100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Finally | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
Edited for brevity. While I can see the point that you are making here, I would like to bring up a point that often happens on these forums. The statement "Your imaginary friend in the sky doesn't exist - you're delusional" Now - I'm not going to passively let this statement go by - especially when it follows some claim of what "Christians do" - that I know to be absolutely false. I can respond to this vehemently without thinking for a single moment that there is a word of truth in it that might apply to me - what-so-ever. I don't even need to pause to think about it. Usually - what thought crosses my mind is to immediately ask the poster if they've even read the bible. To which I never get a response. At this point - I let it go. But I respond initially - not because I believe there is a ring of truth in it for me - but because I see a fallacy in the broad interpretation of "religious profiling" with no wisdom or understanding of the topic they are adressing in the first place. That of Christian doctrine and percieved behavior. So - while I see your point - often times it does not hold true in the religion forums. Whoa... Nothing about what this poster has written has A THING to do with "what Christians do". Nor has this poster EVER suggested that anyone is delusional for their beliefs... ...and were we limited to ONLY discussing Christian doctrine? If so... I'll consider myself moderated. Religious Profiling? Dude! This isn't an "Us and Them". At least not as far as this poster is concerned. Yes... This is a Religion Forum. I was under the impression that participation was not limited to one Religion. Hmmm... Having read the OP of this thread - I just thought it appropriate to mention it as a response to your broad reference to negativity in posts. Didn't mean it as a direct reference to any previous posts of yours. Not an "Us/them" thing. Well - I disagree. I've seen Spider attacked enough to know that this isn't true. It doesnt matter what the topic is, Abra will get his "I hate Christianity" post in. So - I'm not sure where you are getting your impression from - you will find that more than a majority of these threads will bring itself down to some comment about christianity before the thread ends. But it just so happens that >this< thread was one on christianity. Yes, Eljay... I stand corrected. As stated in a previous response to Feral, it is acknowledged that the OP was, indeed, about Christianity. Since I see very little value in "making" any one religion or any "one" wrong, there is little desire to focus on such divide... Even though there are recurring themes of "us and them" throughout this community. There seems to be such defensiveness of beliefs that many tend to be nearly completely blind to or unwilling to consider that others' intentions may be other than combative. NO CHRISTIAN BASHING HERE (only speaking for myself). I admit to having an agenda for finding common ground (I guess this somehow makes me feel better). I happily admit stupidity. I certainly wouldn't say stupidity - but once the threads get into 10 or more pages, often the OP gets lost. This thred is one that's been all over the place. I agree with you - there is a lot of defensiveness that occurs, and Ferals OP pretty much nails it on what often occurs that brings this about. There is a wide spread impression of what "Christianity" is essentially about - and misperceptions run amok by those who are not Christians themselves who start in on their pereption of how a christian see's themselves - or behaves; how a christian interprets scripture, or even for that matter - who is a christian and who isn't, despite what they claim. If you take a step back - I think you'll notice that this is where the majority of defensive posts, or disagreements occur. Aside from the never ending toic of evolution vs. creation. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I just choose for myself to leave it, is that so wrong, No. Who ever said that was wrong? Not I anyway. I resent your attempt at portraying yourself as the victim.  you should know that, this thing has been going on most of the day Well point out who said you MUST accept the theory of evolution then. It wasn't me and it wasn't Billy. You had originally posed the question about transitional fossils and he was nice enough to offer you a couple websites to further explain how this occurred. If it was complete crap, no one would believe it at all and it would not be taught in public schools. So Im not sure who on this thread told you that you have to do anything. Hmmm... interesting argument. If it weren't true - it wouldn't be taught in public schools. If that were so - Christianity and the bible has over 300 yers of being taught in public schools. Does that make it unequivically true? I'll have to remember this one. You obviously did not even bother to read this thread and instead isolated one post and felt you just had to insert something argumentative. I was explaining to Sharp that no one had told him he MUST accept the Theory of