What to believe

[foreverfan]

Posted by songsfortheotherkind (here)

Posted by foreverfan (here)
I have studied almost all of the Christian religions trying to find God and...
I would like to share with you a beautiful though from the Jehovah Witness.

As an ex-Witness, I'll pass on that. Ugly, genocidal blood gods don't appeal to me.

To not believe in God cheapens life. I believe in God, and I feel God lives in each one of us. I cannot escape that fact. I find God everywhere. I find it him mostly in Love. You may be surprised to know that his name was taken out the Bible and replaced with God or Lord so his name wouldn’t be taken in vain. I bet a lot of you are glad for that. His name is Jehovah and it is a powerful name to invoke. It works. Try is sometime.

"I cannot escape that fact". If you are referring to the 'fact' that you believe in a god and that you feel this god lives inside others, then this I understand, because for you this is indeed your reality and thus a fact *for you*; if, however, you are referring to this as being a 'fact' for everyone else, then I rebut your claim- no 'god', and especially not thatparticular group of Beings masquerading as a god, has anything at all to do with or in my life. Nope.

I rebut your assertion that my not believing in a god cheapens any life, mine or others; given how I have observed some religionists to be, I'd be in a position to assert that the *belief* in a god frequently appears to cheapen life, at least in regards to all those who don't believe in that religion. Such statements regarding belief when made in the 'this is how it is for *me*' language aren't offensive because they're Sui Generis and simply an expression of how the individual is doing things; if I am aware that an individual is a practitioner of a one god perspective I generally respect that and most often choose to not interact with that Being, unless they are the rare Being that can have their perspective without needing to point it anywhere else; if, however, an individual starts to point their one god/bible perspective at me I'm going to rebut it. If they persist, I'm going to let my fangs grow, my ears get very very pointy, let my nails turn into claws and, just to put a real emphasis on things, let leathery wings unfurl from my back, and I'm going to not be human about what I say or do next.

I fully support any Being's choice of path. I will never dispute your right to follow and believe whatever you wish to because I hold to Sui Generis for all Beings, so long as that path doesn't involve harming another Being in any way. However, as soon as a Being starts trying to cover *my* energetic signal with their belief system then I am going to rebut their assumption. Every time. Unsurprisingly, the bible is pretty big on the harming of other Beings, by using the justification 'it's god's law'.

You do not have my permission, ever, to call that god into my space, by your blanket assumption that it's not going to be profoundly offensive to do so. It's really, really rude/ignorant in its lowest forms and it is a massive energetic invasion in others. It's one of the tools that are currently being pointed at the population, assumption, along with construment, and it's doing really ugly things on the planet. This is 'my' space because it's an open thread in a forum in which all Kinds have been invited; if you wished to start a thread entitled 'singing the praises of the One God' you can be absolutely sure that I would have every respect for such a thread and would never, ever enter it or talk about it. Why? Because I do not experience that religion, that book, that god or its followers in a positive way. I experience no religion in a positive way. I'm an ex-Witness,and in earlier childhood, have had my share of born again as well: I know that book *really* well, it's still ugly and this isn't even getting into how ugly that book or its history is to me as an Otherkind. I'm not human. Things haven't gone well for me in the past previous to this life, at the hands of the writers, and later, followers of that book.

If you want to post things like this, please do it in a thread where the subject is clearly defined; I try to do this with topics that I think some mind find uncomfortable or not to their taste, because I understand many have no-go zones and I respect that. The bible, its gods, its teachings and all religion in general are no-go zones for me; I don't allow any individual to 'pray' for me because I find the energy signal dissonant and disturbing, it's just not my thing. I have a right to decline any energy I don't wish to have introduced into my space.

I am generally curious about something, however- what is a follower of the christian one god doing here anyway? Isn't that fraternising with witches, tellers of fortunes, harlots, dogs, false prophets who seduce followers away from the 'one true god'? I'm genuinely puzzled- aren't some of us here by our actions and words the children of this 'satan' you mentioned, those who reject the god of the bible and its teachings, according to the teachings in the book itself?

And finally- the JWs are one of the fastest growing religions on earth for a simple reason- in my 18 year association with the religion I observed that they are trained to be excellent spiritual predators.

You completely misunderstood my point. First off, I'm not a Jehovah Witness. I don't go to church. I have been a studier of religion in the past during my younger days. I studied Religion hoping to find the truth. I'm not sure if I've found the truth on this board. There is no proof. Just more theories. Some of my post was a JOKE.

