrew word Ruah is synonymous with wind. Yahweh is derived from the root HWY, which also means wind.

The consistency in these different terms in not fortuitous. It results from the intuition of the Unconscious, which makes clear that to know the Spirit is to know the breath of God. This reminds on of the passages in the New Testament which describes the descent of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost:

"Suddenly a sound came form heaven

Like the rush of a mighty wind

And it filled the house where we were sitting"

In India, this breath is known as Brahmachaitanya, the Breath of God. In the tradition of the Vedanta, the Prasana Upanishad(commented by Shankaracharia) declares: "in the heart resides the Atman, the Self. It is the centre of a hundred and one little channels....In these moves...the breath".

Still in India, the Spiritis also associated with prana, a term which, in Sanskrit, means breath. TheMundaka Upanishad explains that this breath has its source in the Atman. The Kausitaki Upanishad tells us several times that the Atman (Brahman) is breath. And one of the oldest Sanskrit scriptures, the Atharva Veda, states that "whosoever be driven by the breath of life, he will be reborn".

Gwenaël Verez, The Search for the Divine Mother 

Despite the benefits of passively accepted—as opposed to purposely chosen—belief systems and realities, there are often-unrecognized repercussions. We are rarely aware of the restrictions this creedal contract has imposed on us. In the fine print, we may have given up our wings, merely for the guarantee that we would never fall from the skies. Another possible problem is that these tacit conventions give us some distance from the responsibility of our actions performed in compliance with them. Where would it leave us if we were to find that we are not actually complying with objective truths and realities, but rather using these precepts as a convenient alibi or excuse?

From my perspective, ones beliefs are merely a symbolic focal point for our actions. Such a belief system does not dictate or define our actions, but we often use it as an explanation or justification, sometimes even when we intuitively recognize that our deeds are either dubious or we know our choices could be more compatible to our higher self. The best of our behaviors do not require dogma to validate them. It does not require a divine mandate to warrant kindness to another; such an action stands on its own. We are also inherently equipped with the definition of kindness as an action that simultaneously gladdens both the heart of another and our own.

Even with our best active choices focused as much as we are able on our higher nature, our actions sometimes fall into areas that our conscious minds find to be uncomfortably gray—and not surprisingly. We sometimes find ourselves trying to understand our position or choice with one foot in either world of the rational and the divine ethic.

How can this be so? In the mind of the Absolute, every truth is true, false, both true and false simultaneously, neither true nor false, all and none of the above at the very same time. In an understanding so vast as to be able to create the expansive and varied beauty of nature, I do not believe one could dare imagine the working of that intelligence to be limited to 'either/or' as we perceive them. It is in the human mind that these concepts of conflict are manifest and divided into subjective categories like truth and non-truth. Such distinctions can only be validated by the individual and the context of their experience and need at any given time, for the division does not exist outside human perception.

Now, on a practical mode, I most certainly chose between what I consider to be desired and undesired for me in what I support, the company I keep, the actions I will partake or support others taking. However, I know any of these choices are only justifiable as being compatible to my egoic self at this time. Today's "right" might be tomorrow’s wrong. As a result of my belief in this variable nature of truth, the one thing that I seek to avoid is to ever imagine that what I do or chose is because that choice is inherently right for me, and definitely not for anyone else, in any sense of the eternal, sacred, or objective reality. Things like good and evil are subjective, not eternally constants.

Does accepting my perception make my commitment to any of my allied beliefs any less? No. In fact, I would say that my dedication to the choices I make are all the stronger. For I know they are completely my own choice, not something that I had imposed on me from the outside myself. In that, some might consider this full responsibility of personal choice to be a downside of my perspective, since I cannot offer myself the luxury of being merely complicit or divinely directed. I have no excuse for myself for previously having chosen something that is no longer right for me.
This responsibility makes me fully consider my choices. Though I will have become a different person if I later find my choice today unfathomable tomorrow, in this world I will still have to live with the consequences of that past choice, not because of an undeniable truth but because of a collective agreement including myself at a higher level.

