The Arthurian Maji Grail King Lineage
- Thread starter Marietta
- Start date
- Status
Cells and DNA are not one and the same. Where do you suppose memories stored? It has been proven through studies done on a set of conjoined twins who are joined at the head and share one brain, that the brain does not hold the memory, or the personality traits. Each of the conjoined twins have very distance personalities, with very different memories.
I'm not sure where you could have gotten the idea that I am even slightly suggesting that our thoughts come from an outside source. All that exists is energy and energy is conscious, thus all that exists is conscious, from a quirk to a human. The only difference in a table and a human is the amount of energy/conscious holding capacity. A table can't self realize or analyze. We definitely are capable of 'ORIGINAL' thought even though most of us chose to simply follow what we are told instead of using our own innate minds to come to our own conclusion. All that exists is merely thought forms. Reality is in the eye of the beholder, isn't it. Lets say that I live in China and you live in England but you have never visited China. One day someone tries to tell you about a place they visited called China and you deny that it exists because you personally have never been there to verify it, "Does that mean that China does not exist for me?" No, it is very real to me and is part of my everyday reality.
I can see subtle energy which makes it part of my reality but someone who can't see these subtle energies would argue that they are not real, but that doesn't negate the validity of them.
What ideas have I claimed to be original? If you reread my post you will see that what I said was that I had knowledge without ever studying a topic (not that the knowledge was new, but it was new to me) that I derived from a very crude translation of the Hebrew text of Torah. Such as knowledge of advanced Quantum physics. How did I know this very complicated form of science without reading or studying about it? Where did this knowledge come from? How does a child prodigy know what he/she knows. How can a two year old who has never been taught how to read or write pick up a book and read it? How can a five year old blind child who has never had a music lesson play classical music on the piano after hearing the song only one time? and on and on and on.
How can a person with Autism look at a bag of M&M's and tell you exactly how many there are in the bag?
It sounds like you are of the mind set that we can't think for ourselves and can only memic what someone else tells us. If this is so where do you think it all began? Someone had to be able to think somewhere along the line to put it into "your" mind. Believe it or not, there are people who have original thoughts, that are real, valid productive thoughts and ideas that nobody else implanted into their minds.
Unsubstantiated for you but for a lot of people this is not the case.
Love and Light, Marietta
I'm not sure where you could have gotten the idea that I am even slightly suggesting that our thoughts come from an outside source. All that exists is energy and energy is conscious, thus all that exists is conscious, from a quirk to a human. The only difference in a table and a human is the amount of energy/conscious holding capacity. A table can't self realize or analyze. We definitely are capable of 'ORIGINAL' thought even though most of us chose to simply follow what we are told instead of using our own innate minds to come to our own conclusion. All that exists is merely thought forms. Reality is in the eye of the beholder, isn't it. Lets say that I live in China and you live in England but you have never visited China. One day someone tries to tell you about a place they visited called China and you deny that it exists because you personally have never been there to verify it, "Does that mean that China does not exist for me?" No, it is very real to me and is part of my everyday reality.
I can see subtle energy which makes it part of my reality but someone who can't see these subtle energies would argue that they are not real, but that doesn't negate the validity of them.
What ideas have I claimed to be original? If you reread my post you will see that what I said was that I had knowledge without ever studying a topic (not that the knowledge was new, but it was new to me) that I derived from a very crude translation of the Hebrew text of Torah. Such as knowledge of advanced Quantum physics. How did I know this very complicated form of science without reading or studying about it? Where did this knowledge come from? How does a child prodigy know what he/she knows. How can a two year old who has never been taught how to read or write pick up a book and read it? How can a five year old blind child who has never had a music lesson play classical music on the piano after hearing the song only one time? and on and on and on.
How can a person with Autism look at a bag of M&M's and tell you exactly how many there are in the bag?
It sounds like you are of the mind set that we can't think for ourselves and can only memic what someone else tells us. If this is so where do you think it all began? Someone had to be able to think somewhere along the line to put it into "your" mind. Believe it or not, there are people who have original thoughts, that are real, valid productive thoughts and ideas that nobody else implanted into their minds.
Unsubstantiated for you but for a lot of people this is not the case.
Love and Light, Marietta
Dear bgriagach, Thanks for the imput.
So are you saying that it is ordinary for a two year old who has never been taught how to read, without ever being taught the alphabet, to pick up an encyclopedia and read a page out of it simply because there were books laying around the house and his parents spoke in complete sentences to him? And how did he learn the letters and then what sound to apply to each letter and how did he learn the arrangement of the letters and the sound of the word? How did he know that the letters formed words?
I agree 100 percent that we are not giving kids credit and I don't believe in talking down to children of any age. They come in with everything the need and carry all the knowledge needed to make it through life. Usually by the age three the forget and go into a kind of sleep/slumber with their knowingness.
Love and Light, Marietta
So are you saying that it is ordinary for a two year old who has never been taught how to read, without ever being taught the alphabet, to pick up an encyclopedia and read a page out of it simply because there were books laying around the house and his parents spoke in complete sentences to him? And how did he learn the letters and then what sound to apply to each letter and how did he learn the arrangement of the letters and the sound of the word? How did he know that the letters formed words?
I agree 100 percent that we are not giving kids credit and I don't believe in talking down to children of any age. They come in with everything the need and carry all the knowledge needed to make it through life. Usually by the age three the forget and go into a kind of sleep/slumber with their knowingness.
Love and Light, Marietta
bgruagach
eclectic Wiccan
Dear bgriagach, Thanks for the imput.
So are you saying that it is ordinary for a two year old who has never been taught how to read, without ever being taught the alphabet, to pick up an encyclopedia and read a page out of it simply because there were books laying around the house and his parents spoke in complete sentences to him? And how did he learn the letters and then what sound to apply to each letter and how did he learn the arrangement of the letters and the sound of the word? How did he know that the letters formed words?
I agree 100 percent that we are not giving kids credit and I don't believe in talking down to children of any age. They come in with everything the need and carry all the knowledge needed to make it through life. Usually by the age three the forget and go into a kind of sleep/slumber with their knowingness.
Love and Light, Marietta
I've not encountered any parents who have encyclopedias in the house who don't also read to their children. Kids who are read to see the words at the same time they hear the words being spoken and tend to be quick to make the connection.
Here's a question that the "genetic knowledge" thing doesn't explain -- why would this supposedly inborn knowledge just happen to be consistent with the culture they are born and raised in? Why wouldn't a Chinese prodigy child who was adopted and raised in a non-Chinese household spontaneously speak or read Chinese?
If this genetic knowledge is inherent in the whole human race, why aren't English prodigies spontaneously speaking and reading Chinese, and why aren't Chinese prodigies spontaneously speaking and reading Greek, or English, or Latin?
Dear
You wrote: What I'd like to know is what all these "special powers" are that are so special. If they're the type of thing you enumerated on page one of this thread (i.e., healing, past life memory, etc.) those are not that special.
My reply: I don’t know what special powers you are asking about?
You wrote: Everyone is capable of affecting healing.
My reply: I agree 100%
You wrote: Lots of people claim to have past life memories. I believe I have some. That doesn't make such a belief or experience scientific or valid in anyone else's eyes. Additionally, I find it amusing how many people remember being queens, kings, Mary Magdalene, etc. and how few people remember the kind of boring, everyday lives like I had. Ones like my current life where I work, sleep, eat, hang out, and die. This alone indicates to me that a lot of this past life stuff is wishful thinking. We can't all be Cleopatra, you know.
My reply: Again I agree with you. In my most recent past life I was homeless and my grand child in this life was my sibling. I’m exceptionally clean and tidy as a result in this life.
You wrote: Anyhoo... what are these special powers that only happen in so few people?
Because as far as I can tell, there are tons of people out there and nearly all of them have some capacities in healing, empathy, telepathy, and so forth. They seem like pretty normal human traits to me, but just like being good at math, having a gift of drawing, or being pitch-perfect in singing... some are better than others
My reply: Once again we are in agreement. Here is the first sentence from the third post I made in this thread about the Indigo’s.
“The Indigo Children are not to be considered “superior or elite” in comparison to other humans, but rather viewed as living demonstrations of the dormant abilities that are NOW beginning to rapidly unfold among ALL HUMAN POPULATIONS.”
I think you are going by claims made by other people not Azurite Press.
You wrote: It all still seems to buy into the "ooo, I feel so special and unique! I am so important!" worldview that is so prevalent in the Western modern world. An attempt to make life interesting and boost self-esteem, make us feel better about any perceived inadequacies we have.
My reply: That’s not how anyone in our group views it or feel about it.
You wrote: As for cellular memory- what are you talking about? Do you just mean something resonates with you? That you feel like you remember something? Do you realize that just because we have a feeling, thought, or what seems like a memory does not mean it's accurate? We can fabricate memories. We can convince ourselves of all sorts of stuff that is completely not grounded in reality.
My reply: What I am talking about is knowing things that you have never studied or heard of and then finding out that it is accurate. Also past life memories of places that you have never been to and can describe accurately.
You wrote: And as for being unwilling to debate
My reply: the only thing I said I was not going to debate was Judaism, Kabbalah and my form of translating the Hebrew Torah for my own personal study, which has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with this thread.
You wrote: these posts have made it clear that you made huge claims in the OPs and then were unable or unwilling to back any of them with established reference material- your own or anyone else's.
My reply: I’ve answered every question asked of me that I am physically able to answer.
