Does anyone else get the sense that something downright miraculous might be up ahead?

This reminds me of the amazing left behind book series.

originally posted by: Venkuish1

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Venkuish1

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Venkuish1

originally posted by: FlyInTheOintment
a reply to: Venkuish1

There is no evidence of life after death

There is no evidence of a supernatural being who is creator of the universe.

There is no evidence as to how the universe came into existence, or of any situation before there was a universe. Yet it most definitively is here, now. An absence of evidence has no evidentiary 'weight'.

The incredible level if integrated complexity of the universe seems to require conscious action to be so.

For instance the universe is full of variety, and yet we know that iterative systems over time tend towards one of least energy state (entropy). Why are there so many different atoms? Why is most of life and life allowing systems seemingly irreducibly complex? Why hasn't the universe collapsed to the one single least energy thing? Why has it gone the opposite way from the get-go?

And there are subjective evidences of the supernatural. Just as there are such intuited evidences for the multiple physical dimensions beyond those few we normally acknowledge. Just because it doesn't present as a slam-dunk case, does not mean that we should disregard them in preference for nothing at all.

No much evidence exists that Jesus was a real person and certainly no evidence he was the son of the God of the Old Testament who is the creator of the universe. No evidence he died and then got resurrected.

There is much contemporary documentary evidence that the historical person of Jesus existed. Even contemporary detractors and non-believers talked about Him as a real historical person.

The historically sudden rise and spread of Christianity is inexplicable without an initiating figure with some degree of credibility.

Many of the earliest writings by those who were identified as historically contingent, claimed to be eyewitness testimony.

Many of them were martyred for their faith and none of them renounced their beliefs. Nor are there historical accounts of anyone claiming direct witness having recanted under pain of death, which 'punishment' was occurring at the time, and well documented.

I didn't state any beliefs as you falsely claimed. I stated that simply there is no evidence for the religious claims made and no evidence for the things I discussed above. You are confusing me with people who are religious.

You don't know how many people believe in a God but I will agree it's minority that doesn't believe in God. But majorities don't get to decide what is true and what is false just like they don't get to decide how a chemistry or physics book should be written and their contents.

Personal experiences could exists for a lost of things we discuss but they don't count as evidence.

An absence of evidence does not count as evidence, but personal experience does count as evidence.

That is why even in court cases with strong objective evidence, they still call witnesses to support their case, despite how unreliable human witness may be.

You have written an entire article in which you try hard to excuse the beliefs of religious people but you spectaculary fail again and again.

Come on now, do you consider religious apology to be a good tactic in a debate or arguments from ignorance where the gaps in knowledge are always a mystery explained by God until the gaps are filled by science and then you move to the next 'unexplained mystery'.

You remind me of another poster who hasn't understood yet basic science and has tried many times to assert the existence of God to describe the universe and its creation. You ask why there are so many atoms and different elements? Should this be clear by now?

Argument from ignorance.
You assert we don't know how the universe has come to exist and therefore something supernatural must have created it. You need much more than this.

As to how the universe was created this has been solved long time ago.

Still there is no evidence of demons/angels. No evidence of life after death, no evidence for the existence of an intelligent creator, nothing much to justify the beliefs for the supernatural world. Personal experiences and feelings are different to evidence as you and I know.

I do agree that my post is entirely apologetic in nature.

But I see a massive cognitive dissonance between someone arguing that there is no objective evidence on one side, when the counter-argument is both unevidenced subjectively, and unevidenced objectively.

Science hasn't been able to fill in most of the gaps in its own hypotheses, let alone those of religion or philosophy.

With each answer science uncovers, it has given us many more questions to ask, and just when we thought that science had explained nearly everything in the 1800's, along came new paradigms, and math that told us there were infinite infinites, and we would never know all the answers, revealing we had been 'chasing epicycles' once more.

Not true as science hasn't claimed there is no God or a flying spaghetti monsters and giant space invisible unicorns. The burden of proof is on the claimant I am afraid and based on what we know there is not a shred of evidence for the existence of God and everything else associated with the supernatural world.

I am not quite sure what are you talking about when you say we thought science has explained everything. This is a misleading and flawed argument at the very least. Likewise you don't make any sense when you claim science hasn't been able to fill in most of the gaps in its own hypotheses. What does this suppose to mean??

Can you tell me which physical and biochemical processes have a supernatural cause? One will be enough.

We were debating about the origins of the universe.