I try not to be too harsh when I realize that I have been using a truth that has now turned false on me. Truth is not a rigid eternal thing but rather it is an ever-progressing horizon. With each step forward we are afforded a view one step further beyond that which we saw a moment before. My truths today could not come into being, except by the preceding perspectives that they have replaced.

Despite knowing that, I usually can’t help deluding myself with the idea of being more prescient next time. I know that it is very likely that I will find my perceived reality outpacing today’s truth, sooner or later. In the same sense, I must offer that kindness also to those I encounter whose choices have now fallen from their favor or proven itself unworthy of them.

copyright 2008 CG Walters

Words do not contain truth, but may reflect the truth that you hold within.
This is my truth. Only you can determine if there is any value in it for you.

C.G. Walters’s current novel, Sacred Vow is a metaphysical novel about a man who responds to the mysterious call of a woman, opening the way to redefinition of both himself and his understanding of the world around him…Highly recommended. —Midwest Book Review.

In celebration of CG’s upcoming non-fiction book, **Strike a Chord of Silence, for a limited time autographed/signed copies of Sacred Vow are available for $4.00US plus shipping!– or purchase as ebook or the Amazon Kindle version

This copyrighted article may be freely reprinted as long as the entire article and complete by line is included, without additions.

by Arnold Kennedy
INTRODUCTION.

