Domestic God

[Technosoul]

One of the first domestic animals was the dog (I read that someplace). Now a wild dog is something a primitve man might fear, like we might fear a pack of wolves. And even today we might feel a little uneasy about walking too close to a pit bull or one of those police dogs.

But primitive man found out if you give a dog a bone you have a friend for life. Feed a dog and they will love you and follow your commands, and can become very user friendly animals in many ways, for herding sheep, for hunting, for protecting you from other beasts, etc.

Domesticating something wild helped to make human culture what it is, the use of horses, cattle, sheep, chickens, elephants, camels, and all those wild creatures helped us to dominate our environment.

Now people also feared the great Spirit which we call God (nowadays). God was kinda wild because of the wrath that Mother Nature can stir up, hurricanes, volcano eruptions, earthquakes, floods, and strong winds - etc. And man thought if he could tame a wild dog perhaps he could also tame the great God of weather happenings, the Spirits that make it rain and snow.

Amd so they came up with the ideas about burnt offerings to the God that rules over what is happening on earth (as related to weather and so forth). Give a dog a bone and you got a friend for life, dontate to God and you might get His blessings. Good weather for crops, or good luck on that hunting and gathering trip into the wilderness.

Here we see how concpets can evolve from one idea into another idea.

Example, if you plant seeds in the earth you will be rewarded with more food next season, but if you ate all the seeds and gave nothing back, then you might end up with a poor harvestig of food next season. We know that in nature animals do that same thing, a chipmonk might hide nuts in the ground for later use, only some of the nuts are not dug back up so more trees grow from those planted nuts. So the tree is serving the chipmonk and the chipmonk is a servent of the trees. Which concept when put into religious terms means that if you serve the Great Spirit (the Lord) then in return the Lord will serve you with greater abundance.

But of course when the idea becomes just some abstract idea it is not the same as it's realistic application relative to Nature. Or is it?

Technology is often about creating something we observe in nature as an invention of science. Monkey see, monkey do. Likewise, as an opinion, religious concepts are often ideas that duplicate the experiences we have with Nature or based on what we observe happening in the environment of nature.

Taming the unpredictable wild God so that He is tame and will not bite us.

Whatcha think?
Technosoul.

[Autophage]

I think it's a very intriguing view of how religion got started, but also one that illustrates the manufacturedness of religion. I do believe in a god of sorts, just not one that requires offerings - rather, I believe that everyone alive (and conscious) is as much a god as anything else.

[LDS]

Interesting.


Instead what if we sacrifice, not to appease god, but because sacrifice is good for us? When we sacrifice we subject the flesh to the spirit. When a man is spiritual he gains love,joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
meeknesss,and temperance. Instead of selfishness, envying, strife, adultery, hatred. (http://scriptures.lds.org/gal/5) Which attributes would you rather have?

[Technosoul]

Originally posted by LDS, Interesting. Instead what if we sacrifice, not to appease god, but because sacrifice is good for us? When we sacrifice we subject the flesh to the spirit. When a man is spiritual he gains love,joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meeknesss,and temperance. Instead of selfishness, envying, strife, adultery, hatred. (http://scriptures.lds.org/gal/5) Which attributes would you rather have?

Partly because our government outlawed it and so you can no longer sacrifice the birds, cattle, lambs, or even people as brunt offerings in a reglisous ritual. Some Voodoo religions down south still sacrifice checkens at a campfire ritual, but must do so secretly so as not to get arrested. I think perhaps animal rights people would be protesting loudly if you attempted bringing back that anicent ritual. I do not know of a single Jewish temple here in the USA that would do such a thing anymore.

Nowadays they mostly donate money instead of livestock. And of course mandatory donations in the form of taxes to the secular lords.

Nonetheless, as stated it was based on rewards and/or the avoidance of punishments. If you sacrafice because it makes you feel good then you did it for a selfish reason which you then stated was a wrong attribute. Not sure if I follow that contradiction.

Also, is adultry an activity or an attribute? I think you might be attempting to adopt an new alternative meaning for a more abstract interpertation, which is fine, but different.

Ideas can also evolve and change over time sort of like an evolutionist might say the lizards can evolve into birds. The point is to show how those concepts evolved form their ogininal roots.