Evolution. We all know you wont even bother to understand the most basic of its components. It is for this reason, I dont enjoy discussing it with you any longer Its akin to ramming my head against a brick wall. It is taught in public schools with the presumption of it being a theory. Parents who are not not happy with this situation, always have the option of writing a note and having their children pulled from science class. I actually had this very incident occur with a friend because she had evangelical parents. It was horrible but I was 11 years old and nothing I could do about it. I've read every post on this thread (though I often ask myself why) and felt compelled to respond on your "taught in schools" comment - not as something argumentative, but as a point of reference. Do you think the option of being "pulled" from science class is one that is intended on enhancing a students education? Like that is a viable option? What then does the student say when they are applying to colleges and have no academic record of having taken science? Is this balance in the education system? Wouldn't it be better if the parents had the option of withdrawing their tax contributions to their public school sustem rather than their student? Let's see how long the NEA holds onto their secular-humanist agenda's if this becomes an option. Oh and that comment isnt intended to be argumentative at all. Come on. Congratulations. You just uniformly disrespected every member who has contributed to this thread thus far with your "though I often ask myself why" remark. Thanks a lot, from the bottom of my heart. Well - perhaps that last comment of mine was - but I would guess it would be a better topic for it's own thread if that were the case. Am I being disrespectful to you and Jeannie because I didn't necessarily find it worth my while to see you two bicker over 5 or 6 pages? It was moderately entertaining - but had I not seen it, I don't think I would have missed anything. I didn't say EVERY post was not worth reading. Perhaps you should take Jeannie's advice about not attempting to read between the lines of everyone's posts to reflect on your take on their perspective. Just read the words for what they say instead of what you assume they mean. Then - if you percieve an agenda - ask, rather than assume. I am telling you what I saw happen to a friend. She was escorted from science class as we began our study of The Theory of Evolution and anthropogenesis. She was forced by her parents to be separated and she had to sit in study hall over the course of the period. I am simply letting you know it occurs. My position is that the public schools should be left to teach both science and mathematics and this would include a general overview of the theory of evolution. Parents have the right to enroll their children in whatever bible theology study or Sunday school program they deem appropriate. That would not be limited to the study of Christianity either. In this way, no religious instruction is being forced down the throats of other students. That is not your right and the tax payer should not be expected to pick up the tab for evangelical agendas being espoused in the public school system. Yes - I understood the point about your friend, and was merely reflecting on the consequences this girl faces because - despite it being taught as a theory, students have no option but to learn it - be graded on it - and accept it's effect on their transcript. This is a non-negotiable part of our education system. Do you not think that having to pick up the "tab" for this is any less unacceptable than one for "evangelical agenda's"? Is that not an argument of a hypocrite? If is clear that you are only here to take sides and begin this argument all over again. Its not impossible to predict the inevitable "tag team" maneuver that we see so very often on these forums. That aside, if I have misunderstood the purpose of your comment than please feel free to clarify. You always have that option. Well then you explain exactly how we can fit the instruction of Creationism into a 60 minute standard science class period along side that of the Theory of Evolution which by the way, is introduced and accepted to be a "theory". Students are NEVER told this is the only possible explanation for the origions of man and animal. They are informed that this is but one theory that modern science has been able to formulate and compile. Another question, how do you then justify ONLY teaching the components of Christian theology and not that of Jewish tradition or Muslim or any other religion or spirituality? Why should one take precedence over another? It seems to me there is no hypocrisy involved with merely allowing students to learn and become familuar with a scientific premise.That is what defines a well rounded individual. At least in my opinion. They always have the ability to dismiss it or research outside of their public school curriculum. It seems to me the most inclusive and tolerant and genuinely humanitarian option for the parents of such children would be to enroll them in bible study (or whatever theological classes they find acceptable) and