http://www.arnoldkennedy.com/assetslist.html

If ever there was a need to put aside pre-conceived ideas and teachings, there is great need
to do so in the present use of the expression “born again“. There is a common conception and
presentation throughout the Christian world that is an absolutely false and misleading error. The
basis of the expression is found in the book of John.
John 3:3-5 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto ye except a man
be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a
man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother’s womb and be
born? Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of
the spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of flesh is flesh and
that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born
again.
In most translations, the words “born again” have been carried on in a traditional manner,
suggesting that a second “birth” is necessary to enter the Kingdom of God. Many Bibles, in their
margins, will have “from above” showing this is what the original manuscripts have. When we
look into the words actually spoken, we find that it was Nicodemus who made the suggestion
about entering a second time into his mother’s womb. This was the interpretation that Nicodemus
put on Jesus’ words, but Jesus did not say anything about a second time even if the translations
make Him appear to say He did. JESUS DID NOT USE THE WORD “AGAIN”! There is no
manuscript at all that says Jesus used the word “again”. The word deuteros that Nicodemus spake
appears in the New Testament 44 times, and it always means twice, again, etc.
Jesus did not use this word deuteros; Jesus used the word anothen.
Strong G509 anothen Includes from above, or from the first.
Thayer anothen Used of things that come from heaven [from God], or from a
higher [upper] place, or from the very first, or from the origin.
Knowing this one word difference helps understanding and shows up the problems there
are with the popular concept. Jesus confirmed to Nicodemus that He was not speaking of a second
birth when He told Nicodemus that He was referring to being born of water and of Spirit. Jesus
did not use the future tense, as did Nicodemus. Jesus was speaking of something that existed at
the time of speaking. The Christian Church has picked up the words Nicodemus spoke, rather than
the words of Jesus. Jesus chided Nicodemus for not knowing these things [v10]. Likewise today,
our teachers need chiding for the same reason of not knowing these things. Jesus went on to say
that not every person is begotten from physical birth of the Spirit, noting that, that which is of flesh
is of the flesh, being born that way at physical birth.
“AGAIN”
The word anothen that Jesus uses appears 14 times in the New Testament and it does not have a
meaning similar to deuteros (second time) or pallin (again), the latter being the word most
commonly translated as “again”. The adverb anothen always relates to place and is used of past or
former time, but never the future time. In order to discuss the word anothen, let us consider
examples of how the word has been translated.
Matt 27:51 and Mark 15:38 the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the
bottom;
Luke 1:3 having had perfect understanding all things from the very
first.
John 3:31 He that cometh from above is above all:
John 19:11 except it were given thee from above:
John 19:23 now the coat was without seam, woven from the top
throughout.
Acts 26:5 Which knew me from the beginning,
James 1:17 Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above.
James 3:17 But the wisdom that is from above 
None of these indicate “again” in any sense.
“BORN”
Begetting and birth are two vastly different events. Begetting as used of men is the action
and process of conception, for example, Abraham begat Isaac [Matt 1:16]. Birth as used of
woman, is movement from one environment to another, for example, Mary of whom Jesus was
born [Matt 1-16]. This word gennao varies with the context and it may have an abstract meaning
also where it is used of figurative father-child relationships [1 Cor 4:15].
This word “born” in John 3:3-5 is gennao and it is found 98 times in the New Testament.
The sense usually has connection with procreation; the most prominent meaning being beget or
begotten. We must thus now determine the time when this begetting takes place. All modern
teachers insist that people already born can be re-born in the future. But when used of a male,
begotten is usually about the time of conception; when born is used of a female it is usually about
physical birth.
Thayer It is of mankind begetting children.
Vine Chiefly used of men begetting children.
If we want to understand its use in John 3:3-5, it is necessary to look at the Greek which
does not indicate future tense here. Modern theology or teaching likes to use the words in the
future tense [from tradition], but this is a total error. We have been taught so wrongly to use the
words, except a man be born again in the future tense that it is hard for many to think otherwise.
But “be born” is indefinite with respect to time. Jesus taught exactly what is taught through the
Old Testament, namely that God’s race is born from an original sowing.
“BORN OF WATER AND OF SPIRIT”
This is not only an interesting subject; but John 3:5 [Except a man be born of water and of
the spirit] is a key verse. Because of the “and” we see there are two requirements for perceiving
the Kingdom of God: water as well as spirit. What is believed here determines which gospel is
believed. We have the choice to believe that any man of any race can see the kingdom of God or
we can believe the limitation that Jesus presents:
The word for water is hudor and it is used of water of all sorts. On its own it means
nothing but water! Some religious so-called experts argue that the expression refers to baptism,
but this cannot be so because the thief on the cross [stake] went to paradise without being baptised.
So we have to look further.
A person is begotten of water as part of the natural process following biological
conception, but Jesus added the words, and of the Spirit. This makes it clear that the ability to
comprehend the Kingdom of God is included at the time of conception. To determine what this is
about, we must of necessity go back to the Old Testament to see who and what was begotten of the
Spirit. We can anticipate that the Old Testament will agree with the New Testament.
WHO DID GOD BEGET?
Exodus 4:22 Thus saith the Lord, Israel is my son, even my firstborn.
Statements like this immediately exclude all the other races and potentially, those before
Jacob. So, there is no need to go further back in the Bible, apart from noting that both Abraham
and Sarah were from the Adamic seed. They could not have been from the pre-Adamic or other later seed-lines. When God separated Abram and Sara He regenerated their ability to conceive a