Technosul.

[LDS]

Partly because our government outlawed it and so you can no longer sacrifice the birds, cattle, lambs, or even people as brunt offerings in a reglisous ritual. Some Voodoo religions down south still sacrifice checkens at a campfire ritual, but must do so secretly so as not to get arrested. I think perhaps animal rights people would be protesting loudly if you attempted bringing back that anicent ritual. I do not know of a single Jewish temple here in the USA that would do such a thing anymore.

Say what? I didnt know we were talking solely on animal sacrifice. I thought you meant the principles of sacrifice. You know the whole sacrificing of your time and moneys to the poor and needy, as Christ taught us in his ministry.

Nowadays they mostly donate money instead of livestock. And of course mandatory donations in the form of taxes to the secular lords. Nonetheless, as stated it was based on rewards and/or the avoidance of punishments. If you sacrafice because it makes you feel good then you did it for a selfish reason which you then stated was a wrong attribute. Not sure if I follow that contradiction.

? If you have read the bible you would know that Christ taught us that sacrifice without proper mind set is worthless to us.

Also, is adultry an activity or an attribute? I think you might be attempting to adopt an new alternative meaning for a more abstract interpertation, which is fine, but different.

Adultery is in basic terms lust.
"But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart"
(http://scriptures.lds.org/matt/5/28#28)

Ideas can also evolve and change over time sort of like an evolutionist might say the lizards can evolve into birds. The point is to show how those concepts evolved form their ogininal roots.

I know, but just because you come up with a theory with a neato analogy doesnt make it right. I believe the early ideas were there to teach tougher concepts which might of been difficult for man to grasp early on.

[Suburbanite]

Wild Dogs don't exist in nature, Dogs are inbread wolves.

[Technosoul]

Originally posted by Suburbanite, Wild Dogs don't exist in nature, Dogs are inbread wolves.

As we know they found bones of dogs when digging up primitive human bones and the abundance of that fact indicated that early man first demesticated those animals, if you want to call them wolves instead of dogs, that is fine. If you want to call a cow an Ox that is fine with me. Clearly dogs and wolves are about the same thing and so that would not change what I was reporting.

It is interesting that you would point out that so called primitive cave men knew about the science of breeding and inbreeding animals for domestic purposes. How did they come by such knowledge - or "who let the dogs out"?

The same books that talk about primitive humans also speculated that they used dogs (wolves) for food (like raising chickens). And so "giving a dog a bone" is also like bating a trap to capture something to consume. Somehow they found out that bating dogs (insert your own name for them) could also domesticate them as willing farm animals. But all that still conforms to my orignal posting and it's theory.

Note how this compares with the remarks of the Last Supper "I am the wheat (bread) and my blood is the wine you drink". Just abstact talking? Or did they offer the sacrifice as bate in a trop so they can consume the "body of God" which (opinion) is Mother Nature? Use the clue as you wish.

Technosoul.

[Technosoul]

Originally posted by LDS, Partly because our government outlawed it and so you can no longer sacrifice the birds, cattle, lambs, or even people as brunt offerings in a reglisous ritual.  Some Voodoo religions down south still sacrifice checkens at a campfire ritual, but must do so secretly so as not to get arrested. I think perhaps animal rights people would be protesting loudly if you attempted bringing back that anicent ritual.  I do not know of a single Jewish temple here in the USA that would do such a thing anymore. Say what? I didnt know we were talking solely on animal sacrifice. I thought you meant the principles of sacrifice. You know the whole sacrificing of your time and moneys to the poor and needy, as Christ taught us in his ministry. Nowadays they mostly donate money instead of livestock.  And of course mandatory donations in the form of taxes to the secular lords. Nonetheless, as stated it was based on rewards and/or the avoidance of punishments. If you sacrafice because it makes you feel good then you did it for a selfish reason which you then stated was a wrong attribute.  Not sure if I follow that contradiction. ? If you have read the bible you would know that Christ taught us that sacrifice without proper mind set is worthless to us. If one made a sacrafice selflessly then they would not expect something worthwhile in return. So they would not a have mind set to determine if the sacrafice resulted in something worthless or worthwhile. Phychology 101. Adultery is in basic terms lust. "But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart" (http://scriptures.lds.org/matt/5/28#28) Now you are getting it closer to the corect use of the words. Adulty is not just about lusting after a girl but also emobodies the idea that the girl is married, or that you are married. Such might not apply to unmarried people because lust should lead them into the act of getting married. If you are married already (or if she is) then you cannot get married because of that attraction to each other, which creates problems relative the cultural logic of being married (to insure that children are well taken care of). Also we can assume another interpretaton of that Mount sermon. He might have been showing us just how foolish it is to have those 10 Commandment Laws because your own thoughts are constantly in violaton or not in conformity to those rules. And because you in fact have little control over what thoughts might pop into your head as a normal reaction to your surroundings. Thus he was demostrating just how impossible such expectations are. I know, but just because you come up with a theory with a neato analogy doesnt make it right. I believe the early ideas were there to teach tougher concepts which might of been difficult for man to grasp early on.