allow the children the option of seeing all sides of the debate? Maybe its just me, but that sounds fair. The issue is easily handled. If the conclusionary goal is based on theory - it should be an elective. Remove evolution from all science classes and include the theory of intelligent design and "Darwinism" (or what-ever-it's-called) in a science elective on origins of life. That way - you get it all in one class, if you so chose. As to the different religions - irrelivant to the theory of creation. That is a topic for philosophy, not science. I'm sorry but I must disagree with your proposed solution as it is quite over simplified. You have also not begun to address the issue of the interrelatedness of the sciences and how that will be handled exactly? If the Theory of Evolution is relegated to that of elective, than how will students then be able to fully understand the components encompassed in the other sciences such as biology? Do we just make them ALL electives? Why not allow the students to pick and choose all of their classes? You could try that but it might have quite devastating effects over the long term as it relates to the understanding of these basic principles. I might have some concerns if I discovered that my GP decided that taking basic biology would be detrimental to his or her belief structure in some respect so therefore they chose to bypass medical school and instead opted to receive their degree via a "suedo science" of some description that would not interfere with their held beliefs. Well - I went all the way through school and onto a degree in college without it. The idea of a big bang or intelligent design had no effect what-so-ever on my study of anatomy or chemistry. Whether or not my teacher thought I had distant ancestry with a fish only related to tham telling me I did - then tesing me on it, expecting me to have swallowed their fairy tale. The only thing that should be made electives are religion - such as evolution, christianity, islam, UFO's, etc, etc. Anything based solely on faith and theory. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Krimsa
on
Sun 09/21/08 03:15 PM
|
|
Warning: This is just more useless drivel between Krimsa and Jeanniebean so you can just scroll past it. DMT is actually present in all of our bodies. It is a natural brain neurotransmitter and considerably lacking in any mystical qualities. Why is it that everyone I talk to about OBE's or NDE's or the pineal gland or the tarot cards or just about anything, they start proclaiming or protesting that there is nothing "MYSTICAL" about it? FOR THE RECORD: I have NEVER claimed that anything is "Mystical" so what is all this resistance against the word "mystical?" I am also aware that DMT is present in all of our bodies. It is secreted by the pineal gland in the brain. Anyone who has a pineal gland can secrete DMT and can dream, visualize, imagine, have OBE's, NDE's etc. Perhaps excessive DMT production is responsible for naturally occurring "psychedelic" states. These might include birth, death and near-death, psychosis, and dream like experiences. Yet another plausible explanation based in psychopharmacology. That is exactly what I am saying. The pineal gland secretes melatonin too help us sleep, and DMT to help us dream and who knows what else it does. Malfunctions of the pineal gland and excess DMT can contribute to psychosis and schizophrenia. I realize you seem to feel that ALL science and scientific research in this field is agenda driven in some respect and therefore unreliable and not worth the time it takes to look at it, however I'm not sure how you can justifiably apply this standard or criteria to that of modern medicine and not to these others who conduct their own experiments in the same field? I do not give "modern medicine" any more authority or respect than anyone else. Today's "modern medicine" is 80% driven towards the application and use of prescription drugs to line the pockets of drug companies and less and less about treating or curing disease. You can worship the gods of "modern medicine" and the FDA and their drug business if you wish, but I do not. Do they not have egos? Are they not also in some capacity predisposed to rendering biased conclusions based on the outcomes that are most desirable to them and furthering their research? It is my personal feeling that you are asking to have this both ways. You want to reject modern medicine as being an unreliable source yet you don't seem to apply this same standard to the individuals and resources that you find to be more credible for whatever reason. I'm having a hard time with that. Wouldn't the best approach simply be to evaluate these separate studies based on their own merit? Everybody is suspect for having an agenda and an ego in my book. Therefore they are all on pretty equal ground as far as I am concerned.  