You wrote: Everyone is supposed to agree with you or completely ignore said claims on the basis of your own "cellular memory.
My reply: Please go back and read all of my posts. I have never asked anyone to agree with me and I am not trying to talk anyone into believing what I believe. This is my personal path which is not for everyone and I respect that. I’ve said that I will debate with anyone who has a working knowledge of the topic. How do you debate with someone who only wants to make promote an argument and fun of the material without knowledge of the material.
You wrote:" You don't want debate. That's understandable, because you seem ill equipped to provide any real evidence of your claims.
My reply: First I would suggest going back and reading the articles I posted. What kind of evidence do you want? Are you asking me if I can “PROVE’ to you that the indig’s are real? If this is what you are seeking, I can’t provide what you want. Nobody can make you believe anything that you don’t want to believe. If you’re not open to something it can’t be proven to you. I can’t make you believe something you have determined you will not believe no matter what material I quote. Unless it comes from your little corner of learning, it is not valid to you so what is the point. I have provided the material I have, Good Morning American did a segment on the Indigo Children and so did ABC new do a segment on them but unless it comes from one of your cronies, you simply will not acknowledge the validity of the source.
What I can tell you is that I can see the indigo blue auric field around these people which is where the term Indigo children came from, but can I tell you who has what DNA activated providing doctors reports, no I cannot. Does this mean that testing has not been don’t, NO it doesn’t. It simply means that I am no privy to these reports other than second hand. Most adult Indigo’s would never allow someone to take samples of their DNA, therefore the only DNA samples that have been taken are from very young children against their will.
If you have specific questions about the Indigo children I will do my best to provide an answer but if you are wanting me to convince you, I don’t have the power or desire to do this.
Love and Light, Marietta
You wrote: What I'd like to know is what all these "special powers" are that are so special. If they're the type of thing you enumerated on page one of this thread (i.e., healing, past life memory, etc.) those are not that special.
My reply: I don’t know what special powers you are asking about?
You wrote: Everyone is capable of affecting healing.
My reply: I agree 100%
You wrote: Lots of people claim to have past life memories. I believe I have some. That doesn't make such a belief or experience scientific or valid in anyone else's eyes. Additionally, I find it amusing how many people remember being queens, kings, Mary Magdalene, etc. and how few people remember the kind of boring, everyday lives like I had. Ones like my current life where I work, sleep, eat, hang out, and die. This alone indicates to me that a lot of this past life stuff is wishful thinking. We can't all be Cleopatra, you know.
My reply: Again I agree with you. In my most recent past life I was homeless and my grand child in this life was my sibling. I’m exceptionally clean and tidy as a result in this life.
You wrote: Anyhoo... what are these special powers that only happen in so few people?
Because as far as I can tell, there are tons of people out there and nearly all of them have some capacities in healing, empathy, telepathy, and so forth. They seem like pretty normal human traits to me, but just like being good at math, having a gift of drawing, or being pitch-perfect in singing... some are better than others
My reply: Once again we are in agreement. Here is the first sentence from the third post I made in this thread about the Indigo’s.
“The Indigo Children are not to be considered “superior or elite” in comparison to other humans, but rather viewed as living demonstrations of the dormant abilities that are NOW beginning to rapidly unfold among ALL HUMAN POPULATIONS.”
I think you are going by claims made by other people not Azurite Press.
You wrote: It all still seems to buy into the "ooo, I feel so special and unique! I am so important!" worldview that is so prevalent in the Western modern world. An attempt to make life interesting and boost self-esteem, make us feel better about any perceived inadequacies we have.
My reply: That’s not how anyone in our group views it or feel about it.
You wrote: As for cellular memory- what are you talking about? Do you just mean something resonates with you? That you feel like you remember something? Do you realize that just because we have a feeling, thought, or what seems like a memory does not mean it's accurate? We can fabricate memories. We can convince ourselves of all sorts of stuff that is completely not grounded in reality.
My reply: What I am talking about is knowing things that you have never studied or heard of and then finding out that it is accurate. Also past life memories of places that you have never been to and can describe accurately.
You wrote: And as for being unwilling to debate
My reply: the only thing I said I was not going to debate was Judaism, Kabbalah and my form of translating the Hebrew Torah for my own personal study, which has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with this thread.
You wrote: these posts have made it clear that you made huge claims in the OPs and then were unable or unwilling to back any of them with established reference material- your own or anyone else's.
My reply: I’ve answered every question asked of me that I am physically able to answer.
You wrote: Everyone is supposed to agree with you or completely ignore said claims on the basis of your own "cellular memory.
My reply: Please go back and read all of my posts. I have never asked anyone to agree with me and I am not trying to talk anyone into believing what I believe. This is my personal path which is not for everyone and I respect that. I’ve said that I will debate with anyone who has a working knowledge of the topic. How do you debate with someone who only wants to make promote an argument and fun of the material without knowledge of the material.
You wrote:" You don't want debate. That's understandable, because you seem ill equipped to provide any real evidence of your claims.
My reply: First I would suggest going back and reading the articles I posted. What kind of evidence do you want? Are you asking me if I can “PROVE’ to you that the indig’s are real? If this is what you are seeking, I can’t provide what you want. Nobody can make you believe anything that you don’t want to believe. If you’re not open to something it can’t be proven to you. I can’t make you believe something you have determined you will not believe no matter what material I quote. Unless it comes from your little corner of learning, it is not valid to you so what is the point. I have provided the material I have, Good Morning American did a segment on the Indigo Children and so did ABC new do a segment on them but unless it comes from one of your cronies, you simply will not acknowledge the validity of the source.
What I can tell you is that I can see the indigo blue auric field around these people which is where the term Indigo children came from, but can I tell you who has what DNA activated providing doctors reports, no I cannot. Does this mean that testing has not been don’t, NO it doesn’t. It simply means that I am no privy to these reports other than second hand. Most adult Indigo’s would never allow someone to take samples of their DNA, therefore the only DNA samples that have been taken are from very young children against their will.
If you have specific questions about the Indigo children I will do my best to provide an answer but if you are wanting me to convince you, I don’t have the power or desire to do this.
Love and Light, Marietta
You wrote: I've not encountered any parents who have encyclopedias in the house who don't also read to their children. Kids who are read to see the words at the same time they hear the words being spoken and tend to be quick to make the connection.
My reply: My brother in law was in Iraq working when he met his wife and they had a child while living there, it is this child who could read at age two. I don't believe they had many books around. I believe he was programming computer mainframes at the time the encyclopedia was on computers that he used for work. Even if they read children's books to him, this would not explain how he could read and comprehend the complex ideas in the book he read or how when he was sat in front of the computer he was able to type in the complicated commands needed to use a computer back then. This young man is in the top 1% IQ range. Reading to children does not produce genius. If this was the case all the kids I know should be reading by at least age five on their own and would not need to attend grade school.
You wrote:
Here's a question that the "genetic knowledge" thing doesn't explain -- why would this supposedly inborn knowledge just happen to be consistent with the culture they are born and raised in? Why wouldn't a Chinese prodigy child who was adopted and raised in a non-Chinese household spontaneously speak or read Chinese?
If this genetic knowledge is inherent in the whole human race, why aren't English prodigies spontaneously speaking and reading Chinese, and why aren't Chinese prodigies spontaneously speaking and reading Greek, or English, or Latin?
My reply: View the video link I provided in my post to bananabrain. It is of a young girl who speaks 11 different languages.
From what I have read, we forget (consciously) once we start to speak. Regardless of nationality children learn the language spoken in order to be able to communicate. If a Spanish child is adopted by an American and starts to speak Spanish the American family would not recognize the foreign language and just assume that the child was baby talking and would correct it.
A very close friend whom I grew up with has an adopted sister from Korea. She was brought her at age three (now age 56) and to this day she speaks with such a strong accent that it is hard to understand her.
My granddaughter who is not Japanese and was never taught Japanese but lived next door to a Japanese family from age two to age three half and she could understand the children when they had a part with all Japanese children speaking Japanese at the age of three. She didn't speak it but could understand what they were saying. The Japanese child that lived next door could speak English but when she had a birthday party and there was a group of Japanese girls together they all spoke Japanese and my grand daughter would answer them in English. She could understand them. My granddaughter also used sign language to communicate from birth without being taught. I have a picture of her signing at age four months.
We have so much potential that we don't tap into, it is amazing.
Love and Light, Marietta
My reply: My brother in law was in Iraq working when he met his wife and they had a child while living there, it is this child who could read at age two. I don't believe they had many books around. I believe he was programming computer mainframes at the time the encyclopedia was on computers that he used for work. Even if they read children's books to him, this would not explain how he could read and comprehend the complex ideas in the book he read or how when he was sat in front of the computer he was able to type in the complicated commands needed to use a computer back then. This young man is in the top 1% IQ range. Reading to children does not produce genius. If this was the case all the kids I know should be reading by at least age five on their own and would not need to attend grade school.
You wrote:
Here's a question that the "genetic knowledge" thing doesn't explain -- why would this supposedly inborn knowledge just happen to be consistent with the culture they are born and raised in? Why wouldn't a Chinese prodigy child who was adopted and raised in a non-Chinese household spontaneously speak or read Chinese?
If this genetic knowledge is inherent in the whole human race, why aren't English prodigies spontaneously speaking and reading Chinese, and why aren't Chinese prodigies spontaneously speaking and reading Greek, or English, or Latin?