So teaching people to sacrafice their best cow was a simple way to teach people not to lust after their neighbors wife... hmmmm? Holy cow, now that you mention it she does look a little like a cow. (just funning around with that remark - not part of debate).

What you say is partly true. The bible stories were designed as children books - sort of like what Disney does today.

Now if you read the Bible close enough you might find out that God got the smoke and the "wishes or prayers" but that the high prest or the king got to eat the cow, the ritual sacrafice was when the King would have a big feast and he would share that with people he elected to be in his presence. (the left over scrapes would be given to the poor folks). That is because the King or the Church Elders did not have jobs and depended on those donations in meat for survival. The Bible clearly shows that and how the rulers used such religious concepts for personal gain.

I think that irriated Jesus because he dissrupted the sales of such animals that would be cooked up for the tables of the preasthood (that were to be used as a sacrafice) knocking over the tables and using a bullwhip to drive the animals off the steps of the Temple entrance. How about that as a proper attrabute to embody?

Technosoul.

[PatrickHenry]

Originally posted by Suburbanite, Wild Dogs don't exist in nature, Dogs are inbread wolves.

Sorry, Suburbanite. You're mistaken:

This is the African wild dog,

African wild dogs are the size of medium domestic dogs. Their Latin name, Lycaon pictus, means "painted wolf-like animal." Their coats are mottled in shades of brown, black and beige. They have large, rounded ears and dark brown circles around their eyes. The dogs differ from wolves and other dogs in that they have four toes instead of five.

http://www.whozoo.org/Intro98/michaelg/michgree.htm

There is also the dingo,
http://www.wwwins.net.au/dingofarm/02.html

According to latest DNA testing, Dingoes evolved 135,000 years ago and were the world's first domestic dog, predating the wolf. A 'marker' has been found in the Dingo which is not present in the wolf, making the Dingo a separate species. It is believed that the Dingo is the ancestor of all dog breeds, the base stock of the 600 true dog breeds. Currently there are two scientific theories as to the Dingoes origins and arrival in Australia. One is that the closest relatives of the Dingo were dogs bred on the delta of the Indus River in India 3000 years ago. This theory believes that the Dingo was domesticated and reached Australia via Timor with Indian Traders. The second theory is that the Dingo is closely related to the semi wild dogs widely distributed throughout south east Asia and that the Dingo accompanied sea farers to Australia. It is likely that the Dingo was traded to the Aborigines or, having been semi domesticated in Asia, it chose to associate with the natives for the benefits of a mutual association. Whatever its origins, the Dingo was a highly valued companion to the Aborigines - they lived, ate and hunted with their human keepers. They were their bed warmers, camp cleaners, hunting companions and guard dogs. The Aborigines took puppies from wild litters each breeding season, but upon reaching maturity most of these dogs reverted to the wild lifestyle. Puppies were often suckled by the women of the tribe.

[SIZE=2]OUCH![/SIZE]

[Technosoul]

Thanks Pat for that information about the history of dogs and the "Eve" photograph.

I was talking once to some bible people and they said tha "live" spelled backards would spell "evil" (devil spells lived if you turn it around) and they thought it was important that they found this out. I doubt it that has any real meaning for anything but ironically if you turn the letters around back to front the dog would spell "god". Hmmm, so even that fits my theory.

Like Abraham people still sacrafice their children to the god of war. I wonder when it will all end with those missunderstandings.