The only reason I point out that you seem to cling to some of these beliefs (speaking of you and no one else) is that you continuously push away ANY credible evidence I bring forth produced by scientific research that might possibly offer physiological explanations for these occurrences. Just because I don't agree with you or accept your evidence as the gospel truth or bow to the institution of "modern medicine" (like you seem to do) does not mean that I am pushing away any credible evidence you "bring forth." If this research offers to your satisfaction physiological explanations for these occurrences and you are 100% satisfied with them then that is good for you isn't it? But please don't expect me to be 100% satisfied with them as I find them lacking. As for your impression that I am "clinging to" any beliefs you are way off base on that one. I don't cling to anything. I look at and evaluate information and I draw temporary conclusions about it. I wish you could carry on a conversation without presuming and assuming things about me that are most probably oly reflection of yourself. If you truly had no vested interest in substantiating the validity of an afterlife, you would probably be a little more accepting of these other modes of research and study. What "vested interest" do you imagine I have? I myself, am not very interested in this topic but I have read a little bit here and there over the years. It is for this reason I think it might be possible for me to remain somewhat more objective because I have "nothing to lose". Again, what is it that you imagine I have to loose? You have quite the imagination I think. This is why I simply desire that all of these available resources at our disposal be included and given equal value before they are dismissed as simply being "agenda serving" in some capacity. Both sides of the studies have been accused as being "agenda serving" by the other side, so that makes them all about equal in my book. So with that being said, even though I am not nearly as focused or emotionally invested in this subject matter, as an intelligent and analytical individual I am quite capable of objectively investigating the topic. You what makes you think I am "emotionally invested" in this subject matter? You aren't talking to a born again Christian here. You know nothing about my "emotional investment." I have said over and over that I seek truth no matter what it is. If you have proof that I am wrong in my temporary conclusion then lets have it. Your "modern medicine" theories are not proof of anything. They don't tip the scale in the favor of the Atheist agenda or even the agnostic agenda. So far, my conclusion has not been changed by what you have been able to bring forward. I have compared your explanations to what I have read and witnessed over the years and I do have to lean towards modern medicine as being slightly more comprehensive in its approach. Well that is just fine with me. You can come to any conclusion you want. I am not concerned about changing your mind about anything. The "guru" comment was not meant to hurt your feelings and was primarily meant in jest. This is simply not true. Your "guru" comment was spoken with disdain and you followed it with "I'm not falling for that crap" so don't try to soft soap your sarcastic emotion filled demeaning remarks and make yourself innocent. By the way, nothing you say to me could possibly hurt my feelings. And for a moment I thought we might have been able to actually start having adult conversations but it appears you are still just wanting to show off. Okee dokee.  Over and out. Subject closed. I apologize to anyone who has to scroll over this useless drivel. JB, the reason I and a few others on forum have probably mentioned that there is nothing remarkable about the pineal gland and DMT per se is simply because It is essentially analogous with serotonin at least from a structural standpoint. It is a naturally occurring tryptamine and potent psychedelic drug, found not only in many plants, but also in trace amounts in the human body wherein its natural function is undetermined. I would imagine there is a direct link associated with it and NDE and OBE. A DIRECT physiological link. Yet another explanation for what might cause the hallucinations. Perhaps when a person in in the process of dieing, the pineal gland is triggered to start secreting an excessive amount of DMT and this would in fact be a CAUSE for these sensations and delusions Now you are just ranting. JB I asked that you simply lend a little more credence to the RESEARCH that modern medicine has done in the field of NDE. Im not referring to pharmaceutical companies, insurance carriers, hospital policy or function but the actual scientific experimentation conducted by modern medicine. I am asking that you at least take into account that these studies take place and they do have findings. What is so wrong with that? If you dont, then you will have folks like me who will question you and call you a fake "guru" who lacks credibility. The reason is because the ONLY resources that you utilize in the course of your investigation is "JB endorsed and approved" .biased materials. Some people have an interest in knowing that the person who is attempting to impart information to them has done their homework. That would mean a well rounded analysis on the subject matter. This might require that you distance yourself from it in some respect if you are