child and commemorated the event by changing their names adding the fifth letter of the Hebrew
alphabet into their names - Abraham and Sarah. This number is connected with the Spirit of God!
The life in Sarah’s womb was spirit-endowed. Now, consider these questions:
1. If Israel was God’s firstborn son, then who are their offspring?
2. For Israel to be the son, then who is Israel’s father? Is it not God?
3. Does not Israel originate from God if Israel is His son?
Nowhere in the Bible can we find any suggestion of the humanist brotherhood of all men.
God is expressed as being the “Father of Israel” only. He is the father of all men OF ISRAEL, not
all men of all races.
Jesus taught His disciples [all Israelites only] to pray saying, our Father which art in
heaven. This is better translated our Father, the One in heaven. Neither God nor man can be
called a father until they have begotten offspring. There is no suggestion of a spiritual birth later
in life. God states that He is a Father in Exodus 4:22; therefore He begat offspring and is the
father of all descendants from Israel. The Apostle Peter declares that we [Israelites to whom he
was writing] are begotten from above, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible seed, by the
Word of God.
It must be immediately pointed out that, in this verse, the incorruptible seed of God [the
Father] is sporas rather than sperma. The meaning of this word sporas is the sowing back in the
past, or sown seed and refers to the firstborn, Isaac conceived in Sarah’s womb, after God had
regenerated Sarah’s and Abraham’s ability to conceive a child. It is now an appropriate place to
look at Sarah and Abraham, who are shown to be the place [or origin], being that originating rock
or quarry and the pit.
ABRAHAM AND SARAH – THE ORIGIN
Isaiah 51:1,2 Hearken unto me, ye that follow after righteousness, ye that seek the Lord:
look unto the rock whence ye are hewn, and to the hole of the pit whence ye
are digged. Look unto Abraham your father, and unto Sarah that bare you:
for I called him alone, and blessed him, and increased him.
It is not necessary here to establish all the reasons as to why God needed to make a new
start with Abraham and Sarah. We have to accept that He did call Abraham alone. From this
beginning, God made promises to Abraham that were to follow on to Abraham’s seed (zera). Only
those born from this new beginning could comprehend the Kingdom of God. This beginning was
from God because God had regenerated Abraham and Sarah enabling them to bear one child. In
this way Isaac was born because of God’s action.
From Adam to Abraham, Adam’s pure line contained the breath of life [see Job], so where
did the people come from who did not have the breath of life? These men and women originated
from Genesis 1. Through misgenerative activity –[i.e.race mixing]-, racial pollution was
introduced to the bloodstream of the sons of Adam, and we find that God sought to eliminate the
products of such activity. Noah was “pure in his generations” [Gen 6:9], and so he and his
unmixed family were preserved. Later, the Children of Israel were to destroy the mixed breed of
the Canaanites. These could not receive the things of the Spirit of God. They could not witness in
their spirit and say, the Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit that we are the children of God
[Rom 8:16], as an Israelite is able to do. This principle is a continuing theme in the Bible.
Through Abraham and Sarah, God established the basis for Abraham’s seed to become the
Sons of God [John 1:12]. God was making a new beginning with Abraham. None other than the
seed of Abraham, through the son of promise, Isaac, has this opportunity or potential. Abraham’s
seven other sons did not have this potential - because they were born prior to Isaac. The
descendants of Isaac were begotten of the Spirit from their conception. This is why those among
Isaac’s descendants who believe are regarded as being anointed by the Spirit [Gal 3:16]. Paul is
able to declare, now He which stablishes us with you in Christ, and has anointed us is God who
has also sealed us and given the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts [2 Cor. 1:21,22]. In 1 Cor 2:7-
16 Paul, confirming this, tells the brethren [kinsmen of the same womb of Sarah] that they have
not received the spirit of the world, but the Spirit of God [v12]. He says that through this we
might know [or comprehend] the things that are freely given to us, [the brethren], of God. He goes
on to further declare that the “natural” man [those not born of Isaac’s line] cannot receive the
things of the Spirit of God. He affirms Jesus’ statement that anyone who is not begotten of the
original sowing [in the womb of Sarah] cannot see the Kingdom of God.
1 John 2:27 But the anointing which you have received abideth in you, 
1 John 3:9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit [practice] sin, for his seed
remaineth in him: 
1 John 5:18 We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; 
There is this relationship between the “anointing”, the right “seed”, and being begotten of God.
“FORMED FROM THE WOMB”.
Isaiah 44:2 Thus saith the Lord [Jehovah] that made thee [Israel], and formed the from
the womb, 
In what way would Israel be formed in the womb? Whose womb? The word beten means
what we mean today by the womb. Men do not have a womb; Abraham did not have a womb, but
Sarah did.
In Isaiah 51:1,2 as quoted above, speaking of Sarah, we find the womb described as the
hole of the pit. This metaphor is a term that extends to the mountain from which the Stone
Kingdom is taken. This is God’s mine. James who was writing to the twelve tribes said, OF HIS
OWN WILL BEGAT HE US [ISRAELITES] WITH THE WORD OF TRUTH [James 1:18]. Begat,
as has been shown, is chiefly about conception, not physical birth.
Isaiah 43:1 But now thus saith the Lord that created thee, O Jacob, and he that formed
thee, O Israel, …
This verse indicates a difference between Israel and Jacob. Here we have the one being
created, and the other being formed. So there are differences associated with the use of these
words in different contexts.
Isaiah 44:24 Thus saith the Lord, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I
am the Lord that maketh all things; …
Here again, the Lord is speaking to Israel only. Nowhere in Scripture can we find
reference to the Lord being the redeemer of any other people apart from those of Israel who are
formed from the womb. In the New Testament we still find reference to the womb of Sarah.
Therefore it is as important as ever in the New Testament, as well as in the Old Testament.
Rom 4:19 And being not weak in faith, he considered not his own body now dead,
when he was about an hundred years old, neither the deadness of Sara’s
womb: …
Contained in the first verse of this chapter, we see, Abraham our father, as pertaining to
the flesh. The father of us all [that is, Israelites] of verse 16 is Abraham after the flesh. This still