My reply: View the video link I provided in my post to bananabrain. It is of a young girl who speaks 11 different languages.
From what I have read, we forget (consciously) once we start to speak. Regardless of nationality children learn the language spoken in order to be able to communicate. If a Spanish child is adopted by an American and starts to speak Spanish the American family would not recognize the foreign language and just assume that the child was baby talking and would correct it.
A very close friend whom I grew up with has an adopted sister from Korea. She was brought her at age three (now age 56) and to this day she speaks with such a strong accent that it is hard to understand her.
My granddaughter who is not Japanese and was never taught Japanese but lived next door to a Japanese family from age two to age three half and she could understand the children when they had a part with all Japanese children speaking Japanese at the age of three. She didn't speak it but could understand what they were saying. The Japanese child that lived next door could speak English but when she had a birthday party and there was a group of Japanese girls together they all spoke Japanese and my grand daughter would answer them in English. She could understand them. My granddaughter also used sign language to communicate from birth without being taught. I have a picture of her signing at age four months.
We have so much potential that we don't tap into, it is amazing.
Love and Light, Marietta
bananabrain
awkward squadnik
and i have told you how that doesn't make any sense.Marietta said:
as i have said about eight times, an EXAMPLE of this "physics" you claim to have found in the text. am i not saying this right?
did *i* bring up kabbalah and the Torah? no, *you* did. now those are subjects i *do* know something about and if you are trying to use them for support, as you are indeed trying to do, then i am afraid i have to point out how they don't actually support you.
i don't know how my son picks up the things he picks up - i certainly didn't teach him how to work the satellite TV or DVD player and he can do jigsaws that he shouldn't really be able to at this stage. nobody really knows. but in terms of exceptional abilities like the ones you're pointing out, you're basically falling into a major logical fallacy: because theory X provides an explanation for behaviour Y, it does not follow that theory X is necessarily the most appropriate explanation for this behaviour. it could be theory Z or indeed theory A - but to insist that the answer is "correct" without having examined appropriate alternatives is simply picking the first thing that suits you. have you come across occam's razor? you're not applying it. more to the point, you're not even going for something likely - you're going for a completely far-out explanation of something that doesn't seem to convince anyone else.
there's a very good article on wikipedia that answers all these questions quite concisely, but basically it's 36 based on a Talmudic tradition: Tzadikim Nistarim - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - as for "righteousness", books have been written on what we mean by that.
no, you haven't.
you haven't explained how this "worldwide inquisition" (for which you have provided no evidence) was able to remove letters from hebrew texts which predate the council of nicea, much less affect the hebrew spoken by jews in babylon between that time and the high middle ages.
you haven't given examples of this so-called physics you found.
you haven't indicated where in the mishnah (which you were the first one to reference) these so-called rules you're talking about are outlined - nor have you given any concrete examples of these rules, you have only talked in the vaguest possible terms about what they might be related to!
as for the other stuff, the fact that you are talking about "science" without understanding the basic importance of peer-reviewed research undermines anything you have to say about DNA - and i don't even know anything about that, but clearly path_of_one does.
b'shalom
bananabrain
Dear bananabrain,
You wrote: In response to:I have told you how I was translating the hebrew without all the rules
---End Quote---
and i have told you how that doesn't make any sense.
My reply: If it doesn't make since to you, That's ok, It made perfect since to me. It wasn't intended for you, it was for my personal learning. At the time (while in my early training) it served me well!!!!
---Quote---
and told you that I found Physics in the text and that when I started studying Physics I already knew it. What more do you want?
My reply: Keylontic Science which filled in the blank spots.
---End Quote---
i don't know how my son picks up the things he picks up - i certainly didn't teach him how to work the satellite TV or DVD player and he can do jigsaws that he shouldn't really be able to at this stage. nobody really knows.
My reply: Not true, I do know. Your the one saying that there is no such thing as someone with abilities that can't be explained, such as the Indigo's. The term Indigo is merely used due to the blue hue in the auric field of the Indigo's.
---Quote---
What is the purpose of the 36 lahmed vav niks? Why are there always 36 here, not 37, not 35? If they are merely righteous people why on 36? Define how you are using the term righteous?
---End Quote---
there's a very good article on wikipedia that answers all these questions quite concisely, but basically it's 36 based on a Talmudic tradition: Tzadikim Nistarim - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (Tzadikim Nistarim - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) - as for "righteousness", books have been written on what we mean by that.
My reply: Your side stepping my question. You said at the beginning of this post that you were posting in this thread to explain the teachings of Judaism. Therefore give me the answer without pointing me to an encyclopedia or don't you know the answer?
--Quote---as for the other stuff, the fact that you are talking about "science" without understanding the basic importance of peer-reviewed research undermines anything you have to say about DNA - and i don't even know anything about that,
My reply: Your opinion which doesn't negate a single thing.
If you want to debate Judaism, Kabbalah or the translation techniques of Hebrew take it to the appropriate area. This is not the place for this discussion.
Love and Light, Marietta
Still smiling!!!!
You wrote: In response to:I have told you how I was translating the hebrew without all the rules
---End Quote---
and i have told you how that doesn't make any sense.
My reply: If it doesn't make since to you, That's ok, It made perfect since to me. It wasn't intended for you, it was for my personal learning. At the time (while in my early training) it served me well!!!!
---Quote---
and told you that I found Physics in the text and that when I started studying Physics I already knew it. What more do you want?
My reply: Keylontic Science which filled in the blank spots.
---End Quote---
i don't know how my son picks up the things he picks up - i certainly didn't teach him how to work the satellite TV or DVD player and he can do jigsaws that he shouldn't really be able to at this stage. nobody really knows.
My reply: Not true, I do know. Your the one saying that there is no such thing as someone with abilities that can't be explained, such as the Indigo's. The term Indigo is merely used due to the blue hue in the auric field of the Indigo's.
---Quote---
What is the purpose of the 36 lahmed vav niks? Why are there always 36 here, not 37, not 35? If they are merely righteous people why on 36? Define how you are using the term righteous?
---End Quote---
there's a very good article on wikipedia that answers all these questions quite concisely, but basically it's 36 based on a Talmudic tradition: Tzadikim Nistarim - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (Tzadikim Nistarim - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) - as for "righteousness", books have been written on what we mean by that.
My reply: Your side stepping my question. You said at the beginning of this post that you were posting in this thread to explain the teachings of Judaism. Therefore give me the answer without pointing me to an encyclopedia or don't you know the answer?
--Quote---as for the other stuff, the fact that you are talking about "science" without understanding the basic importance of peer-reviewed research undermines anything you have to say about DNA - and i don't even know anything about that,
My reply: Your opinion which doesn't negate a single thing.
If you want to debate Judaism, Kabbalah or the translation techniques of Hebrew take it to the appropriate area. This is not the place for this discussion.
Love and Light, Marietta
Still smiling!!!!
I just went to the link about lahmed vav nik's. This is a pretty big claim from someone who is accusing the Indigo's of thinking they are special, which THEYDO NOT.
It says: Quote: As a mystical concept, the number 36 is even more intriguing. It is said that at ALL TIMES times there are 36 SPECIAL PEOPLE in the world, and that were it not for them, all of them, if even one of them was missing, THE WORLD WOULD COME TO AN END. The two Hebrew Letters for 36 are the lamed, which is 30, and the vav, which is six. Therefore, these 36 are referred to as the Lamed-Vav Tzadikim. This widely-held belief, this most unusual Jewish concept is based on a Talmudic statement to the effect that in every generation 36 righteous "greet the Shechinah," the Divine Presence (Tractate Sanhedrin 97b; Tractate Sukkah 45b).
Do you care to tell us what the Shechinah is?
And by all means please tell us how you define Rightousnes according to Judaism?
Would you have us believe that 36 people who are merely do gooders hold this world together with their good deeds? What are these good deeds? How does this work? What is the physics behind this? Where is it found?
Love and Light, Marietta
It says: Quote: As a mystical concept, the number 36 is even more intriguing. It is said that at ALL TIMES times there are 36 SPECIAL PEOPLE in the world, and that were it not for them, all of them, if even one of them was missing, THE WORLD WOULD COME TO AN END. The two Hebrew Letters for 36 are the lamed, which is 30, and the vav, which is six. Therefore, these 36 are referred to as the Lamed-Vav Tzadikim. This widely-held belief, this most unusual Jewish concept is based on a Talmudic statement to the effect that in every generation 36 righteous "greet the Shechinah," the Divine Presence (Tractate Sanhedrin 97b; Tractate Sukkah 45b).
Do you care to tell us what the Shechinah is?
And by all means please tell us how you define Rightousnes according to Judaism?
Would you have us believe that 36 people who are merely do gooders hold this world together with their good deeds? What are these good deeds? How does this work? What is the physics behind this? Where is it found?
Love and Light, Marietta
path_of_one
Embracing the Mystery
Hi, Marietta-
I am referring to your OP #8.
My point is that these abilities were not dormant. Traditional societies generally had shaman that had the capacities to soul-journey, interact with the spirit realm, heal, etc. We just recognize these things as really different now because these people have no particular role in our modern society. These traits were always in human populations, and every culture has a different way of viewing them. To make the assertions about such people that you make, with the scientific proof of DNA alterations and so forth- that is the issue for me. Without strong scientific evidence, the assertions are unfounded. It is sufficient to say that some people have greater abilities in these areas, and this is most likely to be like every other human trait- fluctuating in populations (we all have strengths and weaknesses).