EVERY scientific hypothesis of the origin is based upon nature or natural forces, which did not exist before they all did, because you cant really extricate them from each other.

So, I cite that the entire universe came into being in circumstances that were outside of nature. It must have had a supernatural origin.

I have asked another poster the same question and they have been unable to find a single one.

Well, that clinches it, then.

I don't think you understand what the scientific process is.

I am fairly sure that scientific process cannot be followed for things that existed before there were scientistic observers. Also, observation is subjective and everything after that is second-hand.

a reply to: Venkuish1

What exactly would you accept as proof, what would it take?

a reply to: FlyInTheOintment

My senses do speak in the same language as yours do.

Too many victims/witnesses of international pedo rings speak of the elite worshipping Satan (Lucifer). Child abuse, rape, torture and ritual sacrifice. Are they all conspiring and lying, or mentally ill? Don't think so.

We live and we have always been living in biblical times. The warfare is highly spiritual.

God is real. He will intervene.

Satan (+ his demons and offspring 'the nephilim') will be 'caged' for a thousand years.

Let's try to remain patient.. Patience is so important. It is my daily main challenge.

Feel free to pray after you've read this..

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Venkuish1

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Venkuish1

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Venkuish1

originally posted by: FlyInTheOintment
a reply to: Venkuish1

There is no evidence of life after death

There is no evidence of a supernatural being who is creator of the universe.

There is no evidence as to how the universe came into existence, or of any situation before there was a universe. Yet it most definitively is here, now. An absence of evidence has no evidentiary 'weight'.

The incredible level if integrated complexity of the universe seems to require conscious action to be so.

For instance the universe is full of variety, and yet we know that iterative systems over time tend towards one of least energy state (entropy). Why are there so many different atoms? Why is most of life and life allowing systems seemingly irreducibly complex? Why hasn't the universe collapsed to the one single least energy thing? Why has it gone the opposite way from the get-go?

And there are subjective evidences of the supernatural. Just as there are such intuited evidences for the multiple physical dimensions beyond those few we normally acknowledge. Just because it doesn't present as a slam-dunk case, does not mean that we should disregard them in preference for nothing at all.

No much evidence exists that Jesus was a real person and certainly no evidence he was the son of the God of the Old Testament who is the creator of the universe. No evidence he died and then got resurrected.

There is much contemporary documentary evidence that the historical person of Jesus existed. Even contemporary detractors and non-believers talked about Him as a real historical person.

The historically sudden rise and spread of Christianity is inexplicable without an initiating figure with some degree of credibility.

Many of the earliest writings by those who were identified as historically contingent, claimed to be eyewitness testimony.

Many of them were martyred for their faith and none of them renounced their beliefs. Nor are there historical accounts of anyone claiming direct witness having recanted under pain of death, which 'punishment' was occurring at the time, and well documented.

I didn't state any beliefs as you falsely claimed. I stated that simply there is no evidence for the religious claims made and no evidence for the things I discussed above. You are confusing me with people who are religious.

You don't know how many people believe in a God but I will agree it's minority that doesn't believe in God. But majorities don't get to decide what is true and what is false just like they don't get to decide how a chemistry or physics book should be written and their contents.

Personal experiences could exists for a lost of things we discuss but they don't count as evidence.

An absence of evidence does not count as evidence, but personal experience does count as evidence.

That is why even in court cases with strong objective evidence, they still call witnesses to support their case, despite how unreliable human witness may be.

You have written an entire article in which you try hard to excuse the beliefs of religious people but you spectaculary fail again and again.

Come on now, do you consider religious apology to be a good tactic in a debate or arguments from ignorance where the gaps in knowledge are always a mystery explained by God until the gaps are filled by science and then you move to the next 'unexplained mystery'.

You remind me of another poster who hasn't understood yet basic science and has tried many times to assert the existence of God to describe the universe and its creation. You ask why there are so many atoms and different elements? Should this be clear by now?

Argument from ignorance.
You assert we don't know how the universe has come to exist and therefore something supernatural must have created it. You need much more than this.

As to how the universe was created this has been solved long time ago.

Still there is no evidence of demons/angels. No evidence of life after death, no evidence for the existence of an intelligent creator, nothing much to justify the beliefs for the supernatural world. Personal experiences and feelings are different to evidence as you and I know.

I do agree that my post is entirely apologetic in nature.