so "anti-medicine". So now you are angry because I mentioned that nothing you had brought forward swayed my opinion. And you accuse me of expecting you to "bow down" to my evidence? I dont care what you do. Basically what this argument has consisted of is JB showing me A. and then I respond back with B which might possibly explain A plausibly and credibly. It does not mean that B is correct because neither of us can know that for certain. All I have done here is presented evidence that clealry offers some form of explanation for what I assume you have been pouring the last several years of your life into. Im sorry you did not get on board with this a little sooner but you need to understand that a great deal (not all) of this NDE is in fact explainable. Not all but a large portion of the physical manifestations. I never said that I was 100% convinced of anything. If I have written that over the course of this argument, then please be so kind as to find that and quote it. How can I know? How can you know? I thought that was the purpose of researching this phenomena and by research, I mean EVERY possibly avenue. JB I can ONLY respond to what you write. Based on what you have presented over the course of this discussion, you have resisted all evidence brought forward from a scientific or medical source. I would call that pretty much a person who is unyielding and incapable of looking outside of their "box" and comfort zone. You utilize the resources SOLELY that will tell you what you want to hear. If this is not the case, why would any of this information I have supplied upset you so? The "vested interest" that I have observed based on this conduct is that you want to believe for yourself that there is in fact a spirit realm or an after life of some description. I dont think that makes you a bad person. I wish you would stop being so defensive. What I feel you have on the line here is that you have probably poured a tremendous amount of your time and effort and energy into this OBE and NDE phenomena. It is probably research that you would actually like to conduct on your own if you had the resources. And then some smart ass kid (not really a kid) comes online out of the blue and presents some conflicting data. I realize you are upset and I will not speak with you again if you do not wish to further this discussion. You claim that nothing I have brought to your attention thus far discredits the beliefs or assumptions you have reached. Well thats easy enough to say isnt it? The ball is in your court. Start with the physiological explanations I posted last night and we can discuss them one at a time and why science is inaccurately characterizing these theories. Honestly, when you start in with this petty bickering, I lose even more interest in the topic. If it is going to upset you so much, then forget it. JB I have been apologizing to the members since yesterday when you re-hashed this argument so its too little too late in my opinion. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Sun 09/21/08 03:26 PM
|
|
Krisma I fell asleep trying to read your last post. Its the same old blah blah blah rhetoric.
I have seen your so-called scientific "data" and I found it sorely lacking. I'm sure you are impressed with it, I'm not. If you think there is nothing "remarkable" about the pineal gland perhaps you would volunteer for my experiment and have yours removed via a lazor gun in my friends laboratory. There is nothing remarkable about the anus either, but try doing without one. Just because something is "naturally occurring" does not make it common or unremarkable. And for someone who is so "uninterested" in the subject my how you do rant on and on. Krisma wrote: Honestly, when you start in with this petty bickering, I lose even more interest in the topic. If it is going to upset you so much, then forget it. I will forget it. The topic does not upset me at all. It is your haughty demeaning sarcastic remarks I will not abide. You are really quite clueless how you come off to people.  JB:  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Based on what you have presented over the course of this discussion, you have resisted all evidence brought forward from a scientific or medical source. I would call that pretty much a person who is unyielding and incapable of looking outside of their "box" and comfort zone. You utilize the resources SOLELY that will tell you what you want to hear. If this is not the case, why would any of this information I have supplied upset you so? It doesn't upset me. It is what it is. It is just lacking. It proves nothing. It is confined inside its own little box. It falls short. Its insufficient. It's outnumbered. Its inconclusive. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Sun 09/21/08 03:34 PM
|
|
I realize you are upset and I will not speak with you again if you do not wish to further this discussion. I don't think you are capable of that, but you can give it a try. I would appreciate it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
HMM? - do other animals have this pineal gland? or is it just humans? any studies been done on that? G? krimsa? anybody?