The claims that these people are hosts to Nephilim souls, that they have altered DNA, that they are other races (angelics, etc.) is the claim your OPs make, and what I am challenging. I don't challenge that people can heal or perceive beyond the 5 senses or whatever. I challenge the very elaborate, very fantastical, and very unsupported reasons why this is that your organization puts forth.
From Azurite Press, last paragraph on the page:
Welcome
Sounds an awful lot like stroking egos to me- very much a "we are so special, with a special purpose, and you are so courageous for believing in your special-ness." Sorry, but it's just what I see. I may have a lot of these traits, but I still think I'm just a human being like everyone else on the planet. I don't need complicated and unsupported histories of angelics and nephilim and feline hominids and mutated/activated DNA and so on to deal with who I am. I think part of the problem here (from my personal standpoint, aside from the claims of scientific authenticity that are not supported) is that it depends much on labels- labeling everybody and all this stuff. And labels, in my honest opinion, are virtually worthless in spiritual matters. Labels limit rather than progress. In short, I just find it (1) unsupported by evidence and (2) not very helpful to have people think they are some sort of semi-human that are being targeted by the Illuminati (ah-ha, more conspiracy theory).
Why not just stick to the basic stuff that is not only true, but supported by common sense and is actually useful? That is, that all people have gifts that can be used for love, unity, beauty, and goodness? Why separate out these or those people and come up with all this unsupported stuff?
What many people experience as knowing things they never heard of is actually their subconscious mind assimilating information that it picked up, which later is pushed into consciousness and appears to be coming from nowhere. There has been good work on the dreams of indigenous hunters, who believed animals sent them dreams to lead them to where to hunt. The studies showed that hunters were exceptionally adept at picking up subtle cues (broken branches, a bit of hair, etc.) from their environment, which they were constantly roaming each day. But this was picked up at a subconscious level. In their dreams, this information was organized and packaged in a way the conscious mind could understand it and act on it.
My point is that just because a person *feels* that they experienced things a certain way doesn't make it reality. To think so ignores the complexity of the human brain and how we perceive, store, process, and act on information.
That said, I don't think it explains everything, but neither would I call it cellular memory, as I think it has nothing whatsoever to do with our cells. I had ideas about string theory and quantum mechanics by the time I was five. I picked up on stuff going on in the world like famines by the age of two. However, science simply doesn't support that any of this stuff was in my DNA. DNA codes for what the body will produce for its growth, development and maintenance. DNA is not a memory system in the sense of recording information about other stuff. So, I think there is some other system by which this information is stored and processed that science hasn't figured out yet. Some have proposed a universal consciousness that some people tap into. Some have proposed a universal human consciousness. Some propose it's reponsiveness to a sensitivity to energy, and thought is a form of energy. We don't know, but it is much more honest to say science doesn't have this information yet than to act like science supports something it doesn't.
I personally don't have an issue with past life memories in terms of a belief. I do have an issue of claiming scientific evidence where there is none and misusing scientific concepts to "prove" a point when there is no proof. To me, an organization that does that is manipulating the public (who generally know little about science) into thinking proof exists where it doesn't. If an organization has no peer-reviewed studies and no references, it simply isn't a scientific organization. But people know that the general public doesn't know this. They know that people in the public will accept anything that sounds intelligent and complicated, and talks about the same concepts (DNA, physics) even if it doesn't have any grounding in these sciences at all. And it is this manipulation of people that really bothers me about all sorts of organizations that claim scientific grounding but fail to live up to even the most basic tenets of scientific inquiry.
My point is that the claims you made, or referenced to your organization, you are unable to answer. So it becomes a matter of faith and not science, and this makes me very wary of an organization that purports to be scientifically grounded but is, in fact, not giving any of the supportive materials to its members. That seems manipulative and not useful to me.
I understand you aren't saying this if for everyone. Your organization, however, claims certain "truths" about properly classifying people, how these people obtained these abilities, and so forth that are not just about a personal path- they claim to have the truth about entire groups of people, including ethnic/religious groups such as the Jews. You must understand there is a distinction between following a path and making generalized unsupported statements about other human beings. One of the paths I follow is Druidry. It's not for everyone. That is fine and dandy. But if the Order of Druids I belong to put out materials that said the Jews were really this, and the Torah and Bible were corrupted, and all these people are really nephilim that are hanging out in human bodies, and people like those people have altered DNA... you see how this is extending out their belief in reference to others? Claiming a truth that is unsupported about other people, or a broad group of people is the issue I take.
The organization says it is scientific.
Azurite Press Melchizedek Cloister Emerald Order
It says it is a science-spiritual tradition. It distinctly claims "science" several times, and you yourself in your posts have used scientific claims.
However, none of the evidence presented anywhere is scientific. If you want to argue that an organization and its claims are scientific, I ask for scientific evidence.
Scientific evidence is collected in a particular way (the scientific method provides the foundation) and is published in peer-reviewed sources (articles in peer-reviewed journals, academic presses for books). Without this type of publishing, there is no litmus test to separate out any person's claims and opinions and real science.
I will believe when I see material quoted that are real, scientific, peer-reviewed references. If you claim science as a tradition and support, then support the claims with the tradition and support of science. Or, alternatively, we can say that our claims are simply our own beliefs, without any supporting material. Which is fine- I have plenty of those. I just don't claim they are science.
It is hardly "my little corner of learning" to ask for ANY peer-reviewed scientific reference. I'm not restricting from which field of science, or which universities, or which journals- nothing. I'm asking for ANY peer-reviewed scientific references that support the claims about DNA, nephilim, feline hominids, etc. that you claim is part of a tradition that is a science.
What I'm saying is- if you claim scientific support, then there should be SOMEWHERE in science, some support. ANYWHERE. Science is a very broad mode of inquiry with many disciplines and tons of peer-reviewed journals and presses.
You are claiming that your tradition is scientific and has scientists, yet there are no references provided anywhere in the body of scientific literature to this effect. Can you understand why people are therefore skeptical?
I would hardly call the millions of scientists around the world, in all sorts of disciplines "my cronies." Any scientist recognizes the difference between popular presses, television shows, and magazines (which have NO standards for data, analysis, or methodology) and the value of peer-reviewed sources that do have standards to uphold the integrity of the research.
I can create a website on my own that says anything, claiming scientific basis. What makes a source scientific is that it has shown, through the peer-review process, that it has methodological integrity- that data were really collected, really analyzed, and that the conclusions are not just the opinion or flight of fancy of some person but are actually based on something solid.
Then why don't you just stick with your experience and leave out stuff for which there is no evidence? If you said this from the get-go: "I think there are people who are Indigo children and like me in ways XYZ because I see blue auras around them" I wouldn't have an argument with that. It's how you see the world, how you process the information, etc. It is claiming stuff that is based on "science" and extending this to generalizations about groups like the Jews that is the problem from a logical and scientific standpoint.
But does this mean testing HAS been done, and proven the points of your organization? No, it doesn't. It could mean some person made something up somewhere, and you bought into it. Without any evidence, no one knows. And that is my point. Science is built on evidence, not unsupported claims.
I am not asking to be convinced. I am asking that if someone claims something is supported by science, that it be supported by science. If not, there is nothing wrong with simply leaving belief in the realm of belief, without proof. It is the claim that proof exists, and then none actually does, that is an issue.
I am referring to your OP #8.
My point is that these abilities were not dormant. Traditional societies generally had shaman that had the capacities to soul-journey, interact with the spirit realm, heal, etc. We just recognize these things as really different now because these people have no particular role in our modern society. These traits were always in human populations, and every culture has a different way of viewing them. To make the assertions about such people that you make, with the scientific proof of DNA alterations and so forth- that is the issue for me. Without strong scientific evidence, the assertions are unfounded. It is sufficient to say that some people have greater abilities in these areas, and this is most likely to be like every other human trait- fluctuating in populations (we all have strengths and weaknesses).
The claims that these people are hosts to Nephilim souls, that they have altered DNA, that they are other races (angelics, etc.) is the claim your OPs make, and what I am challenging. I don't challenge that people can heal or perceive beyond the 5 senses or whatever. I challenge the very elaborate, very fantastical, and very unsupported reasons why this is that your organization puts forth.
From Azurite Press, last paragraph on the page:
Welcome
Sounds an awful lot like stroking egos to me- very much a "we are so special, with a special purpose, and you are so courageous for believing in your special-ness." Sorry, but it's just what I see. I may have a lot of these traits, but I still think I'm just a human being like everyone else on the planet. I don't need complicated and unsupported histories of angelics and nephilim and feline hominids and mutated/activated DNA and so on to deal with who I am. I think part of the problem here (from my personal standpoint, aside from the claims of scientific authenticity that are not supported) is that it depends much on labels- labeling everybody and all this stuff. And labels, in my honest opinion, are virtually worthless in spiritual matters. Labels limit rather than progress. In short, I just find it (1) unsupported by evidence and (2) not very helpful to have people think they are some sort of semi-human that are being targeted by the Illuminati (ah-ha, more conspiracy theory).
Why not just stick to the basic stuff that is not only true, but supported by common sense and is actually useful? That is, that all people have gifts that can be used for love, unity, beauty, and goodness? Why separate out these or those people and come up with all this unsupported stuff?