But I see a massive cognitive dissonance between someone arguing that there is no objective evidence on one side, when the counter-argument is both unevidenced subjectively, and unevidenced objectively.

Science hasn't been able to fill in most of the gaps in its own hypotheses, let alone those of religion or philosophy.

With each answer science uncovers, it has given us many more questions to ask, and just when we thought that science had explained nearly everything in the 1800's, along came new paradigms, and math that told us there were infinite infinites, and we would never know all the answers, revealing we had been 'chasing epicycles' once more.

Not true as science hasn't claimed there is no God or a flying spaghetti monsters and giant space invisible unicorns. The burden of proof is on the claimant I am afraid and based on what we know there is not a shred of evidence for the existence of God and everything else associated with the supernatural world.

I am not quite sure what are you talking about when you say we thought science has explained everything. This is a misleading and flawed argument at the very least. Likewise you don't make any sense when you claim science hasn't been able to fill in most of the gaps in its own hypotheses. What does this suppose to mean??

Can you tell me which physical and biochemical processes have a supernatural cause? One will be enough.

We were debating about the origins of the universe.

EVERY scientific hypothesis of the origin is based upon nature or natural forces, which did not exist before they all did, because you cant really extricate them from each other.

So, I cite that the entire universe came into being in circumstances that were outside of nature. It must have had a supernatural origin.

I have asked another poster the same question and they have been unable to find a single one.

Well, that clinches it, then.

I don't think you understand what the scientific process is.

I am fairly sure that scientific process cannot be followed for things that existed before there were scientistic observers. Also, observation is subjective and everything after that is second-hand.

What you're saying isn't true. It shows you don't really understand physical processes. I have asked the same question but still haven't got an answer other than dancing around beliefs and religion. Tell me of a physical or biochemical process that has supernatural causes.

There isn't any as far as we know. What makes you think the creation of the universes is subject to supernatural forces?

You are asserting beliefs and making arguments from ignorance like I said earlier.

originally posted by: Topcraft
a reply to: Venkuish1

What exactly would you accept as proof, what would it take?

Your question should be directed to the religionists and especially to the creationists who don't really get the concept at all.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Venkuish1

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Venkuish1

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Venkuish1

originally posted by: FlyInTheOintment
a reply to: Venkuish1

Long post so I will answer the main points.

How can you refuted anything when I have only stated facts and haven't asserted beliefs or made some wild claims.

And you can't refute other people's claims just by rely on your feelings and your beliefs.

The following are factual.

There is no evidence of the existence of angels and demons.

People frequently present as, and claim, demon possession. It could be mental illness adopting a fiction of an archetype, but it is 'stronger' evidence than a total absence of evidence.

As well, many in desperate physical peril say they have been saved by supernatural forces, and that they have identified as angels. The very survival of those particular people is often inexplicable by other means. Of course this could be fiction, too.

There is no evidence of life after death

Quite frequently people have been resuscitated after brain-death and bodily-death. So, something that is a person seems to have survived after death. This has been objectively documented in many cases.

Interestingly, many (not all) of those who survive such experiences, describe similar narratives at times when consciousness should have ceased. Some have described what they call heaven, and of direct communication with whom they believe to be religious identities.

I think that there can be other reasons for these accounts, but nothing is definitive, so, seeking for the strongest evidence we have, we have to take these things on face-value and cannot reasonably disregard them.

There is no evidence of a supernatural being who is creator of the universe.

There is no evidence as to how the universe came into existence, or of any situation before there was a universe. Yet it most definitively is here, now. An absence of evidence has no evidentiary 'weight'.

The incredible level if integrated complexity of the universe seems to require conscious action to be so.

For instance the universe is full of variety, and yet we know that iterative systems over time tend towards one of least energy state (entropy). Why are there so many different atoms? Why is most of life and life allowing systems seemingly irreducibly complex? Why hasn't the universe collapsed to the one single least energy thing? Why has it gone the opposite way from the get-go?

And there are subjective evidences of the supernatural. Just as there are such intuited evidences for the multiple physical dimensions beyond those few we normally acknowledge. Just because it doesn't present as a slam-dunk case, does not mean that we should disregard them in preference for nothing at all.

No much evidence exists that Jesus was a real person and certainly no evidence he was the son of the God of the Old Testament who is the creator of the universe. No evidence he died and then got resurrected.

There is much contemporary documentary evidence that the historical person of Jesus existed. Even contemporary detractors and non-believers talked about Him as a real historical person.