The reason I say that not believing in a God cheapens life... is that... many believe that after you die, that's it. They actually think they evolved here. They fail to realize how precious life is. They live in the moment. Love is the lesson to learn on Earth. They haven't learned it. Believe in a God gives them hope and some direction.

Didn't I say I despise organized religion and don't go to church? Organized religion can be perverted into a great evil but it can also be a great blessing to many. I just pointed out one story from the bible and referenced on religion of which I'm not a part of. If that offended you in any way, I can't help you.

[Rozzy]

Take it all with a granary of salt, truths, partial truths and out right lies are a part of it all. The gospel truth is not even in the gospel anymore, Bacon and King Jimmy were both Freemasons and give us their version of God's word in the KJV.
What a mess we have on our hands now, the church system is like Bush and Mr. O, the Catholics and the Protestants claiming to be different and oppose each other all the while they are both lying, cheating, and corrupt, operating through the doctrines of fear the politicians and the church have a lot in common.

[Debra]

Interesting thread and perfectly good questions you raise Humanalien. And I don´t believe that you should be quarantined for your position, your thoughts and or your understanding about god, creator or whatever. Nobody should. The value of engagement in this thread tumbles too quickly into debate. Maybe it is the word religion. But debate in my belief only serves to denigrate. It is lightyears away from spiritual engagement, it is exactly what religion and academia engage in - dogma and defense.

Some great voices on here. You too songsfortheotherkind, you have an amazing voice. However, torpedoing people because their perceived interpretation does not align with your own? This is a public forum, we are a delicious brew of creative outputs, who are generally not understood by a huge slice of the world population. And in our quest for clarity, we need to be who we are, warts and all, in asking the big questions. People are on here, putting it out there - because they want to know more. Some seem to want to teach, and some just feel the need to meet like minds and feel affirmation.

Perhaps we should be asking why someone starts a post on this forum, then we can be more helpful to each other.

[songsfortheotherkind]

Posted by Zebra (here)
Some great voices on here. You too songsfortheotherkind, you have an amazing voice. However, torpedoing people because their perceived interpretation does not align with your own?

To me there is a difference between torpedoing a person and torpedoing an assertion that, if left unrebutted, could be construed as including me. The way my mind works is this- all those in prewar Germany who stood by and said/did nothing to rebut the assertions of racial superiority that Hitler was making tacitly supported those assertions. All those who stand by and do/say nothing to rebut the presumptions of those in power are, in practice and in law, tacitly agreeing to those presumptions. It's partly why/how the majority are herded/ruled, because by their silence they *agree* to be: protesting once the hammer is falling is no good, one needed to be rebutting the assumptions well before hand. Silence in law is agreement. Silence is trust arrangements is agreement. Silence in spiritual situations is agreement. There is a difference between stating one's position (rebuttal) and arguing; they are vastly different and carry vastly different implications, both practically and energetically.

I was rebutting a presumption, strongly. There was no intention of rebutting the individual concerned, simply the presumption. I believe I made my position very clear- absolute respect for the individual to believe and embrace whatever they wish, and that I would rebut, vigorously if necessary, any presumption that these beliefs and parameters can be extended to include, even in the vaguest of ways, me. Some individuals may not care about those presumptions and that is their prerogative; this does not, as a practice, go well in certain elements of the dominant paradigm and again, that is their choice. For *my Self*, I have a different practice.

The main intention of my posting was to highlight the difference between writing from a *subjective* perspective (I feel, this is how it works for me, etc) and the subtle and inexorable drift into encompassing language (our, everyone, all) that then starts to bring 'out there' into 'in here'. It's insidious, it's frequently unconscious and it carries with it a mind virus signal even if the host is utterly unaware of it. I am *not* unaware of that signal and I rebut it every time; without conscious rebuttal the concepts neatly insert themselves into the consciousness (or more often unconsciousness) of the host and lay dormant until the next fertile opportunity comes for seeding.

In the Matrix, there is a lesson about agents and their ability to enter and use unconscious, unwitting and oblivious hosts; just because the individual does not realise they are hosting something does not make them any less infectious. I strive to be as gentle with the host as I can be while being as decisive with the virus as necessary. I have reread my post carefully and while it is true that to some it may appear that I am being overly harsh (and this often happens when individuals do not personally grokk how the mind virus spreads, or to individuals that, for one reason or another, don't see it or feel it is insignificant) *and* I repeatedly affirmed the right of the poster to believe and practice whatever it is that they believe and practice it's just not going to go well if said individual starts to *globalise* that position.