is not a spiritual rebirth. Remember that Paul was writing to the House of Israel to whom he was
sent.
Nicodemus, as a master or teacher in Israel, should have known these things, Jesus told
him so, in no uncertain terms. Teachers today likewise do not know these things. The womb of
Sarah and the offspring from that womb have been spiritualised away! The common New Testament word “brethren”, as has been shown, is kinsmen of the womb. What other womb would
this be other than the womb of Sarah?
“HE CAME UNTO HIS OWN”  “BORN OF GOD”
John 1:11,12 He came unto his own, and his own received him not. But as many as
received him, to them gave he the power to become the sons of God.
Quoting R.K. and R.N. Phillips in The only begotten God,
Verse 11 is almost completely misunderstood by the whole of Christendom today and the AV translation is the main cause of this misunderstanding … The word own appears twice in the verse – but in the first clause it is neuter gender while in the second it is masculine. Therefore John is referring to two different things. The first clause states that Jesus came to His own possessions [neuter gender] – His land, His Kingdom, His city, His temple. In the second clause the term His Own is the Greek term oi idios [masculine gender] which means, literally, the members of one’s own household. In this case it refers only to those who had authority over His Kingdom, city and Temple. (The vast majority of Israel were scattered abroad in the Dispersion and, at that time, were still classed as not my people.) Before we can complete the translation of verse 11, we have to look at the beginning of verse 12. The Greek text of verse 12 begins but to those who did receive Him. In this clause and the last clause of verse 11, we have another instance of the AV translating two different Greek words as one English word – in this case, received. The last clause of verse 11 states, in effect, that those who were ruling over His possessions neither received nor accepted Him [as the owner]. It points to outright rejection, not through ignorance [which is covered by the phrase does not recognise Him in verse 10], but by wilful refusal to accept Him as the rightful owner. However, in the first sentence of verse 12 the word received has the meaning of to welcome or to accept willingly. Hence, while the Judean Nation rejected Him at a national level, there were individuals in that Nation who did both recognise and receive Him gladly.
Verses 11 and 12 read in the Greek text:
v11 He comes unto his own [possessions] but The people [ruling over His possessions] refuse to
accept Him [as the rightful owner].
v12 But to those who welcome Him, to The ones believing in His name, to them He gives
authority to [make themselves] become [because of their beliefs] children of God [again].
They were not everyone on earth who was born of bloods [plural in Greek] or by the will of
the flesh [John 1:10-13]. Jesus came to His household who were born by the will of God.
Thayer’s Lexicon Household is used as stock, race, descendants of one.
Phillips and Phillips again points out:
The phrase translated the sons of God in verse 12 of the AV is quite wrong. The Greek phrase is tekna theou which means children of God. Immature children, no doubt, but it does not mean sonship;
for sonship points to growth and ultimate maturity. Nor does it have anything to do with
the false doctrine of “adoption”. On the contrary, the phrase forcefully asserts:
a. the natural genetic relationship of a child with its true father and, hence,
b. those children of God are the biological descendants of God Himself.
Note that John 1:13 states:
Which were born, not of blood [plural], nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
To which Phillips and Phillips point out:
Verse 13 states that those who were given the right to become children of God [again] were those [begotten]:
a. not out of bloods - which is of ordinary human descent,
b. nor out of [the] will of the flesh - which was Sarah’s demand to have children by Hagar
and Keturah,
c. nor out of [the] will of a man - which was Abraham’s desire for an heir,
d. but out of God are begotten.
The Greek verb begotten is plural in this verse and so cannot be limited to the birth of Jesus“.
Isaac was not born of Abraham’s will. Abraham was past that. Isaac was begotten by
God’s will when He regenerated Abraham and Sarah’s ability to have a child and to give that child
an individually incorruptible spirit. Isaac was thus begotten from above, as are Isaac’s
descendants from the time of their conception. In this portion of John 1 we find the origin of those
who can believe in Jesus. Also we find where they did not [and do not] come from! Jesus came
only [alone] to those begotten from above by God. He is shown to be the Redeemer of only His
Kinsmen.
6
A person does not exercise his will in determining where and of what race he should be
begotten. The will factor of the person being born does not function in normal physical conception
and birth. God determined what seed a person is from that person’s father. God knows who are
begotten of the Spirit from above. 2 Tim 2:19 says, “God knows those that are His”. The word
translated as “born” = gennao in the following Scriptures, is used in the genealogies and in all
other places, as being begotten or conceived. It does not relate to some spiritual birth.
John 1:13 Which were born [begotten], not of blood …
John 3:3 Except a man be born again … [that is, begotten from above]
John 3:5 Except a man be born [begotten] of water and of Spirit …
John 3:8  so is everyone who is born [begotten] of the Spirit …
John 18:37  To this end was I born … [referring to Jesus’ physical birth from Mary]
Matt 2:1 When Jesus was born in Bethlehem … [referring to His physical birth from
Mary]
Spiritualise these references if we like, but we will be like Nicodemus, not knowing these things.
“REGENERATION”.
In Scripture there is an expression that means “born again”. This is paligenesia or palin
(again) plus genesis (born). There are but two occurrences and this is how they have been
translated:
Matt 19:28 Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration
when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit
upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. …
Titus 3:5 … but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration,
and renewing of the Holy Ghost; …
It is not appropriate to expand this new subject here, other than to again note the Tribes of Israel
limitation.
WHAT IS BEING SAID?
Simply this, there is a great difference between “begotten” and “born”. Begetal refers to
conception where as born refers to physical birth. The Greek word, gennao, means conception or
beget (when used of men) and physical birth (when used of women). Unless a person is begotten
of the line that arises from the original sowing, the begetting of God, that person does not come to
contain the ability to perceive the Kingdom of God. This is what Jesus said to Nicodemus!

