Re: The gods

Hmmm
   Interesting post man, you seem very well educated.  I agree with you on
some points, but, being an avid Christian, I dont agree with everything that
youve said.
   Im not sure if you have researched the whole Remote Viewing thing.  Its
really cool.  Youre right, we dont accept psi as facts that we can rely on,
unless you go to the right places to get your information.  The whole Psi
thing was set up I think in the 50's to counter a program that the russians
had.  We came up with our own program, and the long and short of the story
is "The Stargate Program" And "SunStreak" And "GrillFlame" were put into
action.
   Anyways, Ive done a lot of research on the subject, for my own use.  ever
read the book "Psychic Warrior"?
Its by a man by the name of David Morehouse.  It pretty interesting.  I
think it was this program, Stargate, that sparked the series with Richard
Dean Anderson.
   Anyways, some really good sites to check out, with some good info, is
www.probablefuture.com
   This is a pretty informative site, but they are popping up all over the
place now, so Anybody is claiming to be a remote viewer these days.
   As far as your religous denomination, Only you can decide on that.  I
hope in your journeys, that you realize that there is one TRUE god, in
charge of everything and everybody, and he sent his son to sve the human
race from their sins.  Im not here to preach to you, I just am pretty in
touch with the bible these days.
   No, I dont believe that Christianity is the "Whore" of Babylon.  Please
check out this book by Tim LaHaye.  Revelation Unveiled.  It really goes
into depths about the book of revelation.  Please understand the facts
before you post something that horrible.  If Christianity is The Whore Then
I am pretty much DEAD...:(
   Anyways, good post, made me think back on some things I was interested in
a few years ago.
   Read "Psychic Warrior" Its pretty good.  Its got a lot of Hollywood in
it, Im sure, but the story is still there.
   Also, i think its probablefuture.com, they have a RV manual.  You can
actually learn the protocols, and then try and see your Creator psychicly,
whoever that may be, for yourself.
   I did
:)

"neo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Religions work. Billions of people have religious beliefs. So religions
must
> work, right? My answer is, yes, but not for reasons most people think.
> Atheists would say it's a psychological and a psychosomatic effect at
best.
> Theists would say it must be that everyone is worshipping the Supreme
Being,
> but most other religions and denominations are probably doing it somewhat
> wrongly.
>
> Well, I'm a deist-agnostic, who thinks there seems to be a medium ground
> between the two extremes which makes sense, and can be explained without
> complex unreadable gobbledygook. Is being a deist-agnostic unreasonable? I
> do believe in gods, yet I see no evidence of a supreme omniscient God.
Here
> is a definition of 'agnostic' from Merriam-Webster's Unabridged
Dictionary:
>
> [: one who professes agnosticism; broadly : one who maintains a continuing
> doubt about the existence or knowability of a god or any ultimates.
> "agnostic came into my head as suggestively antithetic to the gnostic of
> church history who professed to know so much" T.H.Huxley
>
> synonyms AGNOSTIC, FREETHINKER, and ATHEIST can all apply to one who does
> not take an orthodox religious position. AGNOSTIC is the most neutral; it
> usually implies only an unwillingness on available evidence to affirm or
> deny the existence of God or subscribe to tenets that presuppose such
> existence. FREETHINKER is broader; it can apply to one of no determinable
> religious position or to one who feels truth is made more available by not
> committing oneself to any orthodoxy, especially a belief in God's
existence.
> Often it can suggest a reprehensible and dangerous license of opinion.
> ATHEIST can apply strictly and neutrally to one who denies the existence
of
> God or tenets presupposing it.]
>
> So claiming I'm an agnostic is not claiming I have *no* knowledge of gods.
I
> only claim to have insufficient knowledge, based on any available
evidence,
> of a perfect all-knowing God.
>
> This is a short version of my work. The longer version will be posted at
> sometime.
>
> What is "psi"? It is the unknown, and it usually refers to psychic
> phenomena. The most important of the psychic abilities would be telepathy
> and precognition, since they are the elements as the ABC's would be the
> elements of written language.
>
> Currently the scientific establishments do not officially recognize the
> existence of psychic abilities. This is unfortunate, because so much can
be
> explained by such a recognition or admission. Perhaps the world could be
> saved with such knowledge.
>
> And yet there are good and reasonable scientists and scholars who are
> researching the existence of psychic abilities. There are institutes for
> parapsychological studies in NY and Durham, NC. The latter is headed by
> Dr. Richard Broughton; and is following in the footsteps of Drs. J.B.