Upon rereading I see that I could have been more exact with this sentence- "If you want to post things like this, please do it in a thread where the subject is clearly defined; " and changed it to "If you want to post things like this where you are not going to have interchanges such as the one we are having now or experience responses like mine, perhaps posting in such and such a way- ". That would have been more clear, certainly. I was not attempting to dictate the right of the poster to do whatever they wished, including posting threads however they wished; what I was addressing was the globalisation and the implications, energetic and otherwise, of such an approach.

I get that to some this looks like torpedoing, or rudeness, or 'unloving', or harsh, or any host of other labels that individuals at different times have interpreted my behaviours/responses as. I'm ok with that, because the alternative (constantly contorting my Self in order to keep everyone 'happy' (which often means 'comfortable' within a toxic/programmed parameter of comfort) and assuring 'everyone' that I'm playing 'nice' by all the social patting and stroking that is required) does really harmful things to my energy and functioning and I refuse to bow to the mind virus at all these days.

This is a public forum, we are a delicious brew of creative outputs, who are generally not understood by a huge slice of the world population. And in our quest for clarity, we need to be who we are, warts and all, in asking the big questions. People are on here, putting it out there - because they want to know more. Some seem to want to teach, and some just feel the need to meet like minds and feel affirmation.

This is exactly why I'm unrelenting in my view of subjective versus global- cultivating a TRULY subjective language, the ability to express one's Self *without* engaging in or drifting into globalisation is one of the foundational skills in being able to engage and connect - with open heart and mind- with the infinitely rich and ever evolving pantheon of sentient Beings moving through the Multiverse. It is counterproductive to seek such connections and to be unwilling to tackle the *learned behaviour of globalisation* at the same time. Globalisation, blanket statements that are, be it consciously or unconsciously, subtle (or sometimes really glaringly obvious and in one's face) viral thought programs that lead inexorably towards conditions of thought and Being that support behaviours of domination, diminishment of others, control and authoritarian social regulation programs, superiority and their bastard children war, brutality, genocide, environmental destruction, slavery and many other so-called 'social ills'.

They are not 'social' ills, they are manifestations of a distorted world view within first an individual and then a collective of individuals. These things do not happen in a vacuum, they exist because the foundations of the belief systems are *deeply rooted within the psyche of the individual* who is usually unconscious of it.

You can't be a 'little bit' infected. It's like leaven, no matter how small an amount is there it's going to affect the whole lump. One of my raison d'être at this point in time/space is the shining of light upon the machinations and hidden functionings of the mind virus. I 'see' it, I have spent decades mapping it (both internally and externally), I've had to deal with physical manifestations of it, so now when I see it lurking I drag it into the light. Light (being seen) and high vibration (no host to latch onto) are two of the most powerful methods of diminishing, limiting and ultimately immunising one's Self to the virus- without a conscious focus on the part of the host, *or* a natural immunity (Asperger's is a form of natural immunity to the 'social programming' but has its own side effects, just as a raging fever can burn out a bug but can also kills or damage the host; elements need to be balanced) then an individual is either an infectious host or a silent carrier. This has been my repeated experience: there is no *absolutely* 'benign' manifestation of thinking/behaviour that is seeded with mind virus spores.

Perhaps we should be asking why someone starts a post on this forum, then we can be more helpful to each other.

If I may suggest replacing 'should' with 'could'- and this could be useful, yes, depending on context and writer.

[songsfortheotherkind]

Posted by foreverfan (here)
You completely misunderstood my point.

In the context of my post, I do not experience that I misunderstood your post at all. I made a clear distinction of the matters that I was highlighting, quoted them specifically, bolded the relevant sections and expanded upon my perspective of these, explaining context and thinking.

First off, I'm not a Jehovah Witness.

I did not say you were. I expressed my experience in regards to both that religion and the specific use of the name. There is a distinction between these two things.

I don't go to church.

Again, did not say that you did, nor do I view religion and church attendance as mutually inclusive.

I have been a studier of religion in the past during my younger days. I studied Religion hoping to find the truth. I'm not sure if I've found the truth on this board. There is no proof. Just more theories.

You make some very definitive statements in your post that are not indicative of a *theory*, they are globalised statements, such as this: To not believe in God cheapens life. If your intent was to explore this in a subjective and non-global way then more care with language needs to be employed, so that your intent and purpose in posting is made clear. I've made my position regarding this more clear in my reply to Zebra's post, so I won't go into my perspectives here- suffice to say that what you say you intended to express in posting and what was actually expressed appear to be two very different things given the globalisation and language/concepts used.

