Power to change this world (page 2)

DjSadhu

@ magician:

"2012 looks not much like the "End Times" and more like a sharp change of consiousness"
You assume that I consider "end times" to be the end of the world. I do not.

Once again: did you actually watch that docu I'm talking about?
If not, then do not judge it. Do not assume anything, please just go watch it (if you're interested that is)

If I use the term "end times" you should not jump to the conclusion that I mean "end of the world" or whatever common cliche.
I'm well aware that the Mayan concept is about evolution of consiousness and creation.

It's a pity that almost all replies have missed my point completely.
I quote some guys to illustrate my statements and immediately the topic changes to attacking/defending these guys.
I'm not here to defend David Icke, nor the reptillian concept. I'm quoting him because some reader may be familiar with him and get my point.

My intent is actually quite positive, but you have to be willing to see that. It's far too easy to start attacking some guy I quote, it keeps from having to realize what I actually said ;-)

james_woods

to quote you, sir:

I'm not here to defend David Icke, nor the reptillian concept. I'm quoting him because some reader may be familiar with him and get my point.

So, what the hell was the point? (besides the reptillian concept)

If you can't put it into about 36 words or less, then nobody is going to get it.

SixofNine

"You first" = best.reply.ever.

Abaddon

DjSadhu

not if you realize it's full extent. We're not talking about changing the world by some physical action (wich is obviously changing the world) but by our thoughts and emotions alone. If it was obvious, how come nobody is living by this principle?

Isn't that a sweeping statement? You're saying NOBODY is trying to change the world by thoughts and emotions alone (although I suspect you mean nobody OTHER than you and an elect of some sort)?

No matter what the worth of such untangible 'efforts' I can assure you you're wrong; this lot for example; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yogic_flying http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_Law_Party are doing effectively nothing (bouncing around on their arse) and believe their actions will bring world peace.

Do you think they are;

Utter fruitloops
Sincere but conned
Lizard invaders (you had to mention Icke... )
The bringers of peace

... please, in your answer, indicate why you think you are right and they are wrong.

No, of course not. You should never accept or believe what I say. If you are willing to see, you can see it all around you.

Oh deary me. The old 'enlightened' routine. Yes dear, you have gnosis I am sure. Essentially you are saying

"Don't believe me (but if you can't see I am right by examining the evidence around you it is due to you being unable to see the evidence around you)".

Just like Witnesses say people deliberately blind themselves to the "truth". Why are you repeating manipulative cultic tactics? Do you want to start one? Do you have snake oil to go with the smoke and mirrors?

Well, it actually is.
First of all, notice the pre-judgement kicking in when you use the word "conspiracy". As soon as you can call something a conspiracy, it almost automatically falls into the category of nuts and fruitcakes with wild theories. "Oooh it's a conspiracy!" Funny how the use of a categorial term can take away the attention of the issue itself. If that is reason enough to stop you, be my guest ;-)

This is because most often when people claim there are conspiracies, on examination they are nuts and fruitcakes with wild theories, or to be accurate, hypothesises, as conspiracy theories by definition are not theories. Let me see; no plane hit the Pentagon; bull. The WTC fell down due to demolition charges; bull. But hey, you name a classic conspiracy theory (how about the two-gunman Kennedy one?) and I'll let you know what I think. I just find things that look like ducks, quck like ducks and walk like ducks are often ducks. Don't quack up on me, okay? I just want to know if you are fair or fowl?

You fail, again, to prove anything other than you seem to believe you have some message of truth concerning the incipient end of the world. If this is the case you better join the queue of other people, all making identically unsubstansiatable claims. Any chance of you telling us ignorant ones why you're right and the rest making such claims are wrong?

Do you believe in G-d or the Bible?

I could ask the same of you; your handle for example would seem to indicate you have a strong belief in Eastern religions or are mixing Western and Eastern traditions together at random. Thus DJ Sadhu? How long have you been seeking moksha? And what is it with this G-d business; the 'o' on your keyboard seems to work normally. Wh_t's w_th the s_persticio_s nonsense? Is the almighty lord god gonna be sad cause you used a NOUN?

As for my belief in god; what god; please define, you're being vauge.

And belief in the Bible? What do you mean? Of course I believe there is such a book. I have one. I suppose you mean 'believe its contents'. Well, to answer that would assume the Bible means the same thing to everybody, which is not true, so again, please define what you think the Bible means and I will tell you if I agree.

What would you call the seduction of Adam and Eve by Satan?

A metaphor? A myth?

What would you call a demonic take-over of this planet?

When? Where? Why does nobody tell me?

What would you call the thousands of years of suppression, slavery and abuse of 98% of the human population by people in power?

Religion and politics.

I would call it a conspiracy

Yes, but it's your judgement (citing Icke, an utter looney, for example) that is at question, so you calling something something means precisely nothing unless you can back it up with evidence.