The historically sudden rise and spread of Christianity is inexplicable without an initiating figure with some degree of credibility.

Many of the earliest writings by those who were identified as historically contingent, claimed to be eyewitness testimony.

Many of them were martyred for their faith and none of them renounced their beliefs. Nor are there historical accounts of anyone claiming direct witness having recanted under pain of death, which 'punishment' was occurring at the time, and well documented.

I didn't state any beliefs as you falsely claimed. I stated that simply there is no evidence for the religious claims made and no evidence for the things I discussed above. You are confusing me with people who are religious.

You don't know how many people believe in a God but I will agree it's minority that doesn't believe in God. But majorities don't get to decide what is true and what is false just like they don't get to decide how a chemistry or physics book should be written and their contents.

Personal experiences could exists for a lost of things we discuss but they don't count as evidence.

An absence of evidence does not count as evidence, but personal experience does count as evidence.

That is why even in court cases with strong objective evidence, they still call witnesses to support their case, despite how unreliable human witness may be.

You have written an entire article in which you try hard to excuse the beliefs of religious people but you spectaculary fail again and again.

Come on now, do you consider religious apology to be a good tactic in a debate or arguments from ignorance where the gaps in knowledge are always a mystery explained by God until the gaps are filled by science and then you move to the next 'unexplained mystery'.

You remind me of another poster who hasn't understood yet basic science and has tried many times to assert the existence of God to describe the universe and its creation. You ask why there are so many atoms and different elements? Should this be clear by now?

Argument from ignorance.
You assert we don't know how the universe has come to exist and therefore something supernatural must have created it. You need much more than this.

As to how the universe was created this has been solved long time ago.

Still there is no evidence of demons/angels. No evidence of life after death, no evidence for the existence of an intelligent creator, nothing much to justify the beliefs for the supernatural world. Personal experiences and feelings are different to evidence as you and I know.

You cannot prove a negative.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

I win.

Proving a negative is a logical fallacy employed by religionists. They often claim it cannot be priced that God doesn't exists...

So... No! Not really! The burden of proof is on the claimant and so far no evidence of the supernatural has been proved including the existence of God, demons and angels, life after death.

There is evidence. Admittedly subjective, but voluminous. You just want to deny it based upon nothing.

Have you noticed that people have really rather complicated moral and ethical rules? Like for instance if someone hurts you by accident, you don't feel wronged, but if they do it on purpose you are deeply offended? Why would you have an innate sense of right and wrong? Do you think it is an evolutionary survival trait? How would it arise? Can you explain the process of gaining such an abstracted ethical conscience?

Even in your own soul you find evidence.

There is none and everyone knows it apart from the people who choose to believe assuming their belief system and feelings is 'evidence' for these beliefs.

No evidence exists for the existence of the supernatural world, God, demons or angels, life after death.

a reply to: Venkuish1

Patience could be the very evidence...

A virtue that will always be rewarded.

Explain the root cause of natural processes.

a reply to: Venkuish1

originally posted by: Venkuish1

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Venkuish1

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Venkuish1

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Venkuish1

originally posted by: FlyInTheOintment
a reply to: Venkuish1

There is no evidence of life after death

There is no evidence of a supernatural being who is creator of the universe.

An absence of evidence does not count as evidence, but personal experience does count as evidence.

That is why even in court cases with strong objective evidence, they still call witnesses to support their case, despite how unreliable human witness may be.

You have written an entire article in which you try hard to excuse the beliefs of religious people but you spectaculary fail again and again.

Come on now, do you consider religious apology to be a good tactic in a debate or arguments from ignorance where the gaps in knowledge are always a mystery explained by God until the gaps are filled by science and then you move to the next 'unexplained mystery'.

You remind me of another poster who hasn't understood yet basic science and has tried many times to assert the existence of God to describe the universe and its creation. You ask why there are so many atoms and different elements? Should this be clear by now?

Argument from ignorance.
You assert we don't know how the universe has come to exist and therefore something supernatural must have created it. You need much more than this.

As to how the universe was created this has been solved long time ago.

Still there is no evidence of demons/angels. No evidence of life after death, no evidence for the existence of an intelligent creator, nothing much to justify the beliefs for the supernatural world. Personal experiences and feelings are different to evidence as you and I know.

I do agree that my post is entirely apologetic in nature.