What many people experience as knowing things they never heard of is actually their subconscious mind assimilating information that it picked up, which later is pushed into consciousness and appears to be coming from nowhere. There has been good work on the dreams of indigenous hunters, who believed animals sent them dreams to lead them to where to hunt. The studies showed that hunters were exceptionally adept at picking up subtle cues (broken branches, a bit of hair, etc.) from their environment, which they were constantly roaming each day. But this was picked up at a subconscious level. In their dreams, this information was organized and packaged in a way the conscious mind could understand it and act on it.
My point is that just because a person *feels* that they experienced things a certain way doesn't make it reality. To think so ignores the complexity of the human brain and how we perceive, store, process, and act on information.
That said, I don't think it explains everything, but neither would I call it cellular memory, as I think it has nothing whatsoever to do with our cells. I had ideas about string theory and quantum mechanics by the time I was five. I picked up on stuff going on in the world like famines by the age of two. However, science simply doesn't support that any of this stuff was in my DNA. DNA codes for what the body will produce for its growth, development and maintenance. DNA is not a memory system in the sense of recording information about other stuff. So, I think there is some other system by which this information is stored and processed that science hasn't figured out yet. Some have proposed a universal consciousness that some people tap into. Some have proposed a universal human consciousness. Some propose it's reponsiveness to a sensitivity to energy, and thought is a form of energy. We don't know, but it is much more honest to say science doesn't have this information yet than to act like science supports something it doesn't.
I personally don't have an issue with past life memories in terms of a belief. I do have an issue of claiming scientific evidence where there is none and misusing scientific concepts to "prove" a point when there is no proof. To me, an organization that does that is manipulating the public (who generally know little about science) into thinking proof exists where it doesn't. If an organization has no peer-reviewed studies and no references, it simply isn't a scientific organization. But people know that the general public doesn't know this. They know that people in the public will accept anything that sounds intelligent and complicated, and talks about the same concepts (DNA, physics) even if it doesn't have any grounding in these sciences at all. And it is this manipulation of people that really bothers me about all sorts of organizations that claim scientific grounding but fail to live up to even the most basic tenets of scientific inquiry.
My point is that the claims you made, or referenced to your organization, you are unable to answer. So it becomes a matter of faith and not science, and this makes me very wary of an organization that purports to be scientifically grounded but is, in fact, not giving any of the supportive materials to its members. That seems manipulative and not useful to me.
I understand you aren't saying this if for everyone. Your organization, however, claims certain "truths" about properly classifying people, how these people obtained these abilities, and so forth that are not just about a personal path- they claim to have the truth about entire groups of people, including ethnic/religious groups such as the Jews. You must understand there is a distinction between following a path and making generalized unsupported statements about other human beings. One of the paths I follow is Druidry. It's not for everyone. That is fine and dandy. But if the Order of Druids I belong to put out materials that said the Jews were really this, and the Torah and Bible were corrupted, and all these people are really nephilim that are hanging out in human bodies, and people like those people have altered DNA... you see how this is extending out their belief in reference to others? Claiming a truth that is unsupported about other people, or a broad group of people is the issue I take.
The organization says it is scientific.
Azurite Press Melchizedek Cloister Emerald Order
It says it is a science-spiritual tradition. It distinctly claims "science" several times, and you yourself in your posts have used scientific claims.
However, none of the evidence presented anywhere is scientific. If you want to argue that an organization and its claims are scientific, I ask for scientific evidence.
Scientific evidence is collected in a particular way (the scientific method provides the foundation) and is published in peer-reviewed sources (articles in peer-reviewed journals, academic presses for books). Without this type of publishing, there is no litmus test to separate out any person's claims and opinions and real science.
I will believe when I see material quoted that are real, scientific, peer-reviewed references. If you claim science as a tradition and support, then support the claims with the tradition and support of science. Or, alternatively, we can say that our claims are simply our own beliefs, without any supporting material. Which is fine- I have plenty of those. I just don't claim they are science.
It is hardly "my little corner of learning" to ask for ANY peer-reviewed scientific reference. I'm not restricting from which field of science, or which universities, or which journals- nothing. I'm asking for ANY peer-reviewed scientific references that support the claims about DNA, nephilim, feline hominids, etc. that you claim is part of a tradition that is a science.
What I'm saying is- if you claim scientific support, then there should be SOMEWHERE in science, some support. ANYWHERE. Science is a very broad mode of inquiry with many disciplines and tons of peer-reviewed journals and presses.
You are claiming that your tradition is scientific and has scientists, yet there are no references provided anywhere in the body of scientific literature to this effect. Can you understand why people are therefore skeptical?
I would hardly call the millions of scientists around the world, in all sorts of disciplines "my cronies." Any scientist recognizes the difference between popular presses, television shows, and magazines (which have NO standards for data, analysis, or methodology) and the value of peer-reviewed sources that do have standards to uphold the integrity of the research.
I can create a website on my own that says anything, claiming scientific basis. What makes a source scientific is that it has shown, through the peer-review process, that it has methodological integrity- that data were really collected, really analyzed, and that the conclusions are not just the opinion or flight of fancy of some person but are actually based on something solid.
Then why don't you just stick with your experience and leave out stuff for which there is no evidence? If you said this from the get-go: "I think there are people who are Indigo children and like me in ways XYZ because I see blue auras around them" I wouldn't have an argument with that. It's how you see the world, how you process the information, etc. It is claiming stuff that is based on "science" and extending this to generalizations about groups like the Jews that is the problem from a logical and scientific standpoint.
But does this mean testing HAS been done, and proven the points of your organization? No, it doesn't. It could mean some person made something up somewhere, and you bought into it. Without any evidence, no one knows. And that is my point. Science is built on evidence, not unsupported claims.
I am not asking to be convinced. I am asking that if someone claims something is supported by science, that it be supported by science. If not, there is nothing wrong with simply leaving belief in the realm of belief, without proof. It is the claim that proof exists, and then none actually does, that is an issue.
Dondi
Well-Known Member
path of one said:
Wow! What a lucrative business.
Dondi
Well-Known Member
See, the problem I have with your organization is that it claims to have what is known as "uncommon knowledge". And that this is knowledge "which have been hidden, forbidden or suppressed". So the immediate implication is that this "Azurite Press Melchizedek Cloister Emerald Order" has exculsive access to this knowledge that no other organization in the whole of history has obtained. But in order to prove its exclusiveness, it must make the case that everyone else has had it all wrong. So one of the tactics is to cast an unfavorable light to current conditions with statements like:Excerpts from The Freedom Teachings: A Brief Primer said:
Basically this is trashing all of our religious and cultural traditions as being inadequate to address the need. We are apparently caught in the futility of life. So I guess this means that any of our established beliefs are useless to us and we must "discover" the truths that APMCEO has to offer, plus shipping and handling.
The other tactic is to confuse the reader with obtuse terms in order to introduce something new (and improved). But all this does is confuse the potential new member, but since they don't want to appear ignorant, they accept the terms as legitimate, especially since they are Capitalized. Such fun-sounding terms as:
Freedom Teachings
Sacred Creation
Keylontic Science
Sparks of Source
Co-Creative Power
Source-Creation
Divine Substance
Divine Right Relationship
Creation Ethic
First Creation
Crystal Body
DNA Template
Primal Life Source Currents
Sacred Keys
Stellar Activation Cycle (SAC) - Can't forget those important acronymns can we?
Inner Chistos Law of ONE - Hey, this one employ the ALL CAPS emphasis. Better write this one down.
Merkaba Mechanics
Boy, I must be missing out on something. I better get on the ball because I realize from these terms just how much knowledge I've yet to learn. Excuse me while I go find my checkbook.
This was so long it has to be a two parter.
Part one
Dear Kim, Thank you for your thoughts.
---Quote: From one of my posts: “The Indigo Children are not to be considered “superior or elite” in comparison to other humans, but rather viewed as living demonstrations of the dormant abilities that are NOW beginning to rapidly unfold among ALL HUMAN POPULATIONS.”
You replied:My point is that these abilities were not dormant. Traditional societies generally had shaman that had the capacities to soul-journey, interact with the spirit realm, heal, etc. We just recognize these things as really different now because these people have no particular role in our modern society. These traits were always in human populations, and every culture has a different way of viewing them. To make the assertions about such people that you make, with the scientific proof of DNA alterations and so forth- that is the issue for me. Without strong scientific evidence, the assertions are unfounded. It is sufficient to say that some people have greater abilities in these areas, and this is most likely to be like every other human trait- fluctuating in populations (we all have strengths and weaknesses).
My reply: The Shaman, Physics, Indigo's, ect. have always had these abilities activated, but this is only a very, very, small percentage of the world population. All humans have these abilites.
The Indigo Recessive Type-3 is the most common type of Indigo Child presently incarnate on Earth. Type-3 Indigos began birthing in very small numbers about 200 years ago. There are about 2,500, 000 indigo Recessives incarnate now. Indigo Dominants type-2 is the next most common type of Indigo Child. Isolated numbers of Type-2 Indigos birthed 75-100 years ago, most since the late 1950's. There are about 500,000 Indigo dominants incarnate now. Indigo Composite type-1 is the most rare type of Indigo. Most entered incarnation in the 1960's-1970's. There are presently about 350 Type-1 Indigos on Earth, with another 5,000 scheduled to birth between 2--5-2017.
---Quote---Why not just stick to the basic stuff that is not only true, but supported by common sense and is actually useful? That is, that all people have gifts that can be used for love, unity, beauty, and goodness? Why separate out these or those people and come up with all this unsupported stuff?