Lucky for humainty an angel stopped Abe from bringing down the sword, and showed him a Ram that he could use instead, otherwise we would be hacking up virgns for the volcano gods even nowadays. Lucky that angel told Abe not to obey orders.

Today Abe would have been arrested and put into jail for child abuse - so we have made some improvemnts over the years (in theory) next to Noah who sent one son to be a slave of the other son for laughing at him when he got drunk and naked.

Anyway I am getting off topic and so will abort my comments until futher notice (soon coming).

[LDS]

What you say is partly true. The bible stories were designed as children books - sort of like what Disney does today.

You speak with certainity. Is there any point to this debate if you think you already have the answers?

Now if you read the Bible close enough you might find out that God got the smoke and the "wishes or prayers" but that the high prest or the king got to eat the cow,

This was so the participant would know the ordinance had been done correctly.

ritual sacrafice was when the King would have a big feast and he would share that with people he elected to be in his presence. (the left over scrapes would be given to the poor folks). That is because the King or the Church Elders did not have jobs and depended on those donations in meat for survival. The Bible clearly shows that and how the rulers used such religious concepts for personal gain.

It is possible that there were rulers and priests who abused their powers, but before you get to much into stereotyping:

"I say unto you that as I have been suffered to spend my days in your service, even up to this time, and have not sought gold nor silver nor any manner of riches of you;"
"And even I, myself, have labored with mine own hands that I might serve you, and that ye should not beladen with taxes, and that there should nothing come upon you which was grievous to be borne—and of all these things which I have spoken, ye yourselves are witnesses this day."- King Benjamin
http://scriptures.lds.org/mosiah/2 Verse 12 and 14.


Now Alma said unto him: Thou knowest that we do not glut ourselves upon the labors of this people; for behold I have labored even from the commencement of the reign of the judges until now, with mine own hands for my support, notwithstanding my many travels round about the land to declare the word of God unto my people.

33 And notwithstanding the many labors which I have performed in the church, I have never received so much as even one senine for my labor; neither has any of my brethren, save it were in the judgment-seat; and then we have received only according to law for our time.

34 And now, if we do not receive anything for our labors in the church, what doth it profit us to labor in the church save it were to declare the truth, that we may have rejoicings in the joy of our brethren? -Alma

http://scriptures.lds.org/alma/30 verse 32-34 (Interestingly as he was speaking with an Anti-Christ)

I think that irriated Jesus because he dissrupted the sales of such animals that would be cooked up for the tables of the preasthood (that were to be used as a sacrafice) knocking over the tables and using a bullwhip to drive the animals off the steps of the Temple entrance. How about that as a proper attrabute to embody?

What standing up for what you believe? Or Keeping things which are sacred sacred? Though you may pervert it to appear as though these attributes as bad, they are in truth definitely good.

[Suburbanite]

Originally posted by Technosoul,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Technosoul,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-Suburbanite, Wild Dogs don't exist in nature, Dogs are inbread wolves.

As we know they found bones of dogs when digging up primitive human bones and the abundance of that fact indicated that early man first demesticated those animals, if you want to call them wolves instead of dogs, that is fine. If you want to call a cow an Ox that is fine with me. Clearly dogs and wolves are about the same thing and so that would not change what I was reporting.

It is interesting that you would point out that so called primitive cave men knew about the science of breeding and inbreeding animals for domestic purposes. How did they come by such knowledge - or "who let the dogs out"?

The same books that talk about primitive humans also speculated that they used dogs (wolves) for food (like raising chickens). And so "giving a dog a bone" is also like bating a trap to capture something to consume. Somehow they found out that bating dogs (insert your own name for them) could also domesticate them as willing farm animals. But all that still conforms to my orignal posting and it's theory.

Note how this compares with the remarks of the Last Supper "I am the wheat (bread) and my blood is the wine you drink". Just abstact talking? Or did they offer the sacrifice as bate in a trop so they can consume the "body of God" which (opinion) is Mother Nature? Use the clue as you wish.

Technosoul.[/b][/quote]

It was the English that inbread dogs. Early Human might have domesticated the wolf, I'd believe that, but Dogs didn't exist.

[Autophage]

On the earlier topic of adultery=lust... I don't consider lust a bad thing at all.