Do you know any people who actually want war?

Not personally, but yes, there are some evil mothers out there who see war as a tool.

Do you know anybody who wants to kill as many people as he can?

Not personally, but I can give examples a-plenty.

Most people don't. Then how come there has been war anyway?

Because people are greedy and selfish and intolerant. You seem to want to blame demons. I think it is time the human race stopped making excuses for itself and saw that WE are responsible for what WE do. Why do you seek a philosphy that eschews personal responsibility? We are divine monkies; Bach and genocide, LiveAid and atom bombs. We have exactly the same aggresive habits one would expect from our close relation to primates and how they behave. Making up spooks and spirtis to blame is kind of old; they were made up millenia ago and no one has ever proved they exist.

I used the word "real" as in "actual", as opposed to "what we have been learned" or "what we have been told".

And you evaded the question "Please demonstrate the external reality of what you just said". Will you evade it again?

Because the Bible tries to teach us to do good, and is not a manual for some political system.

Ah, you're too late. It's been used as a manual for poltical systems. And please indicate how the rape of young girls as a result of god's commands (I do hope you know your Pentatuch well) during the ethnic cleansing of the promised land was in any way 'good'.

If you want to learn a profession, it also "requires you to act in certain ways and think in certain ways". This by itself is not a bad thing. You should judge any method by its fruits.

And by it's loops.

I agree if you say that RELIGION is a method of controlling people's action and behaviour, but do not mistake the Bible for religion!

One begets the other; if you are using a dead tree with ink smears on it to get to know god, you are so far away from any possible definition of 'truth' as to be deserving of sympathy. Pleae show me why you believe the Bible is a relaible inspired guide for life. Or is that another question you will evade?

Look at the 10 comandments, clearly designed to make you act in a certain way, but are they bad? I don't think so. Better yet: the Bible is trying to protect us, since our actions have consequences.

The 10 commandments are essentailly the base set of laws found in many cultures, and in fact were preceeded by other rules codes built along similar lines. Just because Israelites decided they wanted to live in a society where they weren't going to be killed and where people wouldn't steal stuff off them does not mean they needed god to come up with the rules. It's hardly rocket science. Have you just ASSUMED the Bible is god's word?

Please provide us with experimental data relating to electricity. Or radio waves. Can you? Just because you cannot see thought does not make them any less real. Think about a non-existing object. The object is not there, but you ARE thinking about it. You can see it, describe it, and your thoughts about the object are most certainly real!

Are you serious? Of course I can. I can PROVE electricity exists. I can PROVE radio waves exist. You have failed to prove your thought propogation exists, and have disingenuineously avoided responding 6to a clear question. I don;t doubt thoughts exist inside one's head; now you have to prove they exist and can make the change you claim outside one's head.

Can you provide me with such data about mass? Even though we can see, feel and measure mass we still do not now for sure what it is. Scientists best guess so far is that mass is "condensed energy".

Errr. we know what mass is. It is 'the poroperty of a physical object that quantifies the amount of matter and energy it is equivalent to'. Yah know, E=mc and all that jazz. Now answer the questions.

So what a thought? Energy?

Yes, contained within a biological system and caused by chemical reactions, with no evidence of propogation beyond that biological system other than by measurable material means.

Can it be anything else? Could thought-energy and mass-energy be related?
By the way, I'm not making this up. Maybe this story was new for you, but philosophers have been talking about this for a long time, and the last 50 years quantum-scientists are realizing it's truth.

Yes, they are, as E=mc shows; the energy making your neurons fizz (electrochemical) can become matter and vice-verca. BUT you are hypothesising this thought energy can propogate. And you still don't know how, and you still can't prove it does. The fact that matter and energy are interlinked doesn't support your hypothesis.

Does it irritate you if someone uses an example that's obvious, to illustrate something that's less obvious? And why could I not do that?

Well, you're coming here to sell us your ideas about the end of the world. Putting to one side how vastly conceited this is (we get this fairly often, drive-by postings by self-appointed prophets proclaiming how they and a special few are chosen or recipients of special knowledge). Therefore pointig out that all you have is unsubstanciated opinion and aphorisms is quite appropriate, especially as some people here are recovering from exposure to a religious cult and are more than normally suseptable to such rubbish unless it's 'Cliff Noted'.

I'm not on this forum to defend my statements against people who don't want to hear anything about the subject to begin with. I'm trying to provide an interesting point-of-view for those who value it. Clearly you have other more important interests.

I think you're wrong. You have to deal with the fact this is a DISCUSSION board, not a "Oooo! Yes Master Sadhu board". I'm quite happy to hear from people claiming they have some kind of solution for the worlds ills who can prove they are right even if I don't like what they say. I don't like what you say and you cannot prove yourself any different from any other persons making similar prophetic claims, and as they have all been wrong I am making a big guess (duck paradigm) here and assuming you're another bullshit merchant, even if you're a sincere bullshit merchant. You have thus far evaded questions and not proved anything.