My reply: My I suggest that if it is your desire to stick to the basics that you stick with all the "BASIC" stuff while I advance myself into other fields of study. I would never suggest to another person to sit back and follow the norm. Someone along the way decided not to follow the norm and set out to prove the Norm wrong, such as Einstin, Newton, If this was not the case we would not have the ability to sit in front of a computer having this conversation. Do you realize that when telephones were first introduced, the a lot of people, Christians being a large contributer of the thought that this were Mystic and of the devil, along with a whole array of other inventions and new scientific thought. A large portion of the population stills debates the Big Bang, making claims that some big mean, jealous, low self asteme Male God up in the sky somewhere (that they call heaven, but at the same time dispute higher dimensions) said poof and it all appeared out of no where. Now there are many educated, scientist within the Christian community and they have written peer articles claiming to prove creationism. Just because something is given a peer review does not validate. Darwinism has had peer review that contradicts the Creationist peer review.
---Quote----What many people experience as knowing things they never heard of is actually their subconscious mind assimilating information that it picked up, which later is pushed into consciousness and appears to be coming from nowhere. There has been good work on the dreams of indigenous hunters, who believed animals sent them dreams to lead them to where to hunt. The studies showed that hunters were exceptionally adept at picking up subtle cues (broken branches, a bit of hair, etc.) from their environment, which they were constantly roaming each day. But this was picked up at a subconscious level. In their dreams, this information was organized and packaged in a way the conscious mind could understand it and act on it.
My reply: How do you define the subconscious mind? Where is this memory held? How do you tap into it? Who pushes it into the conscious mind? What is the conscious mind? Where is this memory stored?
Where did the hunters dreams come from? How do they learn in the dream state? Who is teaching them? Please explain the difference in the dream state and awake state?
I agree that we learn in the Dream State. I agree that some of the teachers we encounter in the dream state can look like animals.
--Quote---My point is that just because a person *feels* that they experienced things a certain way doesn't make it reality. To think so ignores the complexity of the human brain and how we perceive, store, process, and act on information.
My reply: Little is understood about the complexity of the Brain, its neurotransmitter, and their relationship to DNA, cells, Atoms, electrons, protons, quirks and so on. Science is merely at the threshold of understanding the relationship between these.
---Quote: I don't think it explains everything, but neither would I call it cellular memory, as I think it has nothing whatsoever to do with our cells.
My reply: I would call it cellular memory.
--Quote---I had ideas about string theory and quantum mechanics by the time I was five.
My reply: How did you at age five know what you knew about string theroy and quantum mechanics? Have you advanced the study in any way? Debating aside, If you understood these things at age five you must have written about the and I personally would like to read what you have written on the subject. Could you share it with me.
Did you develop your ideas further or did your surroundings as a child and later the education you received stifle you innate abilities halting advancement of your knowingness?
---Quote---- I do have an issue of claiming scientific evidence where there is none and misusing scientific concepts to "prove" a point when there is no proof.
My reply: The misuse of scientific concepts as you state is a matter of which side of the scientific fence you sit. As you have stated, in the scientific community, one person merely builds upon a foundation already formulated thus I must ask: Where did the foundation come from? What peers were there to give review of the foundation. Thus, the second person who added to this foundation, who was available to give peer review and what publications was it written up in? One well know example that everybody knows it Albert Einstein's theory of relativity, when he came up with his theory it was rejected, by peer review, however that did not mean he didn't have a valid concept. All new scientific though is rejected in the scientific community. There is a select group of who get together and determine which science will be promoted and which will not. Once this SELECT groups writes an article and publishes it one of their journals, it becomes fact. If other people want to parriot what they are trained to believe that is fine with me but personally I desire to know, that I know, what I know: aside from what someone else tells me. This isn't to say that I am not open to accepting other paradigms of thought which I can personally validate for myself, as opposed to being told that I must adhere only to what someone else says is fact. The Organized Scientific community does not own the patent on developing new science thought.
Part one
Dear Kim, Thank you for your thoughts.
---Quote: From one of my posts: “The Indigo Children are not to be considered “superior or elite” in comparison to other humans, but rather viewed as living demonstrations of the dormant abilities that are NOW beginning to rapidly unfold among ALL HUMAN POPULATIONS.”
You replied:My point is that these abilities were not dormant. Traditional societies generally had shaman that had the capacities to soul-journey, interact with the spirit realm, heal, etc. We just recognize these things as really different now because these people have no particular role in our modern society. These traits were always in human populations, and every culture has a different way of viewing them. To make the assertions about such people that you make, with the scientific proof of DNA alterations and so forth- that is the issue for me. Without strong scientific evidence, the assertions are unfounded. It is sufficient to say that some people have greater abilities in these areas, and this is most likely to be like every other human trait- fluctuating in populations (we all have strengths and weaknesses).
My reply: The Shaman, Physics, Indigo's, ect. have always had these abilities activated, but this is only a very, very, small percentage of the world population. All humans have these abilites.
The Indigo Recessive Type-3 is the most common type of Indigo Child presently incarnate on Earth. Type-3 Indigos began birthing in very small numbers about 200 years ago. There are about 2,500, 000 indigo Recessives incarnate now. Indigo Dominants type-2 is the next most common type of Indigo Child. Isolated numbers of Type-2 Indigos birthed 75-100 years ago, most since the late 1950's. There are about 500,000 Indigo dominants incarnate now. Indigo Composite type-1 is the most rare type of Indigo. Most entered incarnation in the 1960's-1970's. There are presently about 350 Type-1 Indigos on Earth, with another 5,000 scheduled to birth between 2--5-2017.
---Quote---Why not just stick to the basic stuff that is not only true, but supported by common sense and is actually useful? That is, that all people have gifts that can be used for love, unity, beauty, and goodness? Why separate out these or those people and come up with all this unsupported stuff?
My reply: My I suggest that if it is your desire to stick to the basics that you stick with all the "BASIC" stuff while I advance myself into other fields of study. I would never suggest to another person to sit back and follow the norm. Someone along the way decided not to follow the norm and set out to prove the Norm wrong, such as Einstin, Newton, If this was not the case we would not have the ability to sit in front of a computer having this conversation. Do you realize that when telephones were first introduced, the a lot of people, Christians being a large contributer of the thought that this were Mystic and of the devil, along with a whole array of other inventions and new scientific thought. A large portion of the population stills debates the Big Bang, making claims that some big mean, jealous, low self asteme Male God up in the sky somewhere (that they call heaven, but at the same time dispute higher dimensions) said poof and it all appeared out of no where. Now there are many educated, scientist within the Christian community and they have written peer articles claiming to prove creationism. Just because something is given a peer review does not validate. Darwinism has had peer review that contradicts the Creationist peer review.
---Quote----What many people experience as knowing things they never heard of is actually their subconscious mind assimilating information that it picked up, which later is pushed into consciousness and appears to be coming from nowhere. There has been good work on the dreams of indigenous hunters, who believed animals sent them dreams to lead them to where to hunt. The studies showed that hunters were exceptionally adept at picking up subtle cues (broken branches, a bit of hair, etc.) from their environment, which they were constantly roaming each day. But this was picked up at a subconscious level. In their dreams, this information was organized and packaged in a way the conscious mind could understand it and act on it.
My reply: How do you define the subconscious mind? Where is this memory held? How do you tap into it? Who pushes it into the conscious mind? What is the conscious mind? Where is this memory stored?
Where did the hunters dreams come from? How do they learn in the dream state? Who is teaching them? Please explain the difference in the dream state and awake state?
I agree that we learn in the Dream State. I agree that some of the teachers we encounter in the dream state can look like animals.
--Quote---My point is that just because a person *feels* that they experienced things a certain way doesn't make it reality. To think so ignores the complexity of the human brain and how we perceive, store, process, and act on information.
My reply: Little is understood about the complexity of the Brain, its neurotransmitter, and their relationship to DNA, cells, Atoms, electrons, protons, quirks and so on. Science is merely at the threshold of understanding the relationship between these.
---Quote: I don't think it explains everything, but neither would I call it cellular memory, as I think it has nothing whatsoever to do with our cells.
My reply: I would call it cellular memory.
--Quote---I had ideas about string theory and quantum mechanics by the time I was five.
My reply: How did you at age five know what you knew about string theroy and quantum mechanics? Have you advanced the study in any way? Debating aside, If you understood these things at age five you must have written about the and I personally would like to read what you have written on the subject. Could you share it with me.
Did you develop your ideas further or did your surroundings as a child and later the education you received stifle you innate abilities halting advancement of your knowingness?
---Quote---- I do have an issue of claiming scientific evidence where there is none and misusing scientific concepts to "prove" a point when there is no proof.
My reply: The misuse of scientific concepts as you state is a matter of which side of the scientific fence you sit. As you have stated, in the scientific community, one person merely builds upon a foundation already formulated thus I must ask: Where did the foundation come from? What peers were there to give review of the foundation. Thus, the second person who added to this foundation, who was available to give peer review and what publications was it written up in? One well know example that everybody knows it Albert Einstein's theory of relativity, when he came up with his theory it was rejected, by peer review, however that did not mean he didn't have a valid concept. All new scientific though is rejected in the scientific community. There is a select group of who get together and determine which science will be promoted and which will not. Once this SELECT groups writes an article and publishes it one of their journals, it becomes fact. If other people want to parriot what they are trained to believe that is fine with me but personally I desire to know, that I know, what I know: aside from what someone else tells me. This isn't to say that I am not open to accepting other paradigms of thought which I can personally validate for myself, as opposed to being told that I must adhere only to what someone else says is fact. The Organized Scientific community does not own the patent on developing new science thought.