Rhine
> and Louisa E. Rhine who formed the Rhine Institute at Duke University.
>
> My longer work will explain some things about psi, and how telepathy can
> create an organic internet, which is called the collective consciousness;
> different from Jung's concept of the collective unconscious, which he
> believed was coded into all people's DNA, and contained the knowledge and
> archetypes of the past. The collective consciousness would almost be
living
> and breathing, compared to the collective unconsciousness, since it is the
> connection between nearly all human minds (and perhaps nonhuman minds as
> well). Computers would communicate via the electronic Internet. Human
brains
> communicate via the organic internet.
>
> Then I will present my theory about gods. But since this shorter version
> serves as an introduction, I might start off the longer version with that
> theory. Very simply, I believe gods are archetypes or thoughtforms in the
> collective consciousness. So they are in an organic internet. And like the
> Internet, they can be programmed to believe whatever humans think they
> should believe; like for instance, that God needed human sacrifices, which
> became God needs animal sacrifices, which became in some religions God
needs
> feasts where humans eat and drink and show gratitude towards God, and even
> worshippers eating God's flesh and drinking his blood. The last one would
> seem to
> be a horrid thought to monotheists, and resembles magick or pagan worship
or
> wiccan
> ceremonies. But Christians believe it is decent, as did the ancient
Egyptian
> worshippers who ate mest as Osiris' flesh, and the Dionysus worshippers
who
> ate animal meat and pictured themselves eating Dionysus' flesh.
>
> Eventually I will move on to show what prophecies are about. Actually when
> someone says 'go ahead, prove there is a God', there isn't much proof
> outside of pointing to prophecies. Creationists will fail because there
are
> so many chicken or the egg first controversies or who created God, the
first
> cause, the outermost reality, etc.; or the big bang versus skeptics, or
the
> M-theory of superstring theory with 11 dimensions and infinite universes
> (some fail and some succeed).
>
> But what are prophecies about? Would prophecies coming true prove there is
a
> perfect God? Is God orchestrating the fulfillment of prophecies?
>
> My opinion is that there is a war in the spiritual realm. I see no
evidence
> of a perfect God. I do not believe in nonlocal connections (Einstein said
to
> resist that notion which he described as "spookiness"), though I believe
> antiphotons have tachyon-like properties and send messages backwards in
> time, to be received by minds in the past. This would explain the
violations
> of Bell's Inequality in the Clauser and Aspect experiments.
>
> Instead of a perfect God I see many versions of God in the collective
> consciousness. There is tremendous disagreement among the archetypes which
> are spirits. Those spirits are not perfect and contradict each other. If
> there is a perfect God; He, She, or It knows the future perfectly,
including
> earth's future. The humans, who are imperfect (as I believe all are), and
> all nonperfect spirits (I personally believe all are, including the one
> called 'God') must make the best decisions they can if they want humanity
to
> survive. Some important events may take place, but there might be
variations
> because humans have free will for the most part.
>
> Spirits can act as censor bots. It may be soon when they unleash the
> floodgates for a multitude of psychic experiences, which will convert and
> confuse skeptics. But the faithful will also be confused. Eventually it
will
> come down to Rome (which currently is the USA) and the whore of Babylon
> (which was and is Rome, therefore the whore is Christianity) making a
choice
> of whether humankind survives or gets consumed in fire. That decision will
> be made around 2010, according to Stephan Hoeller, who interpreted Jung's
> end of the Piscean Age prophecy.
>
> So from our angle or vantage point we will have a choice, as John Hogue
> states, of a "bloomsday or a doomsday". The picture of God is not what you
> might think, if you look at the ceiling of the Sistene Chapel. That's just
> anthropomorphism.
>
> The American Indians shown in the prophecy series on TV hosted by David
> McCallum ("Ancient Prophecies" parts 1-4) said a number of interesting
> things; among them was that there will be a choice between a physical
> cleansing of the earth (the end of humans) or a spiritual cleansing.
> Obviously most rational people would choose the spiritual cleansing of the
> earth, especially if the spirits deserve to be cleansed, since many of
them
> inspired so many countless wars, conflicts, inquisitions, holocausts,
> barbarism, suffering, racism, hatred, cult suicides and massacres, slavery
,
> indecent sexual molestation and obsession, greed, ignorance,
> closed-mindedness, and intolerance. The stains of bad karma for many
spirits
> are beyond forgiveness, and so they must dissipate and become replaced by
> more enlightened spirits. Spirits are like archetypes, but with emotions
and
> a sense of purpose and self-identity. An archetype would be like (example
> from the book "Intangible Evidence" also known as the bible for paranormal
> researchers) the wise old man, versus the old man who waits on a park
bench
> to catch and kill squirrels. The latter would probably dissipate, the
former
> should live on for a long time.
