It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
VeteranHumanBeingThe whole point was before there was 'religion' you find god within as you are God as its expression, (human) or a lower form of beaver (all the same just at different levels). Whomevers great idea it was to structure a belief in God as a system was only into powermongering, (intimidation fear factor) or thinking of ways to make a buck. Finding God only comes within, a singular personal experience (as it was planned so to be, plan working for some) not so for those stuck in false belief systems, architypes.
WarminIndyCan you prove from the most ancient religious sources how man viewed himself in relation to the divine? Before Judaism and Christianity is what you meant referring to religion. You need to get past that idea, because religion is older than Judaism and Christianity. How did the sages in the Vedic Age view themselves and God? They believed in the Ultimate, One, and they called Him Brahma. The first primordial sound, according to the Vedics, was Ohm, which they tantrically repeat over and over until some type of trance ensues.
WarminIndyI have read the Rig Vedas, I know what they say. Even those who are Hindu will say that the original belief was Brahma but that the different tantric schools set about to understand the attributes and could not all learn about all so divided into different schools. Even today, ask who is God, they say Brahma.
In Turkic areas and especially Catal Hyuk, they believed in Tengri, the Sky Father. So in human to God relationship, still earlier than Judaism and Christianity, the concept that man was God was not present. You do find it later among the Egyptians. I think you fail to understand that religion did not start with Judaism, and neither organized religion.
WarminIndyCan you show me from any ancient source before the Rig Vedas, the Egyptian Book of the Dead or the Torah, where mankind believed they were God? If your criticism is with Judeo/Christianity, then please specifically name Judeo/Christianity. To say "religion" as though it were a recent concept is misleading.
WarminIndyNo, I asked if you can prove it from ancient sources.
The Kabbahla isn't ancient and isn't from Babylon, it's Jewish mysticism from the Middle Ages. No, Judaism wasn't influenced by Khemet of Egypt.
WarminIndyI want to know if you can provide any text, stele, tablet, parchment, monolith, anything that tells you how man was viewed in relationship with God or was god, pre-Judaism, Zoroastrianism, Egyptian, Greek, Roman, Vedic, anything, that you can show me without speculation.
[i[WarminIndyAnd where is Atlantis, pray tell? Have you found it?
Do you realize what you have just sounded like? A compendium of conspiracy theories. You might say you are Gnostic, and you may believe you are, but do you have Sophic knowledge?
WarminIndyGnosis means knowledge learned through illumination. Your gnosis comes from Atlantis, originally? Nothing in your statements are correct historically. You may choose to believe they are, divinely illuminated one. But exactly what divine being has illuminated you? Have you asked this divine being for credentials? Did you make sure the divine being wasn't out to con you?
WarminIndy The Essenes were very religious. The Khemet were very religious. The Tibetans are Buddhists, and very religious. The Dalai Lama is religious. Therefore all of them ascribe to a religion. Khemet, state sponsored religion of Egypt.
The Sirians? Do you mean Syrians? Or Sirians as in Sirius? If you mean Sirius, then they told you where Atlantis was? I thought you were a rational person, but this Gnosticism you claim, isn't Gnosticism in the sense of early Gnostics as they came out of Greek mythological thought, and then claimed connection in some loose way with Christianity, forged books and lied about books in their possession.
WarminIndyOK so you are the modern Edgar Cayce. I get it now.
WarminIndyDo you KNOW what you sound like?
I know what you sound like, but do you? Get into my head then you'll understand.
Here you go, just for you.
vethumanbeing
WarminIndy
reply to post by VeteranHumanBeing
WarminIndyDo you KNOW what you sound like?
I know what you sound like, but do you? Get into my head then you'll understand.
Here you go, just for you.
I know what I sound like, an empassioned Igor Stravinski's plea: 'Rite of Spring', "The Firebird" or anything notated by another bohemian composer: Prokoviev; or 'Jesus Christ Superstar' rock opera by Tim Rice and Andrew Webber starring Ted Neely as Christ fits my bill of stars for God in proclaiming its existance. What do I sound like exactly and what does your head have to do with anything? I am a popularist living now as an observer.edit on 17-3-2014 by vethumanbeing because: (no reason given)
WarminIndyDo you KNOW what you sound like?
I know what you sound like, but do you? Get into my head then you'll understand.
Here you go, just for you.