Do you see me collecting money? Or starting some cult? Just because I dare to talk about end times (wich anybody could see) and tell what I have learned (not made up, but learned) you think about that category?

Again, I ask you to differentiate yourself from the multitude of competing claims and you evade responding.

@ "You call that useful? Come on, any idiot can
I would appreciate it if you kept this topic nice and polite. And so would the other readers.

... and I would appreciate it if you didn't chop quotes to make it look like you've been insulted by a comment when the comment was about a behaviour pattern often seen here "(and many frequently do) ". And again, you evade answering the guts of the question, picking away at what you think you can deal with.

@ "make seemingly causal links using numerolgy or some other pseudoscience. It is of no greater significance than being able to assemble a Shakespeare play by cutting words out of the Yellow pages."
At this point you have made perfectly clear that you are responding on a subject on wich you have done NO homework or investigation whatsoever.

So says you. Isn't it funny; I ask you to show this is something other than your say-so, and you prove time and time again it IS nothing other than your say-so.

If you would have followed my advice and seen the documentary I mentioned (wich you have clearly not, it's a 9-hour docu) you would never have made such cliche-based "aaah I know all about that"- statements.

You quote from ridiculed discredited conspirasist who believe the Queen Mother was an alien lizard in disguise, and you expect to be take seriously? Why should I waste my time wading through something you haven't even bothered to explain clearly in your own words when it's obvious your judgement is wharped by the very people you quote.

@ Ah wonderful, David "I believe in lizard alien invaders" Icke; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_icke"
What does the Bible call the create that seduced Eve? A snake. The original word translated with "snake" actually means "enlightened reptillian beeing".
Furthermore, what about the "fallen angels" and Nephilim from the period before the Flood? Did they, according to the Bible, not dematerialize and survive the flood?
Millions of religious people swallow these stories whitout blinking and then call David Icke a nutter?
And also: just because you do not agree with his Lizzard-story, you can just trhow away everything he has said? "Yeah he must be wrong about everything then" I do not agree with everything this man says, I'm just quoting him on a subject I believ he is very right about.

Okay, please prove another David Icke theory or story to me. This one maybe;

"I am a channel for the Christ spirit. The title was given to me very recently by the Godhead."

Or what about the Princess of Wales was killed because she had discovered that Charles and Camilla had had a child who had been sacrificed in a satanic ritual?

Please, show me some conspiracist stuff he has proved. I notice you evaded proving his claims about monkies, will you carry on evading proving one tiny little thing about your claims?

"completely unsupported b_llsh_t, or to be fair the bullshit"
Yes ok now there's no need to get mad at me, unless you have issues.

Nah, I don't have issues. I just get bored with the number of people who like you, claim they have knowledge of the end of the world, and who essentially feel they are right "If you are willing to see", and who evade proving any one tiny little thing about their claims. I think they have issues. Peddling fantastical made-up belief systems in a community for recovering cultists is like selling heroin at Betty Ford's.

You have shown us that you think you can make statements and judgements about all sorts of subjects you have NEVER investigated.

Heh, really?

As I said;

"Of course, you can have great fun by proving ANYTHING you've said and me wrong, I'd enjoy it. In your own words mind. I have no desire to wade through tons of links you SAY proves your beliefs as it is your judgement which is called into question."

I am still waiting; convince me in your own words, URL's or Cut and paste doesn't count unless it is to back up something you have clearly explained; for example "David Icke is an idiot" could be followed by a link to an article proving he was an idiot.

daystar

"2012 looks not much like the "End Times" and more like a sharp change of consiousness"

You assume that I consider "end times" to be the end of the world. I do not.

Then you would probably be well-served to use a different phrase than "end times" since that phrase has its very own suite of well-known connotations.

I realize what your message is. However, you can't very well promote a message using such fragile and questionable sources. Once you quote Icke, specifically, everything else comes immediately into question.

DjSadhu

@ abaddon: omg someone says you can change the world with love and unity and you reply with anger and hate, why is that?
(please don't answer, it's retorical)

I can think of one reason why anyone will go all defensive on this message of "what you think and feel will affect reality":
Once you accept this concept you will have to start taking responsibility for your thoughts as well as your actions, and that's just too much for some.

Maybe the Mayan Shift of Consiousness is all about humanity finally realizing they are co-creating their own reality?

DjSadhu

@ Abaddon "...you quote from ridiculed discredited conspirasist..."

You do not even read my words, but reply nevertheless.
The Mayan docu is NOT from Icke, but from late Ian Lungold.

I will not waste my time with people who are not even interested in the subject.

I will no longer read your posts or reply to them.

Power to change this world

Share this