Part of the thing about evolution is that *everything* gets to evolve, including the way we use language.

Some of my post was a JOKE.

Borden, in a thread somewhere else, had some interesting things to say about those who use socially accepted means to do things that, at the heart of them, are essentially dodgy. Have you ever experienced poor or even malevolent behaviour from another that, when you call them on it, is dismissed with 'what's wrong with you, can't you take a joke?'- there have been a lot of shoddy, low vibration, aggressive, passive-aggressive and downright brutal actions perpetrated against others with that justification in mind. In a forum such as this, joking can be awesome, fun and tension relieving when the communication is clear- done unthinkingly or with only one's subjective frame of mind in the space it can be a source of much confusion and even create wounds and chasms that can be difficult to repair. If I'm joking, I either make extremely sure that the context and intent are obvious *or* I'm doing it with individuals that I have learned or consider to be of similar sense of humour (generally after watching their writing and interactive style with others). I don't make jokes about potentially sensitive subjects (such as rape, child molestation, circumcision, genocide and a whole swathe of other things that personally I never find amusing) and I am careful with individuals that do. Having been on the receiving end of some behaviour that left permanent injuries and scars under the banner of 'what's wrong, it was just a joke', I'm careful with 'jokes'. Perhaps prefacing the 'joking' sections of a post is useful, as is considering one's actual intentions and purpose in making such 'jokes'.

The reason I say that not believing in a God cheapens life... is that... many believe that after you die, that's it. They actually think they evolved here. They fail to realize how precious life is. They live in the moment.

I fail to see how believing in no afterlife, believing in the scientific view of evolution, living in the moment AND having a deep- or even passionate- appreciation for life are mutually exclusive; in fact, such a belief frequently inspires awe and reverence for life itself and is experienced by the individual as a spiritual resonance, which at the core, it is. Absolutely there are individuals for whom nothing is important but a belief or disbelief in a god is not an absolute indicator as to which side of the scale- reverence or irreverence for life- an individual falls on. Historically many individuals who have professed profound belief in and adherence to the god of the bible have displayed a profound contempt for life because such life belonged to those 'not christian', and thus horrendous torture and crime against the living Being of another were perfectly permissable. I don't agree with your assertion here.

Love is the lesson to learn on Earth.

Subjective assumption made global. I don't experience this; certainly, love is A lesson that can be learned here- for a subjective definition of 'love'- but it's not THE lesson. Important distinction.

They haven't learned it.

Again, subjective assumption made global, and a pretty major one at that. Are you really claiming to be the authority on what another individual has or has not learned? I don't know if you're aware of it, this is judging another and in a pretty huge way, because there are boatloads of other assumptions and extrapolations that go along with such judgement.

Believe in a God gives them hope and some direction.

for *some* individuals this may be absolutely true. For others, professing such beliefs has been the vehicle by which they have been able to 'legitimately' persecute, subdue and eliminate other beliefs, individuals and points of view. Sometimes the directions such beliefs take an individual in are nothing that any other Being with a love for the Sui Generis of all Beings would want to have anything to do with.

Didn't I say I despise organized religion and don't go to church?

I didn't say you did. However, you *did* say that the name of the god of the bible was powerful and that individuals should try using it. Again, going to church or supporting an organised religion *and* supporting the agenda of such things are not mutually inclusive- you don't have to go to church or support an organised religion to be a proselyte of the thinking and energy that underpins both. Saying 'didn't I say I despise-' and then expounding on the expressing of beliefs contained within churches/organised religions is disingenuous, just as not being a formal member of the KKK, or attending their meetings, but being prepared to expound and support elements of their views and behaviours, is disingenuous.

Organized religion can be perverted into a great evil

History has repeatedly demonstrated the evidence that the foundations for it being so are fundamental to the belief systems that create it; any hierarchical system contains the spores of domination, control and subjection. There's no way to have a hierarchical system that does not contain these spores, even when the best efforts of the many go into intentionally preventing such things from arising- it only takes *one individual* to become infected and the whole brutal debacle begins all over again. For my Self, being the kind of Being that I am, I find this informative regarding both the 'god' and the message.

but it can also be a great blessing to many.

many found the Nazi regime and its activities, such as the youth groups and social events, to be a blessing after the psychological battering they collectively took from WW1. Such individuals gained real, measurable benefit from their associations with the groups and activities. Does this mean that the fundamental error of the philosophy must be overlooked because it was 'a great blessing to many'? Many more found it anything but a blessing, just as many hundreds of thousands of native and non-religious/non-christian individuals have found christianity to be anything but a blessing.