 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
HMM? - do other animals have this pineal gland? or is it just humans? any studies been done on that? G? krimsa? anybody? Actually I wondered that myself. Dogs do seem to dream. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Krisma I fell asleep trying to read your last post. Its the same old blah blah blah rhetoric. I have seen your so-called scientific "data" and I found it sorely lacking. I'm sure you are impressed with it, I'm not. If you think there is nothing "remarkable" about the pineal gland perhaps you would volunteer for my experiment and have yours removed via a lazor gun in my friends laboratory. There is nothing remarkable about the anus either, but try doing without one. Just because something is "naturally occurring" does not make it common or unremarkable. And for someone who is so "uninterested" in the subject my how you do rant on and on. Krisma wrote: Honestly, when you start in with this petty bickering, I lose even more interest in the topic. If it is going to upset you so much, then forget it. I will forget it. The topic does not upset me at all. It is your haughty demeaning sarcastic remarks I will not abide. You are really quite clueless how you come off to people. JB: JB you indicated in BOLD TYPE why I and other members resisted the word MYSTICAL whenever you bring up the Pineal Gland and DMT. Do you understand what "naturally occurring" means exactly? It means it occurs naturally in the body. Oh but I guess I should not expect you to be familiar with these terms since you dont approve of modern medicine. I was simply explaining to you that there is nothing magical about this gland although we dont totally understand its function in humans. Hey I have an idea. I think that the pineal gland might actually be triggered once the body begins to die. It pumps out this DMT in order to relieve the discomfort experienced during the process of dieing. DMT just also happens to serve as a powerful hallucinogenic. Hey, that might be a possible explanation. One of them anyway. Of course that research study was conducted by modern medicine in Switzerland so Im sure you are not interested in it.That would not be in support of an after life. Hey there is nothing remarkable about a heart, its just a muscle but it has a clearly identifiable purpose and function. It pumps blood throughout our entire circulatory system. Perhaps the pineal gland's function is to release DMT when a person is in the process of dieing. I told you I am not interested so why do you keep engaging me? You either want this information or you dont. Otherwise why did you re-start this argument from yesterday? I told you, if my information was lacking, rebut it. You are all talk. Not to mention just plain rude and insulting. I certainly know how you are coming across to me. Like a child. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
tribo
on
Sun 09/21/08 04:00 PM
|
|
HMM? - do other animals have this pineal gland? or is it just humans? any studies been done on that? G? krimsa? anybody? Actually I wondered that myself. Dogs do seem to dream. yeah, daisy my sisters dog will make little whines and move their paws/feet and other things that look exactly like humans behavior. I had a cat that did this same thing also, so i was wondering?????? we had other smaller animals and i never saw this in them though, ferret's, birds, hamsters, etc, but i did/do see it in the cats and dogs - don't know about apes though? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I realize you are upset and I will not speak with you again if you do not wish to further this discussion. I don't think you are capable of that, but you can give it a try. I would appreciate it. Well seeing as you just cant resist. I give you about 8 minutes. Im going to go feed my cat and when I come back there will be another snide remark out of JB. I can set my watch by it. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Like most of us who are drawn to these topics, JB has some spiritual wisdom. She frames the concepts in her own terminology. But anyone who does the research will find that the things she discusses are actually ancient concepts. For example, her concept of a holographic reality is just a rephrasing of the ancient Hindu concept of Maya (dream reality). Take away the sci fi component and she is basically talking eastern philosophy. Thank you Mirror, and very interesting. I suppose Maya (dream reality) is very similar to the holographic type reality. Eckankar was very similar, calling reality "Maya." (Illusion) The dream reality paradigm is probably even more accurate because the very idea of a dream reality suggests that there is a "dreamer" doing the projecting, while the holographic paradigm begs the question, who is running the projector? We are. We are the dreamers.  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Based on what you have presented over the course of this discussion, you have resisted all evidence brought forward from a scientific or medical source. I would call that pretty much a person who is unyielding and incapable of looking outside of their "box" and comfort zone. You utilize the resources SOLELY that will tell you what you want to hear. If this is not the case, why would any of this information I have supplied upset you so? It doesn't upset me. It is what it is. It is just lacking. It proves nothing. It is confined inside its own little box. It falls short. Its insufficient. It's outnumbered. Its inconclusive. Well then what do you have exactly? It seems I have presented an abundance of information while you have sat there making snide remarks. I thought you were the "guru"? Since you seem to have this additional evidence that is not confined by conventional wisdom and defies logic nor the ability to be written down. I'll wait for you to post that. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