[Technosoul]

Originally posted by LDS, What you say is partly true.  The bible stories were designed as children books - sort of like what Disney does today. You speak with certainity. Is there any point to this debate if you think you already have the answers? Because then you can use those answers to change your opinion or perspective, which is the purpose of a debate is it not? Of course I speak as one who has authority but where is that authority coming from? Indeed no one in this world appointed me with such a title and no school system gave me a document proclaiming me as an expert. What is right is flat right not because of the person who said it, but because right is already right because before the person reported it. Do you think the only point of this debate is for me to accept you or your resources as being the authority? That no other outcome is possible? Do expect to win every chess game you play? This was so the participant would know the ordinance had been done correctly. Are you saying that the kings or presthood ate the sacrificed cow so everyone would know that the ordinacne had been done correctly? Is that your answer and does it represent the authority of truth? It is possible that there were rulers and priests who abused their powers, but before you get to much into stereotyping: "I say unto you that as I have been suffered to spend my days in your service, even up to this time, and have not sought gold nor silver nor any manner of riches of you;" "And even I, myself, have labored with mine own hands that I might serve you, and that ye should not beladen with taxes, and that there should nothing come upon you which was grievous to be borne—and of all these things which I have spoken, ye yourselves are witnesses this day."- King Benjamin http://scriptures.lds.org/mosiah/2 Verse 12 and 14. So how come King Benjamin did not agree with your first answer, how come he did not want the participants to know that the ordacnes had been done correctly? For one thing he was talking about gold and silver and not the animals offered for sacrafice at the temple (or open pits designed for that purpose). The Lord told the profit that all the gold and silver belonged to him, not to the people. The gold and silver was to be stored in the temple until the Lord himself came to collect it and not used for human purposes (according to commandments posted in the biblical text). This I point out but that does not mean I veiw the Bible as being the authority or as being a higher authority then what I otherwise would be reporting. Now Alma said unto him: Thou knowest that we do not glut ourselves upon the labors of this people; for behold I have labored even from the commencement of the reign of the judges until now, with mine own hands for my support, notwithstanding my many travels round about the land to declare the word of God unto my people. 33 And notwithstanding the many labors which I have performed in the church, I have never received so much as even one senine for my labor; neither has any of my brethren, save it were in the judgment-seat; and then we have received only according to law for our time. 34 And now, if we do not receive anything for our labors in the church, what doth it profit us to labor in the church save it were to declare the truth, that we may have rejoicings in the joy of our brethren? -Alma http://scriptures.lds.org/alma/30 verse 32-34 (Interestingly as he was speaking with an Anti-Christ) Again, the Bible can be used to proove any point of view because of the many different ideas recorded in the text and because interpretations are founded in personal opinions and/or revelations. Such "flip-flopping" is not a constant or unchanging source of just one fact or just one perspective. So if one person uses a biblical passage to establish an idea then another person can find a different passage to present that can counter-idea of the first idea. And if Alma was defending his actions in a debate with an anit-Christ then was he the Christ? If he was not the Christ and ate only a small part of the sacred cow then is that not the same thing is eating a lot of it? Just because he did not clut himself does not mean he did not parkate of the forebidden meat, for telling a little lie is the same as telling a large lie, is it not? So how come he worded it such that suggested he was just a little bit on the take but did not pig out on the take? And did your Bible say that he was speaking to an anti-Christ or did you add that your self as your personal opinion (interpretation)? I think that irriated Jesus because he dissrupted the sales of such animals that would be cooked up for the tables of the preasthood (that were to be used as a sacrafice)  knocking over the tables and using a bullwhip to drive the animals off the steps of the Temple entrance.  How about that as a proper attrabute to embody? What standing up for what you believe? Or Keeping things which are sacred sacred? Though you may pervert it to appear as though these attributes as bad, they are in truth definitely good.

I did not pervert it as a bad attribute because I put it as a question and not as a statement of wrong doing. Also if Jesus did not approve and/or disrupted the rituals of sacrafice then your early report that I was stereotyping everyone is false, because I did not stereotype Jesus as being part of that system. So my anti-Fat Cat philosophy is in harmony with the attributes he advocated by his actions. Is it not?