VHBI know what I sound like, an empassioned Igor Stravinski's plea: 'Rite of Spring', "The Firebird" or anything notated by another bohemian composer: Prokoviev; or 'Jesus Christ Superstar' rock opera by Tim Rice and Andrew Webber starring Ted Neely as Christ fits my bill of stars for God in proclaiming its existance. What do I sound like exactly and what does your head have to do with anything? I am a popularist living now as an observer.
WarminIndyYeah, I see the pop culture. I know Jesus Christ Superstar, I like that as well. I am related to the awesome Szbolcs Brickner. He's my mom's thirdish cousin from that Hunnic Empire formerly known as ZaZaland, home of the Gaborish clan. What you sound like in my head...it's translated via binary to html, through the optic and fires through my synapses and crosses the blood brain barrier like a Harrier, shooting random missiles at the W T H ? sector. That's what you sound like in my head.
WarminIndySo what's the buzz? Tell me what's happening?
WarminIndySo as you think therefore you are?
Or, you think, therefore you are a thinker because you can be nothing else except the waiter?
WarminIndyOr, artificially created intelligence doesn't think therefore is not and off world you are the diner? Or, this artificially created communication of binary 0 and 1 is the menu, garcon, check please! Do you think off world so therefore you are off world?
vethumanbeing
reply to post by Jesuslives4u
Jesuslives4uYou speak religion newage and witchcraft
And YOU are keeping to YOUR promise of 3-4 weeks ago: of NEVER EVER starting another thread again even if tomorrow brings a 'new day' of revelations (as if you were available to learn/listen).
edit on 15-3-2014 by vethumanbeing because: (no reason given)
WarminIndyClearly you associate much with movies, hence the movie references. But movies are nothing more than the imaginations of the writers, directors and actors, along with the technical grips, gaffs and various other sundry employees. While the movie industry is just that, an industry, it doesn't rely on the robotic nature of the assembly line.
WarminIndy As a movie writer (as I am) thinks, am I a movie? When you constantly refer rather pop-culturishly to movies, you are imbibing in the very arena of my gladiatorial struggle to write more than ten pages a day of dialogue. But from my perch, thank you for connecting to the work of my fellow-slaves.
WarminIndy However, as you dive into deeper meaning to find relevance from moving pictures, ala "You ain't seen nothin' yet" Al Jolson-esque, quite simplistically, but he wasn't the Trip To The Moon, as you aren't Melies. While the Melies thought moon shot, they weren't moon landing. I think it not unusual that you find meaning in 72 fps, but to apply it to your understanding of life, you seem to feel as though as the writer thinks, he is and as the director directs, he is. Part of the Collective Consciousness? Or could it simply be that you notice the iconography and universal themes?
WarminIndy I am also a movie reviewer of two published articles on film, how film describes the world and how it addresses the mores and taboos of society. I love to discuss film and its impact on society and that's my area of knowledge. But I have to remind you that movies are the imagination of the writer first. Does the writer tap into Collective Consciousness? Does the writer formulate Collective Consciousness? As I think, I write.
WarminIndy You have proven, at least, that film is spiritual, because the viewer, the audience (root word aud which means to listen or hear) has a spiritual experience. Couple that with the soundtrack and it intensifies the experience, much like magic mushrooms and the psychedelic mind trip. But leave that up to the director, he is directing you into Collective Consciousness, very Truman Capotish In Cold Blood, as Charles Bronson weeps to the rain, is Charles Bronson a murderer because the writer wrote a character from the consciousness of Capote? As Capote thought murder, was he a murderer?
WarminIndy But how are you a god because you watch movies? Is the writer god? Is the director also god? Is the actor and so forth, gods? They aren't there unless the Above The Line Overlord (otherwise known as Producer) barters the shells, invests shells and in turn has a large shell collection, all gathered from the fishermen (box office cashiers).
WarminIndy Thank you for at least recognizing that film is more than a cinematographic experience. However, am I a god because I write? No. Simply put, my colleagues have managed to make you believe you are turning the cards at the flower show presentation, Manchurian Candidate. This makes none of us god. I feel as though you think perhaps you are Spartacus, maybe the Man With No Name, Hang 'Em High or hang 'em low, with a Fistful Of Dollars and Going For Broke rather Fast And Furious into the deepest space, Dave, that does not compute. What is YOUR Plan 9 For Outer Space?