Part two
--quote---Your organization, however, claims certain "truths" about properly classifying people, how these people obtained these abilities, and so forth that are not just about a personal path- they claim to have the truth about entire groups of people, including ethnic/religious groups such as the Jews. You must understand there is a distinction between following a path and making generalized unsupported statements about other human beings.
My reply: How is this different from any other belief system on this planet. Most religions make claims about their version of History and the raced lines and where they came from, so why do the Freedom Teachings intimidate you so badly?
--Quote---It says it is a science-spiritual tradition. It distinctly claims "science" several times, and you yourself in your posts have used scientific claims.
My reply: What comment are referencing in regards to the above quote? I have never said that we were not a group of study Science, History and race lines.
--Quote---Scientific evidence is collected in a particular way (the scientific method provides the foundation) and is published in peer-reviewed sources (articles in peer-reviewed journals, academic presses for books). Without this type of publishing, there is no litmus test to separate out any person's claims and opinions and real science.
My reply: This is merely your form of Science and the special people who claim that nothing that they haven't reviewed and agreed with is valid. Just because a particular Scientific though has not been peer reviewed by the special group of people you keep talking about who have set themselves up as authority over scientific thought does not negate other scientific thought as truth.
---Quote---I will believe when I see material quoted that are real, scientific, peer-reviewed references. If you claim science as a tradition and support, then support the claims with the tradition and support of science. Or, alternatively, we can say that our claims are simply our own beliefs, without any supporting material. Which is fine- I have plenty of those. I just don't claim they are science.
My reply: We do not follow "TRADITION," We are free thinkers who prefer to think outside the box.
---Quote---It is hardly "my little corner of learning" to ask for ANY peer-reviewed scientific reference. I'm not restricting from which field of science, or which universities, or which journals- nothing. I'm asking for ANY peer-reviewed scientific references that support the claims about DNA, nephilim, feline hominids, etc. that you claim is part of a tradition that is a science.
My reply: It doesn't matter which college or peer review Journal as long as it is "accredited" by the Science community. All universities follow the strict guidelines as to what is taught. All the Scientific Journals adhere to the same guidelines set by the same group of Scientist who approve any new scientific idea. Therefore you are saying that unless my beliefs are accredited by this select group of peers it is not acceptable. But I ask not acceptable to whom? Maybe it isn't acceptable to you or this select group but it is acceptable to thousands of people around the world.
--Quote---I would hardly call the millions of scientists around the world, in all sorts of disciplines "my cronies." Any scientist recognizes the difference between popular presses, television shows, and magazines (which have NO standards for data, analysis, or methodology) and the value of peer-reviewed sources that do have standards to uphold the integrity of the research.
My reply: What I meant by your cronies was those who all follow the same set of specific guidelines set by a select group of people who have set themselves up as authority, that you do.
--quote--Then why don't you just stick with your experience and leave out stuff for which there is no evidence? If you said this from the get-go: "I think there are people who are Indigo children and like me in ways XYZ because I see blue auras around them" I wouldn't have an argument with that. It's how you see the world, how you process the information, etc. It is claiming stuff that is based on "science" and extending this to generalizations about groups like the Jews that is the problem from a logical and scientific standpoint.
My reply: This is a very strange statement coming from someone who claims to be a scientist. Let me muse myself a bit here to make my point: Why don't all scientist merely stick with what is obvious? Why aren't they happy with the exterior form instead of trying to figure out how things work? Why does the way in which I view the world threaten you or your scientific beliefs? Why do you keep bring up the Jews? You said that you are not BB and said that you are not Jewish? What has been stated in the Freedom Teachings that you find offensive regarding the Jews? We have quite a few Jews in our group and they don't find anything in the teachings offensive. Why do you? It is the Jews who have set themselves up as superior, stating that the world can't exist without their 36 lahmed vav niks who are here to justifying the purpose of mankind in the eyes of God and if there were not here the world would END. It is the Jews who call all other races Goy, which means a body period and understood to mean without a soul. It is written in the Jewish Mishnah that it is ok to cheat, lie to and impose strict taxes among other gross things, on the Goy because they don't have a soul. It says that a man can marry a child at the age of two this means to consummate the union. If you want to discuss Judaism and the Jews I am well equipped to do so however I do not care to put my energy into this topic. Nothing stated about Judaism and or the Jews has come from the Freedom Teachings. What I quoted about the lahmed vav nik was a direct quote from the source link provided by BB. You will not find the lahmed vav niks mentioned in the freedom teachings.
You know what I find peculiar about all this discussion? It is the fact that this thread originally posted in 2006 was dormant for two years and when someone made a post back in January asking how they could know if they were an indigo type 3, all of a sudden one of the Moderators (bananabrain) come in and makes a snide remark which I ignored. Then six month later another person responds and all of a sudden one of the moderators (bananabrain) again pops in again defending his rude-ness by saying that this site is about serious spiritual seeking. THIS IS MY SPIRITUAL PATH and I take my spiritual seeking very, very seriously. (caps not intended as yelling, just to emphasize my point). At this point I reentered the form to let BB know that this is a very serious spiritual path. Then all of a sudden after two years there are several moderators and several other people who take part in the Judaism section that are here bashing this thread. What is truly going on here? Not one person is serious about this thread, each person here is here with the intent to bash it, without any knowledge about the topic. Each person taking part in this thread at present is upset because "THEY THINK" (without validation) that the Indigo might be superior to them. Nothing in the Freedom Supports this as being true, they are not superior or better. You have shared how at the age of two you knew this and that, "does this make you better." Do you feel that you are superior to those who didn't know physics at a young age? Are you being accused of promoting superiority because you knew these things? What makes you feel so inferior to the Indigo information?
---Quote--- am not asking to be convinced. I am asking that if someone claims something is supported by science, that it be supported by science. If not, there is nothing wrong with simply leaving belief in the realm of belief, without proof. It is the claim that proof exists, and then none actually does, that is an issue.
My reply: Keylontic Science can be validated but it takes interested Scientists doing their peer review for it to be established by mainstream Science. Thus far your peers have not don't so. It would give me great pleasure if you would do a peer review on Keylontic Science and write about in your journal. Please do so and send me the article, because at present I am unaware of such a review. As far as the Indigo children, according to the lecture done at some of the Universities there have been a review written regarding them. I personally do not know how or where to find these reviews or if they have been made public.
Love and Light, Marietta Still smiling
--quote---Your organization, however, claims certain "truths" about properly classifying people, how these people obtained these abilities, and so forth that are not just about a personal path- they claim to have the truth about entire groups of people, including ethnic/religious groups such as the Jews. You must understand there is a distinction between following a path and making generalized unsupported statements about other human beings.
My reply: How is this different from any other belief system on this planet. Most religions make claims about their version of History and the raced lines and where they came from, so why do the Freedom Teachings intimidate you so badly?
--Quote---It says it is a science-spiritual tradition. It distinctly claims "science" several times, and you yourself in your posts have used scientific claims.
My reply: What comment are referencing in regards to the above quote? I have never said that we were not a group of study Science, History and race lines.
--Quote---Scientific evidence is collected in a particular way (the scientific method provides the foundation) and is published in peer-reviewed sources (articles in peer-reviewed journals, academic presses for books). Without this type of publishing, there is no litmus test to separate out any person's claims and opinions and real science.
My reply: This is merely your form of Science and the special people who claim that nothing that they haven't reviewed and agreed with is valid. Just because a particular Scientific though has not been peer reviewed by the special group of people you keep talking about who have set themselves up as authority over scientific thought does not negate other scientific thought as truth.
---Quote---I will believe when I see material quoted that are real, scientific, peer-reviewed references. If you claim science as a tradition and support, then support the claims with the tradition and support of science. Or, alternatively, we can say that our claims are simply our own beliefs, without any supporting material. Which is fine- I have plenty of those. I just don't claim they are science.
My reply: We do not follow "TRADITION," We are free thinkers who prefer to think outside the box.
---Quote---It is hardly "my little corner of learning" to ask for ANY peer-reviewed scientific reference. I'm not restricting from which field of science, or which universities, or which journals- nothing. I'm asking for ANY peer-reviewed scientific references that support the claims about DNA, nephilim, feline hominids, etc. that you claim is part of a tradition that is a science.
My reply: It doesn't matter which college or peer review Journal as long as it is "accredited" by the Science community. All universities follow the strict guidelines as to what is taught. All the Scientific Journals adhere to the same guidelines set by the same group of Scientist who approve any new scientific idea. Therefore you are saying that unless my beliefs are accredited by this select group of peers it is not acceptable. But I ask not acceptable to whom? Maybe it isn't acceptable to you or this select group but it is acceptable to thousands of people around the world.
--Quote---I would hardly call the millions of scientists around the world, in all sorts of disciplines "my cronies." Any scientist recognizes the difference between popular presses, television shows, and magazines (which have NO standards for data, analysis, or methodology) and the value of peer-reviewed sources that do have standards to uphold the integrity of the research.
My reply: What I meant by your cronies was those who all follow the same set of specific guidelines set by a select group of people who have set themselves up as authority, that you do.
