| This is a religious forum or one used for philosophy - not a forum for your science facts. They have another forum for science people.
In the field of religion and/or philosophy (we) get our facts from "out of the blue". AKA - revelations, insights, visions, and mental states altered by our higher consciousness. What did you expect? This is not a forum about agreed upon historical data that some dig produced. It IS a forum about religious belief systems and the facts downloaded from that system of empowerment. I am not saying you do not have a valid claim to your viewpoint, but you just are in the wrong forum to expect conformity for your pre-established opinions.
Imagination and concentration, mixed with logical philosophy, can and does generate the next so-called reality that you will be subjected to adopting. But do not put the horse before the wagon, proof follows the horse power of the imagination.
Proof is just the wagon in tow, not the cutting edge momentum.
Example: Albert E got his theory of relativity from "out of the blue" and he said so. His mind had the odd ability to download new ideas from that anonymous place of higher knowing. And then he did the math and demonstrated a logical philosophy for his theorys (which he did not learn about from reading books). That is real religion in full operation.
But he was a little wacko and forgot to tie his shoelaces, but so what, what is wrong with being wacko if it generates better facts and knowledge for the rest of you to study?
Remote viewing is simply seeing something at a distance but seeing it here and now via normal brain potentials. Now I know about the failed attempt of the CIA to use remote viewing to spy on an enemy, and they concentrated their experiment only on finding out what was happening in the present in other nations - and they were not interested in the past. Then some jerk wanted to make money by selling this machine and a program that reportivily would teach people how to remote view by developing their mental ESP potential. A bunch of crock if you ask me, and I do not advocate those ideas nor did I use that term to indicate any connection to those people.
If you are not interested in chatting about real spiritual, religious, or philosophy concepts, then why do you bother to come into such a forum that is set up for that purpose? Just go talk science facts at the science forum. You cannot just Butterface religion because you do not like our factural resources or how we know what we know.
You might be correct to fight a war upon the spiritual belief systems but this is the wrong time and place for that war. We still have that freedom and scientific fundamentalism is not yet the superpower of some master race.
That is my logical philosophy and those are indeed the facts.
The other information you stated about my former remarks are deceptive, because I did not assert all those remarks as bieng facts in those other postings. I was just presenting avenues for alternaitve thought, which was a different objective and purpose (and sometimes I joke around) - so don't mix the apples in with the oranges and call it the same thing (Just a recomendation not a hard fast rule).
I did state facts however.
Is it not a known fact that certain drugs can effect child birth in a negative way which would mean that women should not use them? And is it not a known factor that religions in their formitive years used a number of different kinds of mind alternating plants to gain their visions which in return resulted in concepts about other-dimensional hells (bummer trips) and heavens ( getting high)? Take for example the use of wine in modern religious rituals, is wine not a mind alternating substance? Does not your local store shelf the wine under a sign reading "spirits" - that name did not just pop up without some historical background. Did you never hear the old saying from Italy that "wine brings truth to the lips"? Such sayings have their roots.
If you do not like my facts, instead of attacking my sources, try to attack the actual data I presented with your "real facts" that you imagine you have, which I doubt you could have, and then we can debate it fact for fact.
Technosoul. |