But I see a massive cognitive dissonance between someone arguing that there is no objective evidence on one side, when the counter-argument is both unevidenced subjectively, and unevidenced objectively.

Science hasn't been able to fill in most of the gaps in its own hypotheses, let alone those of religion or philosophy.

With each answer science uncovers, it has given us many more questions to ask, and just when we thought that science had explained nearly everything in the 1800's, along came new paradigms, and math that told us there were infinite infinites, and we would never know all the answers, revealing we had been 'chasing epicycles' once more.

Not true as science hasn't claimed there is no God or a flying spaghetti monsters and giant space invisible unicorns. The burden of proof is on the claimant I am afraid and based on what we know there is not a shred of evidence for the existence of God and everything else associated with the supernatural world.

I am not quite sure what are you talking about when you say we thought science has explained everything. This is a misleading and flawed argument at the very least. Likewise you don't make any sense when you claim science hasn't been able to fill in most of the gaps in its own hypotheses. What does this suppose to mean??

Can you tell me which physical and biochemical processes have a supernatural cause? One will be enough.

What you're saying isn't true. It shows you don't really understand physical processes. I have asked the same question but still haven't got an answer other than dancing around beliefs and religion. Tell me of a physical or biochemical process that has supernatural causes.

Scientific method

If you take out the observational part, how does it work as 'scientific method'? Surely, if you don't verify things with observation, you are just doing something akin to generating fiction?

There isn't any as far as we know. What makes you think the creation of the universes is subject to supernatural forces?

If there is nothing in nature that can explain or or describe something, then the explanation is outside of the realm of nature.

You are asserting beliefs and making arguments from ignorance like I said earlier.

So you can explain how to get elementary particles from an absence of even energy and forces?

Or otherwise, you are asserting beliefs and making arguments based upon your own particular ignorance.

Consider that if there is an absolute absence to all, of evidence of a situation, then there is no way you could legitimately claim knowledge of that situation. From that absence of evidence you could neither prove, nor disprove anything about the situation.

You are claiming that there is absolutely no evidence, but I am not.

You cannot prove or even legitimately argue a case based upon an absence of evidence.

However I can, based upon what I hold as circumstantial and subjective evidence. You can deny the validity of these evidences, and you can deny that they are evidences that exist, but in intellectual honesty, that would merely be opinion, the truth of which you could not know if you are indeed ignorant of any evidences.

originally posted by: chr0naut
Yes but I have a hypothesis that is probably more explicable and reasonable, and that I have not encountered elsewhere.

Well, I had a joke.

2nd.

Miraculous in the sense that there will be a global nuclear war that wipes out all of humanity… i am hopeful.

originally posted by: Venkuish1
originally posted by: FlyInTheOintment
The end of days will not happen.
Angels don't exist.
Demons don't exist.
No evidence for the existence of any type of God either.

No second coming of Jesus (doubt he existed at all) and no apocalypse...

But what if… just hear me out… catastrophic nuclear war happened. Angels (astronauts) came back to the world and the demons(those affected by the radiation damage) had a war of sorts to regain control of their living area. Jesus would obviously be the one in control of the most advanced tech at the time. Cryogenisis or something in his “cave” then is rebirthed(healed).

originally posted by: Phatal
But what if… just hear me out…

What is this incessant need to always make it about angels, demons and Jesus?

What if… just hear me out…aliens terraformed earth and after seeding with different plants and animals figured out humans tasted the best, so they allowed humanity to thrive all over the planet so they could have a steady supply of the best BBQ?

a reply to: daskakik

Right... We didn't just come up with farm animals and cattle and became sedentary over night....

Archeological findings suggest that the switch from Hunter n gatherer to sedentary society happend in the blink of an eye, globally around the same time. Which is peculiar to say the least...

Yes, but for slightly different reasons than what you believe. Cause I generally don't believe in conspiracy theories unless they are about the one referred to in the Bible as "the ruler of the world" (John 14:30) and "god of this system of things" (2 Cor 4:4), and the one presenting the information uses the Bible as his main source of information in that presentation (i.e. quotes the Bible a lot on the matter).

Which yes, is all leading to the miraculous event described at Rev. 21:3-5, as sung about by Bob Marley and Michael Jackson (I've been elaborating on that a lot lately in 2 different threads in the "Mainstream News" subforum, one is my own thread entitled: Mother of Michigan Gunman Found Guilty of Manslaughter.)