[vodpod id=Groupvideo.1423876&w=425&h=350&fv=file%3Dhttp%3A%2F%2Fs3.amazonaws.com%2Fsmallscreen%2Fpisco_sour.flv%26image%3Dhttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.smallscreennetwork.com%2Ffiles%2Fphpthumb%2FphpThumb.php%3Fsrc%3D%2Fvideos%2Fcocktail_spirit%2Fpisco_sour.jpg%26w%3D453%26h%3D340%26zc%3D1%26showdigits%3Dtrue%26showfsbutton%3Dfalse%26width%3D453%26height%3D340]

Vividly sharing the-how-we-grew-up stories and an inch by inch update of what's happening there and here. Hi-fives for the silliest of reasons and the later-looking-aw-so-cute arguments for nothing. The dairy milk days and the long stroll days. The counting before reluctant bye byes and exploring all possible recurring decimal numbers. The replacement of  's' with 'sh' and the banishing of 'r' and putting in 'w'. Endearments galore and even more swear words. Too much of like-mindedness and rare but deadly differences. Fierce ambition and the occasional carefree being. Mostly bliss and a rarity of intense should I say non-bliss. Not a bit of monotony and a fusion of million ragas. A  now fuzzy future and a beautiful present. The world's in the oblivion and the reminiscences are fondly weaved.

Why is Randy Pausch one of the most important people you could ever listen to in your life? He is the essence of living your dream, deconstructing and obliterating obstacles, and if there was a picture next to the word "courage" in the dictionary it would be Randy's picture. I never knew the man personally but I feel like he is my friend--just a friend I had not met yet.