Again I will state- whatever an individual finds *personally* relevant and meaningful to them is part of their Sui Generis evolutionary path and is perfect and right for them, irrespective of how another Being might view that path. As soon as an individual begins to think that their path 'should' be taken up by *others*, or that their perspective is the 'right' one, damaging behaviours and belief systems are generally the result. It's the miasm of the mind virus. Plant virus, get toxins, no matter how many brightly colored bows you decorate it in.

I just pointed out one story from the bible and referenced on religion of which I'm not a part of.

As my replies have indicated, you did more than that. Unconsciously, perhaps, and yet my points still stand.

If that offended you in any way, I can't help you.

I did not ask for, nor do I need, your help- I'm not actually sure what that even means to you, the idea of 'helping' me, or even the idea that I even require help. I wasn't offended. If I was the kind of Being to indulge in being offended, I'd tell you 'I'm offended by blahblahblah'. To me there is a distinction between being offended and rebutting presumptions; I'm aware that many can't tell the difference *and* that doesn't stop me from doing it.

[jorr lundstrom]

humanalien, after reading your OP I wonder, do you have to
believe anything?


Jorr

[jagman]

I have always suspected, That the whole ufo and alien phenomenon is probably demonic or angelic. There are quite a few authors and researchers
who have wrote books on this theory. Nick Redfern has a lot good work published on this.

[humanalien]

Posted by jorr lundstrom (here)
humanalien, after reading your OP I wonder, do you have to
believe anything?


Jorr

I was just thinking that same question today. No, you don't have to believe in anything.
I was wondering maybe if people believe in something, just to make feel more comfortable
about their lifestyle or something. Maybe some people have the need to believe in something
because it is a human failing of some sort. I really don't have the answer, since their are a lot
of people that believe in nothing at all.

I think for me, i am terribly confused and don't know what to believe any more. We have all these
different ufo/alien stories, where they say they will do this or that and nothing ever happens. We
have a bible telling us God is perfect, yet he had to send his son to earth to fix his screw ups and
lay down different laws. Bible stories are so messed up and i know this is because of man purposely
messing with the bible, so now we don't have a true record about God or anything. It's just that
out of the two (Aliens/God), God or the bible makes more sense to me.

I'm just tired of the lies and i'd like to hear some truth now....

[Solstyse]

Posted by humanalien (here)

Posted by jorr lundstrom (here)
humanalien, after reading your OP I wonder, do you have to
believe anything?


Jorr

I was just thinking that same question today. No, you don't have to believe in anything.
I was wondering maybe if people believe in something, just to make feel more comfortable
about their lifestyle or something. Maybe some people have the need to believe in something
because it is a human failing of some sort. I really don't have the answer, since their are a lot
of people that believe in nothing at all.

I think for me, i am terribly confused and don't know what to believe any more. We have all these
different ufo/alien stories, where they say they will do this or that and nothing ever happens. We
have a bible telling us God is perfect, yet he had to send his son to earth to fix his screw ups and
lay down different laws. Bible stories are so messed up and i know this is because of man purposely
messing with the bible, so now we don't have a true record about God or anything. It's just that
out of the two (Aliens/God), God or the bible makes more sense to me.

I'm just tired of the lies and i'd like to hear some truth now....

Truth, if you run into a wall it is going to hurt.
Truth, fire burns.
Truth, wheel good.

Truth is something you have to find on your own.
And I'll be right there with you, maybe reading a different book, but we are in the same room.

[humanalien]

Posted by jagman (here)
I have always suspected, That the whole ufo and alien phenomenon is probably demonic or angelic. There are quite a few authors and researchers
who have wrote books on this theory. Nick Redfern has a lot good work published on this.

This is another thing i've been thinking of. What are aliens? Are they truly different
lifeforms coming from other planets/dimensions or are they really satans demonic
angels. If scriptures are correct and there was a war in heaven and satan and his army
were cast down to earth, what would stop them from traveling through space to live
on other planets. All they would have to do is come to earth and say that they come
from another planet and people would believe that.

[Mike]

Posted by songsfortheotherkind (here)

Posted by humanalien (here)
songsfortheotherkind:

Perhaps you should state whether or not you still believe in a
single creator God before i speak about your post much. Some how,
that slipped right past me.