A news story that I used to introduce the topic. So I would agree with:

originally posted by: FlyInTheOintment
... corruption & disinformation, ...

In general (and as promoted by this ruler and god). But not much of the detailed conspiracy theories you bring up in the OP (haven't gotten through the whole thing yet because of that, you lost me at "plandemic", not that I didn't keep reading a bit more, but I knew what was coming after that). Pandemics were actually part of the prophecy in the Bible concerning the period known as "the last days" (before the miraculous event described at Rev. 21:3-5). Those who try to convince people that it was planned may actually have the motive of giving people the impression that the prophecies in the Bible concerning these events are actually planned by humans, so they are more inclined to not take the Bible seriously, thinking that these people are just making it appear that the prophecies in the Bible are coming true by steering the world in that direction. But they're not in control in that regards. They are also just along for the ride. Helpless to prevent what's coming (which will not be a positive thing for the so-called "elite").

War—Why? (Awake!—1986)

...

The Role of Propaganda

Sometimes neighbors quarrel. But seldom does it lead to bloodshed. In the first place, the law of the land prohibits assault and murder against fellow citizens. But in time of war, that prohibition does not apply to citizens of an opposing country, even though people in general really do not know their “enemies.” All that they know about the enemy is what they have been led to believe by the spoon-feeding of their politically controlled media.

This is a fact of life in every nation. As Irenäus Eibl-Eibesfeldt wrote: “Public opinion is formed by interest groups (politicians, arms manufacturers, the military) that deceive the electorate by giving them false or one-sided information.” In a similar vein, historian H. E. Barnes wrote: “Since the wars of the French Revolution . . . copious and compelling propaganda [has] been continued and greatly increased to protect warfare against popular dissent, opposition, and factual analysis of issues.”

As a consequence, “practically anybody can be persuaded and manipulated in such a way that he will more or less voluntarily enter a situation wherein he must kill and perhaps die.” (War, by Gwynne Dyer) Thus, by reason of their political and economic power, the “elite” can control the media in order to prepare the masses for the bloodbath.

Adolf Hitler and Joseph Goebbels, leaders of the ruling Nazi elite, were well aware of the importance of mind control and deception of the masses. On August 24, 1939, Hitler explained to a group of high officers his plans for the invasion of Poland: “I shall give a propagandist cause for starting the war. Never mind whether it is plausible or not. . . . In starting and waging a war, it is not Right that matters but Victory.”

Thus it is clear that a motivation has to be generated to make a nation rise up against another. But what are the key elements in generating war fever?

Who Make the Decisions?

Austrian economist Schumpeter wrote: “The orientation toward war is mainly fostered by the domestic interests of ruling classes but also by the influence of all those who stand to gain individually from a war policy, whether economically or socially.” These ruling classes have been defined as “elites [that] are at all times involved in trying to manipulate other elements of the population, or the public mood itself, so as to perpetuate themselves in power.”​—Why War? by Professors Nelson and Olin.

Every nation has its ruling class, even though that group may be divided into different political factions. However, many observe that the power of the military elite in every nation should not be underestimated. Former U.S. Ambassador John K. Galbraith describes the military establishment as “by far the most powerful of the autonomous processes of government.” He continues: “The power of the military embraces not only the significant sources of power but . . . all the instruments of its enforcement. . . . More than any other exercise of power in our time it is the subject of grave public unease.”

Galbraith illustrates his point by reference to the United States military institution, which has property resources that “far exceed any similar source of power; they embrace not only what is available to the armed services and the civilian military establishment but what flows out to the weapons industries.” A like situation no doubt exists in the Soviet Union and many other countries. ...

...

Nationalism​—The “Sacred Egoism” That Divides

Sometimes the people are not in favor of a war. On what basis, then, can the rulers most easily persuade the population to support their aims? This was the problem that faced the United States in Vietnam. So, what did the ruling elite do? Galbraith answers: “The Vietnam War produced in the United States one of the most comprehensive efforts in social conditioning [adjusting of public opinion] in modern times. Nothing was spared in the attempt to make the war seem necessary and acceptable to the American public.” And that points to the handiest tool for softening up a nation for war. What is it?

Professor Galbraith again supplies the answer: “Schools in all countries inculcate the principles of patriotism. . . . The conditioning that requires all to rally around the flag is of particular importance in winning subordination to military and foreign policy.” This systematic conditioning prevails in communist countries as it does in Western nations.