WarminIndy After all of that, High Plains Drifter is also one of my favorites. But there are 47 tales of the hero's journey/wise man in the cave that all film students learn from Aristotle. BTW, Syd Field passed away last year, such a great loss for up and coming screenwriters. The first book I read about screenwriting was Syd Field. He was the first to connect the three saga parts of introduction, action and resolution in the Close Encounters Of The Third Kind, another one of my favorites.
WarminIndy High Plains Drifter is a Film Noir Western. Archetypes though, anti-hero. The anti-hero of the story gets your sympathy because he has redeemed himself in some way. Rocky Balboa, anti-hero.
WarminIndyWhat's your genre? Have you fastened the 47 steps, listened to the old man in the cave? Who is the wise man? Always someone must be a mentor, Obiwan. The Jedi, light saber-wielding, why wield a saber when you could use your mind? The audience must hear the "whooobuzzzz" before they believe the force is with them. I hear a great sorrowing cry, earth is no more.
WarminIndy Everyone believes a force is with them or in them and raises the light saber to the opponent. Why do we raise it against the dark side, if the dark side is our father? We come from darkness to light, the light defeats the dark, was it because we used the force or did we simply believe the we had the force?
WarminIndy Thus it is with religion, to know there is a dark and light side. We must have order, as the Jedi is an order.
Persistence of vision is a commonly-accepted although somewhat controversial theory which states that the human eye always retains images for a fraction of a second (around 0.04 second). This means that everything we see is a subtle blend of what is happening now and what happened a fraction of a second ago.
In film and video, this phenomena is often claimed to account for our ability to perceive a sequence of frames as a continuous moving picture. However this idea was debunked in 1912 and there is no scientific evidence to suggest that persistence of vision works in this way. Rather, it is thought that the illusion of continuous motion is caused by unrelated phenomena such as beta movement (the brain assuming movement between two static images when shown in quick succession).
Despite this, persistence of vision continues to be incorrectly taught in schools as the physiological mechanism behind video's illusion of movement.
Ecclesiastes 1: 8 All things are full of labour; man cannot utter it: the eye is not satisfied with seeing, nor the ear filled with hearing. 9 The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.
WarminIndyHowever, we are in the 4th Dimension, as we are subject to time. We live in time, we move and breathe, in time. Time is master over us.
WarminIndy We even travel in time via our memories. We remember a memory and it evokes sensory perception. Can we go backwards or forward in time, or can only our memories transport us? We are subject to and slaves of time. This 3D world is subject to time. Maybe it's an illusion to you, but illusions change with time. The universe is subject to time.
WarminIndy Power? I have no power over time. 72 frames per second, still a measure of time. 120 pages of slug/scene heading/action/dialogue is subject to time.
WarminIndy Persistence of vision is a commonly-accepted although somewhat controversial theory which states that the human eye always retains images for a fraction of a second (around 0.04 second). This means that everything we see is a subtle blend of what is happening now and what happened a fraction of a second ago.
WarminIndy In film and video, this phenomena is often claimed to account for our ability to perceive a sequence of frames as a continuous moving picture. However this idea was debunked in 1912 and there is no scientific evidence to suggest that persistence of vision works in this way. Rather, it is thought that the illusion of continuous motion is caused by unrelated phenomena such as beta movement (the brain assuming movement between two static images when shown in quick succession)
Despite this, persistence of vision continues to be incorrectly taught in schools as the physiological mechanism behind video's illusion of movement.
WarminIndy and then you see, juxtaposed, just quickly enough to catch your attention when subtle images are interposed. Not even physiologically can you escape time in the beta movement. Did you catch God in those fleeting moments of time? Did you see God between the shots, in the frames? At what Time Code did you connect to God in this world of moving pictures?
WarminIndyYou sat in the cave and looked out on the world as it passed you by, but did you catch the image of God?
WarminIndy Ecclesiastes 1: 8 All things are full of labour; man cannot utter it: the eye is not satisfied with seeing, nor the ear filled with hearing. 9 The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.
WarminIndy But have you become the master of time? It's not for you or me as humans to be master over time. Neither our spirits or souls can defeat time. If we become part of the universe, we will still be subject to time.
warminIndy All this sounds wonderful and nice, but is it true?
That's the sum total of the argument, is what you are saying true? Why should I accept that you are a Creator Being?
WarminIndy Was that a rebuke on your part to put me in my place, because you are a Creator Being? So if you cause an emotional reaction to rise in me, then you have accomplished something great? Did you notice how I raised it in you first? Now watch this Click..