I stand up for what I believe and you ask "what is the point of a debate if I do that"? (your opinion put in different a context of altered wording).

Try again and we will see if some reasonable agreement is forthcoming.

Technosoul.

[LDS]

I stand up for what I believe and you ask "what is the point of a debate if I do that"? (your opinion put in different a context of altered wording).

Then there is no point in debate? Both sides are entrenched.

[Technosoul]

Originally posted by LDS, Then there is no point in debate? Both sides are entrenched.

I find it interesting you selected a military word like "entrenched" that is suggestive of two armies of thought at war with one another because they have aborted the peace talks. And on army cannot blow the other one to kingdom come because both are entrenched in well protected fox holes. Hmmm?

If both sides are entrenched in their own opinions then they are both stuck in a rut forever.

And so I wonder if someday people could not transform their Bibles into plows so we can plant better words then the pointed swords needed for the crusade upon the illusionary evils of reason and understanding.

Technosoul.

[LDS]

I find it interesting you selected a military word like "entrenched" that is suggestive of two armies of thought at war with one another because they have aborted the peace talks.  And on army cannot blow the other one to kingdom come because both are entrenched in well protected fox holes.  Hmmm?

This is a war, a continuation of the war began before the world was. (http://scriptures.lds.org/rev/12/7-9)
Yes both are in well protected ideals, each seemingly fits the puzzle.

Luckily the lord did prepare a way that we may know the true piece, the correct path.

http://scriptures.lds.org/moro/10/5

I testify that there is a god, that we are luminous beings.

And so I wonder if someday people could not transform their Bibles into plows so we can plant better words

These are plows! If read with true intent, having faith, trying to understand their true meanings, seeking help when we need it they will prepare our hearts for better words.
http://scriptures.lds.org/alma/32/28

[Technosoul]

Originally posted by LDS, I find it interesting you selected a military word like "entrenched" that is suggestive of two armies of thought at war with one another because they have aborted the peace talks.  And on army cannot blow the other one to kingdom come because both are entrenched in well protected fox holes.  Hmmm? This is a war, a continuation of the war began before the world was. (http://scriptures.lds.org/rev/12/7-9) Yes both are in well protected ideals, each seemingly fits the puzzle. Luckily the lord did prepare a way that we may know the true piece, the correct path. Technosoul answers: Yeah! The true peace is when you stop the stupid war and the continuation of any war that you claim (wihtout proof) started before the world was. If those pre-worldly gods want to duke it out tell them to keep their fighting up in heaven and leave us humans alone. http://scriptures.lds.org/moro/10/5 I testify that there is a god, that we are luminous beings. And I have testified that people have attempted to domesticate thier god and that is how the rituals of sacraficing brunt offerings orginated relative to the gods that we believed supervised the weather. (in case we forgot what the topic is about). These are plows! If read with true intent, having faith, trying to understand their true meanings, seeking help when we need it they will prepare our hearts for better words. http://scriptures.lds.org/alma/32/28

Then it should have prepared you for the words I have illuminated you with.

Technosoul.

[LDS]

Then it should have prepared you for the words I have illuminated you with.

What you have illuminated me with is just how true the scriptures are. Everytime I read one of your interpretations I am reminded of this scripture.

"For the things which some men esteem to be of great worth, both to the body and soul, others set at naught and trample under their feet. Yea, even the very God of Israel do men trample under their feet; I say, trample under their feet but I would speak in other words—they set him at naught, and hearken not to the voice of his counsels."

[Technosoul]

Originally posted by LDS, What you have illuminated me with is just how true the scriptures are. Everytime I read one of your interpretations I am reminded of this scripture. "For the things which some men esteem to be of great worth, both to the body and soul, others set at naught and trample under their feet. Yea, even the very God of Israel do men trample under their feet; I say, trample under their feet but I would speak in other words—they set him at naught, and hearken not to the voice of his counsels."

Good, I am glad you did not think the revelations I related were of naught, and I am glad you did not attempt to trample my words under your feet. For these treasures of wisdom that I have cast at your feet are indeed of great worth to body and soul, and not garbage for hogs to pig out on and then turn to attack the provider, as it was once predicted that men would do upon hearing of these revelations.

And yet, I hear you not hearing the words as intended, nor have you seen where they are coming from.

Technosoul.