I am in loving relationship with a few Creators; so I do not experience or believe in a single creator, nor do I experience 'gods', as none of the Creators I am in communication/relationship with have any interest whatsoever in being seen or treated as a 'god'; they experience such aims and claims to be low level, vibrationally, and personally so do I.

i like this post...

it's been scientifically proven that the atom can be chopped n chopped n chopped, but no matter how many times it's diminished you will never reach a singularity.

if there is no level to the smallness, then there is no level to the bigness either.

even God has a God. and that God has a God...and so on.

[Ellisa]

Why does an alien have to be god? or Satan? Aliens, if they make it here, will not be gods no matter how much we may want them to be.

An alien would be just that. An alien being. A being from somewhere else in the universe. Someone whose job is to contact peoples on other planets, someone who explores, like we humans intend to one day.

Aliens do not require us to validate their existence. If they turn up they will be as corporeal as I am. God and Satan are human constructs, which require our belief in order to exist. They are not real. Many think they are and that is their personal decision. Religions are the codified information of such beliefs, and they provide the rules of their particular faiths which nowadays many seem to reject. But these rules do not make their various divinities real.

[Debra]

Hello songsforanotherkind!
Firstly, thank you for a very considered reply. You think profoundly and have enormous passion for what you believe - and from what I can discern in your reply, and forgive me for condensing what I think is the essence of what you are communicating, I believe you are highlighting another way of languaging amongst and between different cultures that holds itself conscious, responsible and accountable in the exchange of words, the choice of words and how they are said (form having as much weight, if not more than the content it carries).
And, to avoid slipping into global speak and mindvirus, which potentially has the insidious capability of propping up and feeding a paradigm of shared cultural ideas that flourishes at the cost of the exclusion, invalidation and disempowerment of others and becomes a dominant hegemonic force.
Yup, could not agree more. Language is powerful.
Your language is powerful. So is mine. Be careful what you do with it. You bet.
But personally, oh man, I don´t feel empowered when I am censoring myself at every second, and I do like to be caring - most of the time - about what tumbles out of my mouth, or onto a page. I like to think I practice some decent levels of self awareness. It can be an overwhelming task to self-impose and structure according to a construction of language that I have not participated in creating. Strewth, I look around me every day and see how high levels of self correctness, imposed by a socialist system over 40 plus years, has put a lid on the spirit of folk in Sweden. Not everyone of course. There are a few who stand out and speak up - they are considered weird and generally shunned - while others are generally well .. rigid and some I would say, fearful. I think it is because they are not free to flow and this I think needs to be considered as well. In the context of what you write.
The practice, the theory and understanding of human communication has been an intrinsic part of my working activities for many years. Helping/facilitating people to become more effective and conscious communicators, that is a big job. Every case is unique, adding to this a complex field of multiple intelligences, all of which require careful attention. I am all for raising the benchmark on how we communicate, because therein lies I believe the real foundations for a more enlightened humanity.
I would like to know in what other ways you are exploring to assist this evolution songsofanotherkind. How it is done, is what I am interested in, to ensure that freedom is still honored.
Personally, I have come to planet earth at this time, because of the rich diversity of cultures that we all have such easy access to in this time period. Plus the proliferation of modern cultural hybrids. These never cease to amaze me with their evolution of language - and even devolution of language you could say as well. But what I enjoy and celebrate is character. And heart, when it feels empowered to emerge and sing out. Every character signature makes that such a beautiful thing to behold.
So yeah, I enjoy the mixed spice of humanity. For me, it would be a boring existence if we all spoke and wrote in the same way, is what I am really saying and I trust that you also hold this to be important as well but I am sure you have a different way of saying it .

Thank you for the opportunity to think more deeply on this.
Zebra
p.s.

Perhaps we should be asking why someone starts a post on this forum, then we can be more helpful to each other.

If I may suggest replacing 'should' with 'could'- and this could be useful, yes, depending on context and writer. [/QUOTE][/I]

Could. Yes. Much better. Implies helpfulness.

Posted by songsfortheotherkind (here)

Posted by Zebra (here)
Some great voices on here. You too songsfortheotherkind, you have an amazing voice. However, torpedoing people because their perceived interpretation does not align with your own?

To me there is a difference between torpedoing a person and torpedoing an assertion that, if left unrebutted, could be construed as including me. The way my mind works is this- all those in prewar Germany who stood by and said/did nothing to rebut the assertions of racial superiority that Hitler was making tacitly supported those assertions. All those who stand by and do/say nothing to rebut the presumptions of those in power are, in practice and in law, tacitly agreeing to those presumptions. It's partly why/how the majority are herded/ruled, because by their silence they *agree* to be: protesting once the hammer is falling is no good, one needed to be rebutting the assumptions well before hand. Silence in law is agreement. Silence is trust arrangements is agreement. Silence in spiritual situations is agreement. There is a difference between stating one's position (rebuttal) and arguing; they are vastly different and carry vastly different implications, both practically and energetically.