Life Pioneer

Randy Paush was a life pioneer, an inner architect of the truest sense, who valued and coveted his time here like nobody I have ever witnessed. You can not help but be touched or greatly effected by Randy Pausch. If you watch his greatest triumph the last lecture the youtube video of his final lecture "Achieving Your Childhood Dreams" performed September 18, 2007 before a packed house at Carnegie Mellon University, you begin to understand the message: live life embrace your obstacles and triumph through your will

Words can not express our sorrow and sympathy for the Pausch family and Randy's friends. Stay strong Randy would want that from every one of you.

"There is as much joy in the heart of God when He forgives, as there is in the heart of the sinner when he is forgiven. God is as blessed in giving as we are in receiving." -Charles Spurgeon

"The Lord is slow to anger, abounding in love and forgiving sin and rebellion." -Numbers 14:18 NIV

-Scott Bailey 2008

"Father, forgive me in the areas that I have been bored with You and desired entertaining to get me to listen. May I be so satiisfied when the entertainment is not there and it is only You. Help me, O Lord, to demonstrate in my life daily a God so real that no one could ever be bored with You." AMEN

.

The black box snaps and they're caught,

burned on glass: white orbs in mid-waltz

trespass in the frame; a shine to the side of

our line of sight; ectoplasmic residue roping

out of nostrils. The dead

.

crowd around us, pose for photographs.

Faked but the form fixes: the dead and the

dead in the sepia distance, the transparent

dancers and the law-abiding body locked

in solemnity like partners in a bad marriage.

.

Placeholders, seizures of air, they stare at

some lost corner of the room or at the lens,

never where the sitter looks. Floating faces

resemble us-a teacher, mother, stranger,

wife, evidence of official doctrine, proof

of post-life living, that soul

.

trumps skin. A continuation of the ghost

freed from its cage. But the image shows

the body's mutation, eternal, elastic,

invisible. This is a celebration of the thing

that knows the world. Muscles play

.

twister with geography, hand in Hong Kong,

leg in the Irish Sea. We might enter the

senses of our descendents, press the

present with an impotent wisdom.

.

Here is the faded show of make-up and

drapes, glass, light, space and the

camera-a machine for believing

everything. Here is a need to know that

behind the call at 3 a.m., the vaguely

threatening fear, there is a face, a mouth,

an ear.

mid-week I started a post about body transformations - partially inspired by the extremes Christian Bale has gone to for his roles, partially inspired by a chigger attack, partially inspired by the return of the mean, painful stomach gremlins.

Trying to relax and breathe and let some of this anger go is hard.. not only does it come back around via my digestive system, but also my spine. This is my pain-body.

thorny bastard

it and I at war. a constant masochistic struggle

I want to strike a truce. I'm tired of fighting and all the excuses. Let there be peace and ser-ren-ity..

I've been hovering around what looks like the Candida detox to end all detoxes. Key detoxifier being fat: coconut oil, butter, animal fats..  all the controversial saturated ones. I really like coconut oil. I found a brand that I will consume straight. Almost the same for butter.  I'm a butter-aholic, but I don't eat it straight.

Grains, root veggies and ALL sugars including all fruits except lemons and limes and a little stevia are out..  so what's left?  Meat and the rest of the veggies - HIGH fat, mid protein and low carb.

Enzymes are essential..  as is basic supplementation, probiotics and a few antifungals down the line.

Prospected commitment time: 1-2 years

holy crap!

yes.. 1-2 years. It's a lifestyle change not just your everyday run-of-the-mill detox. This program is designed to clean you out, rebuild everything back up to code and bring the immune system back to life.

.. all that stands between me and this lifestyle change is an addiction to sugar and a few egoic induced emotional issues like fear.. fear of restriction.. fear of failure... fear of more pain.. fear of stagnation..

I know I have what it takes to do it..  where did my will to be wild go? I know it's here somewhere.. I think it's what inspires me to map out the health plans of attack. I know it's carried me through changes before. That 100 lbs I lost didn't disappear overnight.

http://fairywebmother.blogspot.com/2008/06/obsession_11.html

The above link will take you to my art blog, where I have addressed the issue of abuse, in a small way.  If you are interested in my thoughts on this subject, please visit me there.

May your weekend be blessed!