Charles Yost, a veteran of the U.S. Foreign Service and State Department, expressed it thus: “The primary cause of the insecurity of nations persists, the very attribute on which nations pride themselves most​—their sovereign independence, their ‘sacred egoism,’ their insubordination to any interest broader or higher than their own.” This “sacred egoism” is summed up in divisive nationalism, in the pernicious teaching that any one nation is superior to all others.

Historian Arnold Toynbee wrote: “The spirit of nationality is a sour ferment of the new wine of democracy in the old bottles of tribalism.” In Power and Immortality, Dr. Lopez-Reyes wrote: “Sovereignty is a major cause of contemporary war; . . . unless altered, the system of sovereign nation-states will trigger World War III.” The emphasis on nationalism and sovereignty denies the basic concept that we all belong to the same human family, regardless of linguistic or cultural differences. And that denial leads to wars.

Yes, the experts can come up with all kinds of explanations of why man systematically sets out to destroy those of his own kind. Yet there is one primary factor that most commentators ignore.

The Hidden Cause of War

...

And then we get to the topic of the real ruler of this world (and "god of this system of things"), "who is misleading the entire inhabited earth" (Rev. 12:9):The one who loves spreading conspiracy theories that distract from what he's up to, which will still end badly for him and everyone he drags down with him.Context (playlist)

a reply to: Terpene
Ever read any of Robert Monroe's books?

His second book is called Far Journeys, in the chapter called "Hearsay Evidence" he describes something along the lines of what I posted.

Cliffs notes:

Some civilization, somewhere values a substance called Loosh.
Someone decided to build a Garden and grow Loosh.
Loosh was found to originate from a series of vibrational actions in the carbon-oxygen cycle.
Someone started with small short-lived creatures. The production was poor.
Then he created plants that lived on land. They did about the same.
Then he created huge animals that fed on the plants. Worked but they lived too long and production wasn’t steady.
The large animals were decimating the plants and then Someone noticed that when they fought over food it caused them to emanate more loosh in sizable, usable quantities and of a much higher purity.
He quickly put the theory to the test and made predators.
Conflict among carbon-oxygen cycle units brings forth consistent emanations of Loosh. It was as simple as that.
Someone terminated the life spans of all the lumbering Third Crop Mobiles all at once. Going back to the First Crop in the liquid area, he modified and expanded them into plants, herbivore and predators.
Turning to the land Someone applied the same techniques with the resultant increase in Loosh emanation.

As a side experiment, Someone designed and created one form of Mobile that was weak and ineffective (humans), by the standards of the other Mobiles in the Fourth Crop. Yet humans had two distinct advantages. They had the ability to ingest and take energy from both the plants and animals. Second, Someone put a Piece of Himself in them, no other source of such Substance being known or available to act as an intensive, ultimate trigger to mobility. Someone knew that they would seek to satisfy the attraction this tiny mote of Himself engendered as it sought reunion with the infinite Whole. More important, the needs and compulsions created by the piece of Someone could not be satiated throughout the Garden.

As always, take with as much salt as needed.

Here's Bob Marley making some of the same points (as can be found in my previous comment and the accompanying videos):




There are so many more songs like that, more can be found in my thread that I mentioned before.

originally posted by: Venkuish1

originally posted by: chr0naut

We were debating about the origins of the universe.

Don't bother, there's no reasoning with someone who has already so clearly demonstrated in one of the threads on the Origins and Creationism subforum that he/she has no intention whatsoever to be either honest or reasonable about these subjects (along with many others there demonstrating the same).

I asked some very simple straightforward questions, with an exceedingly obvious correct answer, but the only answer I got (from someone else) was intentionally the wrong answer (no doubt about it that the person knew better) followed by the lamest argument I've heard in a long time to defend that wrong answer. The problem was, that answering any of those questions that I raised with the correct answer, did not require extensive knowledge or intelligence, but a willingness to be honest and reasonable about it. And then they would have to admit, at least to themselves, that they have been deceived about it by means of evolutionary propaganda and blatant lies. Cause it was blatant that the drawing I was asking questions about, was used to intentionally give people the wrong impression concerning the topic of "hollow bones", and that the website using that drawing for that purpose, was doing that on purpose, knowing better.

It was all so obvious, that the only conclusion one can draw of that is that there is no reasoning with...

a reply to: FlyInTheOintment

Absolutely spot on FlyinTheOintment we appear to be living in the same frequency along with billions of others who are slowly approaching the singularity.