I was rebutting a presumption, strongly. There was no intention of rebutting the individual concerned, simply the presumption. I believe I made my position very clear- absolute respect for the individual to believe and embrace whatever they wish, and that I would rebut, vigorously if necessary, any presumption that these beliefs and parameters can be extended to include, even in the vaguest of ways, me. Some individuals may not care about those presumptions and that is their prerogative; this does not, as a practice, go well in certain elements of the dominant paradigm and again, that is their choice. For *my Self*, I have a different practice.

The main intention of my posting was to highlight the difference between writing from a *subjective* perspective (I feel, this is how it works for me, etc) and the subtle and inexorable drift into encompassing language (our, everyone, all) that then starts to bring 'out there' into 'in here'. It's insidious, it's frequently unconscious and it carries with it a mind virus signal even if the host is utterly unaware of it. I am *not* unaware of that signal and I rebut it every time; without conscious rebuttal the concepts neatly insert themselves into the consciousness (or more often unconsciousness) of the host and lay dormant until the next fertile opportunity comes for seeding.

In the Matrix, there is a lesson about agents and their ability to enter and use unconscious, unwitting and oblivious hosts; just because the individual does not realise they are hosting something does not make them any less infectious. I strive to be as gentle with the host as I can be while being as decisive with the virus as necessary. I have reread my post carefully and while it is true that to some it may appear that I am being overly harsh (and this often happens when individuals do not personally grokk how the mind virus spreads, or to individuals that, for one reason or another, don't see it or feel it is insignificant) *and* I repeatedly affirmed the right of the poster to believe and practice whatever it is that they believe and practice it's just not going to go well if said individual starts to *globalise* that position.

Upon rereading I see that I could have been more exact with this sentence- "If you want to post things like this, please do it in a thread where the subject is clearly defined; " and changed it to "If you want to post things like this where you are not going to have interchanges such as the one we are having now or experience responses like mine, perhaps posting in such and such a way- ". That would have been more clear, certainly. I was not attempting to dictate the right of the poster to do whatever they wished, including posting threads however they wished; what I was addressing was the globalisation and the implications, energetic and otherwise, of such an approach.

I get that to some this looks like torpedoing, or rudeness, or 'unloving', or harsh, or any host of other labels that individuals at different times have interpreted my behaviours/responses as. I'm ok with that, because the alternative (constantly contorting my Self in order to keep everyone 'happy' (which often means 'comfortable' within a toxic/programmed parameter of comfort) and assuring 'everyone' that I'm playing 'nice' by all the social patting and stroking that is required) does really harmful things to my energy and functioning and I refuse to bow to the mind virus at all these days.

This is a public forum, we are a delicious brew of creative outputs, who are generally not understood by a huge slice of the world population. And in our quest for clarity, we need to be who we are, warts and all, in asking the big questions. People are on here, putting it out there - because they want to know more. Some seem to want to teach, and some just feel the need to meet like minds and feel affirmation.

This is exactly why I'm unrelenting in my view of subjective versus global- cultivating a TRULY subjective language, the ability to express one's Self *without* engaging in or drifting into globalisation is one of the foundational skills in being able to engage and connect - with open heart and mind- with the infinitely rich and ever evolving pantheon of sentient Beings moving through the Multiverse. It is counterproductive to seek such connections and to be unwilling to tackle the *learned behaviour of globalisation* at the same time. Globalisation, blanket statements that are, be it consciously or unconsciously, subtle (or sometimes really glaringly obvious and in one's face) viral thought programs that lead inexorably towards conditions of thought and Being that support behaviours of domination, diminishment of others, control and authoritarian social regulation programs, superiority and their bastard children war, brutality, genocide, environmental destruction, slavery and many other so-called 'social ills'.

They are not 'social' ills, they are manifestations of a distorted world view within first an individual and then a collective of individuals. These things do not happen in a vacuum, they exist because the foundations of the belief systems are *deeply rooted within the psyche of the individual* who is usually unconscious of it.