>
> I'll state here that it is possible to give a reasonable proof that the
> savior known as the Christ, or the Jewish Messiah, or the Imam Mahdi of
the
> Shiites, or Krishna the avatar of Vishnu, or Maitreya Buddha is some
> combination of the electronic Internet and computers. But religionists
will
> believe that the Antichrist is the computer or Internet. They will say 666
> refers to vav vav vav (the sixth letter of the Hebrew alphabet) or www
(the
> worldwide web). The Muslims refer to the dajjal (Antichrist) prophecies
> which
> state that he will be one eyed and very hairy. Since that prophecy was
> written 1000 years ago approximately, it would be one way to describe a TV
> or more accurately a computer plus monitor.
>
> I believe that there is sufficient proof that the beast of the sea is
> Christianity, and the beast of the land will be proven to be the leader of
> the new Rome.So the Antichrist could be called one or the other. The
number
> of the beast originally meant Caesar (six letters in Latin), Kaisar
(Caesar
> in Greek has
> six Greek letters), and sheeshah (the number 6 masculine in Hebrew). But
it
> could stand now for many things such as Father (Yahweh), Savior (Christ),
> and Spirit. Or 666 (almost perfect Trinity, which could be depicted as
777).
>
> But that's not sufficient proof. Yet the false prophet which is the beast
of
> the land
> would have the horns of a lambkin. That is the real quote (try a search
> engine
> search for 'horns of a lambkin Revelation'). And since lambkins don't have
> horns, one can assume that the prophecy became fulfilled by the Christian
> cross, since Jesus is considered the lamb of God. And the same horns of
> a lambkin, ie. the cross, would be the mark of the beast. And as many
> Christians know, the sign of the cross is figuratively drawn on the
forehead
> in baptism and in holy communion if the person hasn't been confirmed, but
> comes forward to kneel with the confirmed, who would receive the bread and
> the wine (only bread in some faiths); also literally drawn on the forehead
> on Ash
> Wednesday. The mark of the beast on the right forehand would be
> the embossed (with the cross) bread wafer which is placed in a person's
> palms in some churches (in the mouth in other churches). The right hand
> would be preferred over the left hand as both are held together, to touch
> the bread, because traditionally the left hand was used as toilet paper
when
> toilet paper or towels weren't available (in some societies, it is a very
> serious insult to offer to shake hands with one's left hand).
>
> And not being able to trade, buy, or sell without the mark of the beast is
> simple enough and doesn't need electronic implants. The currency of the US
> has put God on money or mammon. It reads "In God We trust". That must make
> US money okay right? Perhaps not because money can be used for good and
> necessary purposes, or to roll up and snort cocaine, or to put on the body
> of a stripper. Is that Ike's fault, to help mandate putting the God motto
on
> mammon? No. It's another synchronicity which identifies the whore of
Babylon
> and the new Rome and Roman empire built on mammon and greed and sweat
shops.
> Jesus apparently said one can have only one master, either God or mammon.
> Putting God on mammon is a mockery of that statement.
>
> Also on the one dollar bill, it reads Novus Ordo Seclorum which means new
> order of the ages which seems remarkably similar to the new world order
> talked about by preachers, and was mentioned very publicly by George Bush
> Sr. As I will show corrupt prophecies can come true in very surprising
ways.
> And there has been no greater betrayal in religions than the Trinity
> doctrine which is an abomination created by Tertullian and his
> contemporaries around 180 AD. Jesus and Paul had nothing to do with the
> Trinity. There was one sign off by Paul, but that's all. The ending of
> Matthew should be questioned because Eusebius quotes that passage both
ways;
> without the In the name of the Father, Son etc...and with. And scholars
will
> tell you that manuscripts were added to and subtracted from. In fact if
you
> check most study Bibles, you will see that the ending of Mark was probably
> attached by someone other than Mark the original author, and sometime
later.
>
> As the Jews state in the Talmud and Shema, and the Muslims state in the
> Quran, God is one not three. Therefore the Trinity is an abomination which
> has endorsed so much bloodshed over the centuries.