The ‘event’ will occur and it is cyclical over billions of years.

The Book of Revelations is just one source for knowledge of this event, there are many sources that predate the Bible. I studied Pythagorean Hylozoics, which was, for millennia an established scientific understanding of the nature of our physical and spiritual existence and many of the philosophers (Plato, Socrates, Archimedes et al) .. Belief systems was rooted in pythagorean wisdom.

For non scientific atheists, it is time to learn the truth about our reality. Science will never get close to the answers until it understands consciousness.

It’s a huge subject, but to put it simply we live in thee dimensions simultaneously .. Here in the ‘physical world’ .. the ‘emotional world’ (where we go after we die) and the ‘mental world’ where we reside before we return for a new life.

When we are emotionally affected, either positively or negatively, we play out our emotions in another frequency of consciousness. The darker our thoughts and actions, the more we attract demons, looking for an opportunity to generate even more bad energy. When we are in deep thought we are present in yet another frequency.

We can’t objectively see these worlds yet, but when our physical avatar dies, we become aware of the afterlife. The emotional world .. Maya .. The world of illusions,

Demons are a species of being, that lives in the lower regions of the emotional world, and they feed off our negative energies. Angels are far more evolved beings of the same kind, with a level of intelligence millions of years ahead of humanity.

Angels are with us all of our lives, and they protect us from the unseen dangers of these parasitic creatures. They search out and find people with low frequencies and attempt to influence or occupy a physical body. Nobody would survive beyond 10yrs of age, if our angels hadn’t intervened with their special talent for micro-shifting of time .. If you don’t experience synchronicities it helps enormously to be present and aware.

Demon possession was always a common occurrence, but now, it is at epidemic levels .. So how can demons possess us if the angels protect us?

'Drugs' (some much worse than others) and 'alcohol' are gateways to the dark side, because it allows our frequency to drop to the point, where possession can take place. Once possession has occurred, the victim's personality changes and they fall further away from the grace of God. Some people may never escape without help. It is only recently that I have been able to label my metaphysical understanding, now I realise that what I believes is Panpsychism.

It has taken me a long time to understand the importance of the Bible .. It dovetails perfectly with the understanding of a universal consciousness and the eternal life that Jesus spoke of.

I don’t want to make enemies of my fellow Christians, but Jesus came here to tell us about the realities of the physical and spiritual world .. how to cope morally with issues that we will experience, and how we will all be approached by satan at some point in our lives. Jesus showed us how to behave and respond .. What you probably won’t agree with is reincarnation, which I absolutely believe is real.

If a good person! .. anywhere on in the world, never exposed to a religion, but leads a good honest life, not exploiting or abusing others and living with compassion and self reflection … Then they are walking the path of Jesus and they will have eternal life.

Now the thing is .. everyone has an eternal life but, the accumulation of many incarnations will dictate HOW you spend eternity.

During our lifetimes including that of our ancestors .. there has never been such acute polarisation of the people of the world .. I have never witness anything like it.

People have made their choices and it’s almost too late to change, because an event will soon be upon us.

My theory of what may happen, based on my pythagorus understanding is .. the frequency we are currently locked in, is like the tuner on a radio, without a functioning tuner knob. .. I think an event will change the frequency of the Schumann resonance, which will alter the frequency our consciousness operates at.

Those who made a conscious choice to follow the righteous path, will consciously vibrate at the frequency they need to integrate with the emotional world of Maya .. at which point the spirit world will become objectively real.

When that happens we will see Jesus and all of our loved ones (who we never lost!) and the host of angels appear before us, as if appearing in the clouds. They have been here all along of course, but THEN, we will be able to commune with them.

I get a strong feeling, that the event that will change the frequency at which our consciousness operates at, and the cause that could create that affect, could be the geomagnetic shift which we are now overdue historically.

Is this the event that so many ancient calendars point to? .. Kali Yuga and the end of the Mayan long count and the procession of the equinox, bringing us into the age of Aquarius

The magnetic pole is currently around 40 deg of its original position and could literally switch at any moment.

Seismic activity .. strong solar winds or even a nuclear war could be the event that tips the balance.

I think to some degree, the transformation has already started and I am witnessing supernatural experiences every day. I don’t find it scary at all. What I am experiencing is awesome and very comforting.

God loves us all including the sinners.

I have got a way to go yet!