You can't be a 'little bit' infected. It's like leaven, no matter how small an amount is there it's going to affect the whole lump. One of my raison d'être at this point in time/space is the shining of light upon the machinations and hidden functionings of the mind virus. I 'see' it, I have spent decades mapping it (both internally and externally), I've had to deal with physical manifestations of it, so now when I see it lurking I drag it into the light. Light (being seen) and high vibration (no host to latch onto) are two of the most powerful methods of diminishing, limiting and ultimately immunising one's Self to the virus- without a conscious focus on the part of the host, *or* a natural immunity (Asperger's is a form of natural immunity to the 'social programming' but has its own side effects, just as a raging fever can burn out a bug but can also kills or damage the host; elements need to be balanced) then an individual is either an infectious host or a silent carrier. This has been my repeated experience: there is no *absolutely* 'benign' manifestation of thinking/behaviour that is seeded with mind virus spores.

Posted by songsfortheotherkind (here)

Perhaps we should be asking why someone starts a post on this forum, then we can be more helpful to each other.

If I may suggest replacing 'should' with 'could'- and this could be useful, yes, depending on context and writer.

[conk]

We may never find truth, but we can discern lies and organized religion will always have a mouth full. Be true to your heart, be considerate of others and keep learning. In the end, as long as we are not harming each other, it simply does not matter. The whole game is an illusion.

[gypsybutterflykiss]

Posted by HORIZONS (here)
Out of the darkness
and into the light
This is the journey
we all must fight.
If our time here
is used in this wise,
we can be sure,
to find the Grand Prize.
-RM
Peace to you~

Thank you for this, it is truly beautiful.

[humanalien]

Posted by Ellisa (here)
Why does an alien have to be god? or Satan? Aliens, if they make it here, will not be gods no matter how much we may want them to be.

An alien would be just that. An alien being. A being from somewhere else in the universe. Someone whose job is to contact peoples on other planets, someone who explores, like we humans intend to one day.

Aliens do not require us to validate their existence. If they turn up they will be as corporeal as I am. God and Satan are human constructs, which require our belief in order to exist. They are not real. Many think they are and that is their personal decision. Religions are the codified information of such beliefs, and they provide the rules of their particular faiths which nowadays many seem to reject. But these rules do not make their various divinities real.

Aliens don't have to be gods or demons but if you have been reading
anything alien related from this site and others, chances are you will
have come up on stories stating that they are our creators. Reading
further into these stories, you will also find out that humans used to worship
these aliens as gods. Maybe not all of them but some of them. The greek
gods come into mind. The greys and the reptilians among others have
also made this claim.

Maybe even the single creator God isn't who he claims to be. The bible says:
"Let us create man in our image; after our likeness". Who or what is us
and our referring to? If God has always been around, even before the beginning
then where did the others come from all of a sudden? Was he referring to his
angels? Does God and his angels look like humans or rather we look like them?
There are to many gaps in the bible to be able to draw any intelligent answers
from.

[Titan Orion]

Posted by foreverfan (here)
[B]
To not believe in God cheapens life.

Its declarations like this that make me understand why Biblebashers exist.

Sorry, but that really PISSED ME OFF

[HORIZONS]

Posted by gypsybutterflykiss (here)

Posted by HORIZONS (here)
Out of the darkness
and into the light
This is the journey
we all must fight.
If our time here
is used in this wise,
we can be sure,
to find the Grand Prize.
-RM
Peace to you~

Thank you for this, it is truly beautiful.

If you want to see the rest of the poem it is posted here on and old thread of mine https://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...f-The-Darkness
Although it has some humor to it there is a very deep meaning behind it, if one can see past the words.

[songsfortheotherkind]

Posted by Solstyse (here)
Truth, if you run into a wall it is going to hurt.
Truth, fire burns.
Truth, wheel good.

*looks over at you sideways eyed*

I was thinking about offering a different perspective on these and decided *shrugs, grinning* what difference does it make?

Truth is something you have to find on your own.

This, this I resonate with a lot. Our own truth. So many to choose from...

And I'll be right there with you, maybe reading a different book, but we are in the same room.

A very very LARGE room, with a lot of secluded booths, secret reading nooks and doorways leading to other remote sections of the room. The Universe, Hogwarts style. :D

[foreverfan]

songfortheotherkind... you're joking right?

I read your whole post out of respect since you took a lot of time and put a lot of thought into it. Some of it was well taken and I found your prospective both enlighting and amusing. You seem to take every line and then warp the simple meaning into interesting psyco-babble. WOW. For anybody that missed it... it is a piece of work.

I had an ex-wife I divorce for the exact same reason. LOL I still don't like her. In any case, that's no reflection on you. I do appreciate the time you took to enlighten me and give me a good laugh. It would have been easier to just call me lazy for not being clearer.

That would have been closer to the truth.

FF