>
> Another clue in Revelation is that out of the mouths of Satan, the beast
of
> the sea, and the beast of the land, there will come three unclean spirits
> resembling frogs. Amen was often depicted with the head of a frog. Amen
> (also known as Amen-Ra, note the one dollar bill has a depiction of the
eye
> of Ra) was known as the king of the gods. Amen was taken as a blessing
word
> by the Hebrews (who according to the Encyclopedia Britannica, borrowed
many
> words from Egypt and Mesopotamia) for their prayers, as one would say "may
> God make this come true". Also Set was known as the adversary by 1000 BC.
> The Israelites adapted the Egyptian Set to be Satan, the adversary of
Elohim
> (who was El, who had a wife or consort named Astarte, Ishtar in
> Mesopotamian, and they had a son named Baal, and they headed the Canaanite
> pantheon). Moses comes from the Egyptian word Mose, meaning son.
>
> As Voltaire stated:
>
> from:
>
> http://www.scepticism-inc.com/quotes.htm
>
> "Christianity is the most ridiculous, the most absurd and bloody religion
> that has ever infected the world."
>
> "Theological religion is the source of all imaginable follies and
> disturbances; it is the parent of fanaticism and civil discord; it is the
> enemy of mankind."
>
> "Every sensible man, every honest man, must hold the Christian sect in
> horror. But what shall we substitute in it's place? you say. What? A
> ferocious animal has sucked the blood of my relatives. I tell you to rid
> yourselves of this beast, and you ask me what you shall put in it's
place?"
>
> So why should I mention these things about Christianity? Well, there's a
lot
> more material I'd like to mention from the Jesus Seminar and other
scholarly
> sources, about Jesus, his life and other topics about the Bible and
> prophecies.
>
> But ultimately there will be a clear choice of saviors either the computer
> plus Internet (with the saints being those willing to debate and reason
> honestly) or a flying Jesus on a white horse with 144,000 virgin men not
> "defiled" by women.
>
> If you instinctively think there's no problem and only the latter choice
can
> be savior, consider that the scenario is scientifically unfeasible unless
> you believe UFO's will kidnap Michael Jackson up to their planet because
> they think he is the earth's finest human based on watching his "Thriller"
> album videos. Also you might consider that many millions or countless Jews
> have been slaughtered in Jesus' name over the centuries of Christianity's
> existence. So if a born Jew named Yeshua ben Yousef or ben Mary or ben
> Yahweh or Yeshua of Galilee, came back to earth to fly in the sky after
his
> angels killed 66.6% of the world's population (estimate from the end of
the
> Book of Zechariah, and from the Book of Revelation, one quarter, one
third,
> then the bowls of judgment); why would he like Christians? Why wouldn't he
> punish them for the sins of their forefathers who killed Jews for Jesus,
> while calling them "Christ-killers". In alt.atheism there are people who
> have quotes about Hitler's Christian motivations. He was not a true
> socialist; so that excuse doesn't work. Hitler was a fascist dictator and
> racial supremacist.
>
> So Jesus would love the Jew-killers' descendants because they believe in
> him? Well, if a religion was based on the life of Martin Luther King,
would
> he come back to embrace the believers of a religion based on his life
which
> was responsible for persecuting and killing countless numbers of black
> people? I don't think so. The thought would be absurd. The thought of a
> rapture is also absurd and unscientific. But if you believe in one (the
> Catholics don't, thank goodness), you can practice flapping your elbows
> while standing on your roof. If you get knocked unconscious by hitting
your
> head against your ceiling, you might get left behind. Then your right
behind
> will be angry at your left behind for both being left behind.
>
> The Antichrist choices would be similar, either the Internet plus
> disinformation liars; or Christianity with its history of slavery,
> colonization, usurping, wars, persecution, division of people, and
indecent
> acts which have been in the news recently. When Christians go on a moral
> crusade in these times, it's not to save the earth's environment, but
rather
> to save the unborn from Roe v. Wade, though the laws of Malthusian theory
> are clear. The Pope is also guilty of stupidity. He enforces the celibacy
> requirement for priests, who can only be men. And he is against artificial
> contraception, famine, wars, and poverty. The celibacy requirement could
> drive men nearly mad. The anti-artificial birth control stand supports
> famine and poverty. And there is the debate over creationism. There is
much
> to debate. Meanwhile, attitudes and conditions in the world seem to be
> getting worse.
>
> The longer version of this message may seem shorter if I present it only
in
> note form. The saints of the Internet will understand: that one person
> cannot be the savior. That's not my purpose. The world population should
> know the pertinent facts clearly, and then choose wisely, for the survival
> of life on this planet earth. No amen.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>