HMM? - do other animals have this pineal gland? or is it just humans? any studies been done on that? G? krimsa? anybody? Actually I wondered that myself. Dogs do seem to dream. yeah, daisy my sisters dog will make little whines and move their paws/feet and other things that look exactly like humans behavior. I had a cat that did this same thing also, so i was wondering?????? we had other smaller animals and i never saw this in them though, ferret's, birds, hamsters, etc, but i did/do see it in the cats and dogs - don't know about apes though? My cat follows me around everywhere like a puppy dog. Even when I go for a walk. But get this, even in my dreams. I will be walking somewhere in my dream and there is my cat following me. I can't seem to get rid of him. LOL ... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
HMM? - do other animals have this pineal gland? or is it just humans? any studies been done on that? G? krimsa? anybody? Tribo for the love of god, dont start asking me questions about the pineal gland. That is her ball game. I have no interest in this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Like most of us who are drawn to these topics, JB has some spiritual wisdom. She frames the concepts in her own terminology. But anyone who does the research will find that the things she discusses are actually ancient concepts. For example, her concept of a holographic reality is just a rephrasing of the ancient Hindu concept of Maya (dream reality). Take away the sci fi component and she is basically talking eastern philosophy. Thank you Mirror, and very interesting. I suppose Maya (dream reality) is very similar to the holographic type reality. Eckankar was very similar, calling reality "Maya." (Illusion) The dream reality paradigm is probably even more accurate because the very idea of a dream reality suggests that there is a "dreamer" doing the projecting, while the holographic paradigm begs the question, who is running the projector? We are. We are the dreamers. HMM? then who's loading the film? and where is the film coming from? who's the "distributor? are there copyrights on this stuff or not? if so who holds them?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Like most of us who are drawn to these topics, JB has some spiritual wisdom. She frames the concepts in her own terminology. But anyone who does the research will find that the things she discusses are actually ancient concepts. For example, her concept of a holographic reality is just a rephrasing of the ancient Hindu concept of Maya (dream reality). Take away the sci fi component and she is basically talking eastern philosophy. Thank you Mirror, and very interesting. I suppose Maya (dream reality) is very similar to the holographic type reality. Eckankar was very similar, calling reality "Maya." (Illusion) The dream reality paradigm is probably even more accurate because the very idea of a dream reality suggests that there is a "dreamer" doing the projecting, while the holographic paradigm begs the question, who is running the projector? We are. We are the dreamers. HMM? then who's loading the film? and where is the film coming from? who's the "distributor? are there copyrights on this stuff or not? if so who holds them? We are loading the film ourselves with the information and experience we collect in all of our collective incarnated lives. All of this information is deposited into the universal mind and is there for all to access who know how. It is called the subconscious. There are no copyrights as you can see, as so much has been plagiarized over the centuries and is still plagiarized today. But I see nothing really wrong with plagiarism if the information belongs to all. People should just not be allowed to take credit for what they write and they should not be allowed to copyright it. JB |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Sun 09/21/08 04:15 PM
|
|
I did not ever say there was anything "magic" about the pineal gland.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Krimsa
on
Sun 09/21/08 04:20 PM
|
|
I did not ever say there was anything "magic" about the pineal gland. Oh good lord, you go on about that gland endlessly. You do it all the time. Why else would you even have to preface the comment in your post. It appears you don't know how you come off to others.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Sun 09/21/08 04:25 PM
|
|
Are eyes magic? They allow us to see and perceive the world around us. But what we see may not be what other creatures see or how they see them. As humans, we seem to see the same things most of the time, so we might take for granted our naturally occurring sight. Nothing remarkable about that.
So it is with the pineal gland. Its nothing "remarkable" at all. (Not any more remarkable than the two eyes in our head.) Except it allows us to see things in our minds. The pineal gland is the mind's eye. It has water inside of it and many retinas just like our eyes do. These retinas project a picture from our mind or memory into our dreams or into our "hallucinations." So where is the magic in dreaming? It is a natural occurring experience. No magic at all. If you say so. There is nothing remarkable anywhere if you think so. There is no "magic." Everything you see is "naturally occurring." Everything has a perfectly scientific and logical explanation. It is just that our known science is not quite there yet. They don't quite have a handle on the nature of reality yet. Maybe some day they will, if they can muster up the courage to get out of their box. JB |
|
|
|
|