--quote--Then why don't you just stick with your experience and leave out stuff for which there is no evidence? If you said this from the get-go: "I think there are people who are Indigo children and like me in ways XYZ because I see blue auras around them" I wouldn't have an argument with that. It's how you see the world, how you process the information, etc. It is claiming stuff that is based on "science" and extending this to generalizations about groups like the Jews that is the problem from a logical and scientific standpoint.
My reply: This is a very strange statement coming from someone who claims to be a scientist. Let me muse myself a bit here to make my point: Why don't all scientist merely stick with what is obvious? Why aren't they happy with the exterior form instead of trying to figure out how things work? Why does the way in which I view the world threaten you or your scientific beliefs? Why do you keep bring up the Jews? You said that you are not BB and said that you are not Jewish? What has been stated in the Freedom Teachings that you find offensive regarding the Jews? We have quite a few Jews in our group and they don't find anything in the teachings offensive. Why do you? It is the Jews who have set themselves up as superior, stating that the world can't exist without their 36 lahmed vav niks who are here to justifying the purpose of mankind in the eyes of God and if there were not here the world would END. It is the Jews who call all other races Goy, which means a body period and understood to mean without a soul. It is written in the Jewish Mishnah that it is ok to cheat, lie to and impose strict taxes among other gross things, on the Goy because they don't have a soul. It says that a man can marry a child at the age of two this means to consummate the union. If you want to discuss Judaism and the Jews I am well equipped to do so however I do not care to put my energy into this topic. Nothing stated about Judaism and or the Jews has come from the Freedom Teachings. What I quoted about the lahmed vav nik was a direct quote from the source link provided by BB. You will not find the lahmed vav niks mentioned in the freedom teachings.
You know what I find peculiar about all this discussion? It is the fact that this thread originally posted in 2006 was dormant for two years and when someone made a post back in January asking how they could know if they were an indigo type 3, all of a sudden one of the Moderators (bananabrain) come in and makes a snide remark which I ignored. Then six month later another person responds and all of a sudden one of the moderators (bananabrain) again pops in again defending his rude-ness by saying that this site is about serious spiritual seeking. THIS IS MY SPIRITUAL PATH and I take my spiritual seeking very, very seriously. (caps not intended as yelling, just to emphasize my point). At this point I reentered the form to let BB know that this is a very serious spiritual path. Then all of a sudden after two years there are several moderators and several other people who take part in the Judaism section that are here bashing this thread. What is truly going on here? Not one person is serious about this thread, each person here is here with the intent to bash it, without any knowledge about the topic. Each person taking part in this thread at present is upset because "THEY THINK" (without validation) that the Indigo might be superior to them. Nothing in the Freedom Supports this as being true, they are not superior or better. You have shared how at the age of two you knew this and that, "does this make you better." Do you feel that you are superior to those who didn't know physics at a young age? Are you being accused of promoting superiority because you knew these things? What makes you feel so inferior to the Indigo information?
---Quote--- am not asking to be convinced. I am asking that if someone claims something is supported by science, that it be supported by science. If not, there is nothing wrong with simply leaving belief in the realm of belief, without proof. It is the claim that proof exists, and then none actually does, that is an issue.
My reply: Keylontic Science can be validated but it takes interested Scientists doing their peer review for it to be established by mainstream Science. Thus far your peers have not don't so. It would give me great pleasure if you would do a peer review on Keylontic Science and write about in your journal. Please do so and send me the article, because at present I am unaware of such a review. As far as the Indigo children, according to the lecture done at some of the Universities there have been a review written regarding them. I personally do not know how or where to find these reviews or if they have been made public.
Love and Light, Marietta
Still smilingDondi
Well-Known Member
Marietta said:
I've never heard of this. Do have a reference?
Do you know what a singularity is in relation to the Big Bang? Almost nothing--POOF!
I'd like to see one of these 'peer-reviewed' publications on creationism. Can you direct me to one?
Because....? Why?
What part of the cell has the memory?
Which theory are you referring to? He had several, and I wasn't aware that any of them were rejected.
Because most religions give a reasonable attempt in providing some kind of basis for those connections, based on internal and external references. Something that your have yet to provide.
Are you serious? I thought you and your group do not require peer reviews. You've spent a better part of the last couple of posts lambasting the concept of peer-review. And now you want someone to peer-review Keylontic Science?
Greetings, I would like to address those who have come into this thread with the intent to bash it and while at the same time let those who do not post but only read know what is taking place.
I am well aware that each person here who is bashing this thread all take part in the Judaism section and are in agreement with each other in that section of this forum. Anyone reading this can go into that section and read how they respond to each other. This said, it would appear to me that this thread has struck some kind of trigger emotionally among the Jewish community of this forum.
They have accused those who study the Freedom Teachings of having a superiority complex without studying the teachings or meeting any of the people involved in the teachings. If they had studied the material before trying to debate it they would have found that this is not true. They each claim to be scientific in their research however this has not been the case with the Freedom Teachings. In Science a concept is taken and evaluated (tested) and then if there is fault found in the science presented they show there research and compare their findings to that of the Idea they have found confusion with, from their study of the topic. None of the people who are trying to debunk these teachings has gone through the true Scientific protocol of scientific investigation to be able to have enough knowledge to debate the topic.
Each and every person who is here trying to debunk the validity of the Freedom Teachings is doing so merely on the basis of lack of a “PEER REVIEW” article. True Scientists know that such a Review only happens when a group of Scientists take interest in a topic and do an investigation into the topic and then after (usually, years) of debate and testing, this group of people who claim to be the “Superior Powers” of what will be “APPROVED” as Scientific evidence in their magazine, will write what is called a Peer REVIEW. If the people in here are part of the formal Scientific Community they should be well aware of this, which would mean that they are merely spouting the term “peer review” as a means of confusion because it is the only means of debunking these teachings. The freedom teachings stand on their own and do not need ‘peer review.’ If a person wishing to debunk the teachings wants to truly debunk them they need to investigate them to see if they can find any true Scientific flaws in them. If true Scientific evaluation has found them to be flawed then this should be put on the table for discussion along with their findings. This has not happened.
The freedom teachings do not seek nor do they need peer review to be validated for those of us studying, evaluating, and testing them and following them. Each and every one of us is self sovereign and able to do our own research into the matter of testing and evaluating these teachings. We do not need someone else validating them for us, we each take that responsibility upon ourselves.
Love and Light, Marietta
Still Smiling!!!
I am well aware that each person here who is bashing this thread all take part in the Judaism section and are in agreement with each other in that section of this forum. Anyone reading this can go into that section and read how they respond to each other. This said, it would appear to me that this thread has struck some kind of trigger emotionally among the Jewish community of this forum.
They have accused those who study the Freedom Teachings of having a superiority complex without studying the teachings or meeting any of the people involved in the teachings. If they had studied the material before trying to debate it they would have found that this is not true. They each claim to be scientific in their research however this has not been the case with the Freedom Teachings. In Science a concept is taken and evaluated (tested) and then if there is fault found in the science presented they show there research and compare their findings to that of the Idea they have found confusion with, from their study of the topic. None of the people who are trying to debunk these teachings has gone through the true Scientific protocol of scientific investigation to be able to have enough knowledge to debate the topic.
Each and every person who is here trying to debunk the validity of the Freedom Teachings is doing so merely on the basis of lack of a “PEER REVIEW” article. True Scientists know that such a Review only happens when a group of Scientists take interest in a topic and do an investigation into the topic and then after (usually, years) of debate and testing, this group of people who claim to be the “Superior Powers” of what will be “APPROVED” as Scientific evidence in their magazine, will write what is called a Peer REVIEW. If the people in here are part of the formal Scientific Community they should be well aware of this, which would mean that they are merely spouting the term “peer review” as a means of confusion because it is the only means of debunking these teachings. The freedom teachings stand on their own and do not need ‘peer review.’ If a person wishing to debunk the teachings wants to truly debunk them they need to investigate them to see if they can find any true Scientific flaws in them. If true Scientific evaluation has found them to be flawed then this should be put on the table for discussion along with their findings. This has not happened.
The freedom teachings do not seek nor do they need peer review to be validated for those of us studying, evaluating, and testing them and following them. Each and every one of us is self sovereign and able to do our own research into the matter of testing and evaluating these teachings. We do not need someone else validating them for us, we each take that responsibility upon ourselves.
Love and Light, Marietta
Still Smiling!!!
Last edited by a moderator:
bgruagach
eclectic Wiccan
***Moderator Note***
This thread is closed since there seems little point in continuing as the discussion has devolved to bickering rather than discussing.
Please note that the button that looks like a triangular red "caution" sign in the bottom left area of each post is a "Report This Post" button. If you feel a post violates the Code of Conduct, please report the post using that button rather than derailing the discussion thread by trying to discuss moderation issues.
It would be helpful for everyone to review the Code of Conduct and keep in mind that we encourage respectful discussion here. It's also important to remember that no point of view is above being questioned.
Ben Gruagach
moderator, Alternative section of Comparative-Religion.com
This thread is closed since there seems little point in continuing as the discussion has devolved to bickering rather than discussing.
Please note that the button that looks like a triangular red "caution" sign in the bottom left area of each post is a "Report This Post" button. If you feel a post violates the Code of Conduct, please report the post using that button rather than derailing the discussion thread by trying to discuss moderation issues.
It would be helpful for everyone to review the Code of Conduct and keep in mind that we encourage respectful discussion here. It's also important to remember that no point of view is above being questioned.
Ben Gruagach
moderator, Alternative section of Comparative-Religion.com
- Status