Beware of some "Alien Messages", Hell's Gates, and other "phenomena" in ATS.

reply to post by klawsraught


Glad to bring some levity at least to you klaws and perhaps interest, lee anoma. It is sitting there like a fresh leg of lamb waiting to be picked apart and devoured. mmmmmmm........... Don't think you will have to wait too long .........

[edit on 16-11-2008 by Cogito, Ergo Sum]

reply to post by Cogito, Ergo Sum


While I myself await with amusement for Klaus's responses to your posts, for I believe there is some picking to be done, I while gladly respond to the questions that were pertinent to the matters that are being discussed.

As I have said before, I will gladly do that in the OTHER thread, dedicated to my views, and not on this warning one.

I am not in any way a "New Age" anything, and as a matter of fact, in many instances through my path, I have been "accused" of being too rigorous in my zeal (which you point out) to find the place and he reason for all things explainable and STILL not, for I believe that EVERYTHING has a reason and perfectly sound explanation.

That PRESENT science and cultural views do not allow us to completely access those explanations, is another matter, in which I am involved with some passion.

I will indulge in the beginning of one answer only: what is the mind?

As I patiently await for antar's reply to the accusations she made, and as I asked her to explain the same passage, I ask the same to you.

Could it be semantics that do not permit us to arrive at some same conclusions? Maybe.

As far as my experience has allowed me to see, the Mind could be understood as the Soul's "piece" within us, and through which we experience ANYTHING.

Since the Soul is an intelligent energy center, always active and creative, the Mind arrives at least there in it's perception, so speaking about "nomind" is meaningless as far as I am concerned. The mind, as the perceiver, is always present.

What changes, in my experience, is just the modality of perception, as well as the PERCEIVER'S modality. This change is psychological and has to do with identifying and accessing other "parts" of you, your Soul, and your experience which with you don't normally identify. The fact that they might not be as noisy, needy, or easily identifiable is another matter also, and one that con be undertaken, if one sees this possibilities.

I hope to explain this part of my experience also which, if things go the way I see, I will be able to start tomorrow.

reply to post by Cogito, Ergo Sum


One more thing, before I sign off, to you and anybody who cares to read or answer:

As far as my intentions are concerned, I have never said or implied that I have all the answers, that I am right and others wrong, or that what I believe goes, etc.

I have been striving to speak about content, about preparation, criticizing lack of preparation, lack of care for intellectual and spiritual formation of the information, etc.

I have also tried as much as I could in a short space and the time it takes to type, to share some of what I consider basic standards along those lines to which I still await a coherent, answerable refute.

In the meantime, I have also stated that, if at any point I have not adhered to these standards, for anyone to please let me know, and we can TOGETHER correct things.

Funny how I said this in the post previous to yours, and then you go on to say I should have done this.

In ay case, the invitation is still on, so that no dangerous content make it's way in this thread too.

Well I personally look forward to a head to head.

In the red corner Citizenc, a fine orator...

In the blue corner Cogito, Ergo Sum, master linguist.


In all seriousness a head to head seems the only solution.... no side bites,
no interference.

You guys up to it?

I for one will would watch with great intrest.

How about it?


Cheers

Mungo

[edit on 17/11/2008 by mungodave]

reply to post by citizenc


Thanks citizenc. Glad that I will be able to at least amuse someone else. I’m not looking for you to be any more perfect than I am which will obviously allow you plenty of latitude. Things seemed at the start in quite a sad direction that I have been down before, another “enlightened one” with the truth of existence…..I will get past your original posts and now no longer expect this from you, as you have kindly been so honest, and will not mention it again as I wait. I didn’t really expect it anyway. While it’s entertaining, no guru, enlightened one etc. has ever shown me the truth of a speck of dust. Though I would have welcomed it, if only that were possible.….Semantics can be an unnecessary cause of disagreement for sure, though some things need to be clear and in some ways you could have been clearer. Thank you for answering what you find as pertinent, though I would like to also add that not all of my questions were necessarily as rhetorical as at first they may seem. I will say that no objective higher truth ever originated or truly lives in the intellect, mind or emotions. Though perhaps there is something that can use what we call the mind to more or less extent. More if we can stop it rambling on, less if we can’t. Something that can be known and experienced in its true state, separate and free from any process of thought, intellect or “mind” through certain practices, such as meditation. Something that can illuminate, though it is not the mind. I suppose a poet would say truth is in the heart. A poor description perhaps, though at least that alludes to something more, or different. Enough for now to perhaps allow another perspective, if only slightly. Though if anyone believes the truth exists in their mind, with all of the other notions memories and beliefs, amongst all of the mire, who am I to argue. Especially if they know themselves. I will agree that semantics could well be the problem, it has happened before…. So I will wait until the “modus operandi” arrives. The chance for us to know ourselves, and the nature of reality.

Ps. As a simple experiment to anyone interested. Try sitting quietly and relaxed with eyes closed while just being aware, and not thinking. Being honest with ourselves, how long does it last? Some might even find it difficult to begin. For some it might only be seconds before the mind sneaks in on its own and starts rambling, but eventually it will. If we don't put the thoughts there voluntarily, who or what does? Why? Where do they come from exactly?

Citizenc, many practices that sound "spiritutal" or "mystical" can be misleading and in reality will only strengthen this completely robotic subconscious process of the mind,the exact opposite of meditation, instead of learning about it (and how we ourselves "tick") and how we might overcome this. That is why some people may have had some misgivings. Though perhaps a bit pre-emptively, without giving you the full chance to explain yourself.



[edit on 17-11-2008 by Cogito, Ergo Sum]

reply to post by mungodave


As long as I can have a second who is quick with the towell. I float like a bee and sting like a butterfly. Up for that mungodave?

[edit on 17-11-2008 by Cogito, Ergo Sum]

Originally posted by Cogito, Ergo Sum
reply to post by mungodave

 

As long as I can have a second who is quick with the towell. I float like a bee and sting like a butterfly. Up for that mungodave?

[edit on 17-11-2008 by Cogito, Ergo Sum]

A second? I dont know about that...

I feel I would run a distant fifth..

I'll bring the coffee nonetheless.

Thanks for the offer though,

I will attempt the challenge from you last post though.

I feel the thoughts will be put there from a roudy 5 year old... not to derail.

He is derailing me just now.

Mungo

reply to post by TravelerintheDark


I agree that to believe someone’s claims is a decision made on a judgment of their claims and how those claims fit into the believer’s world-view. But I was more inclined to indicate that it would be extraordinary for claims to be proven true by outside means. Not just by individual faith. That may be asking way too much, but it is an honest wish.

I too think citizenc is perfectly genuine in his/her intent, and that this thread is a concerned reaction to the huge amount of rubbish that we (ATS) are subjected to with regard to possible contact/communication with advanced beings/higher knowledge. It is not unreasonable to have hoped for such an evenhanded attitude to the subject to come along, especially after the amount of hoaxes we have had to trawl through recently.
And it also occurs to me that anyone who actually does have access to information that we will naturally find extreme will have to come to these boards with a steel will and a stout heart because of the ground laid by those delightful fraudulent trolls.
I do not envy the earnest messenger of hope.

Yet, it still amazes me when I read some of the reactions to this thread, especially from certain long-established members who really do seem to have had a very uncomfortable bee shoved into their bonnets. Is this because citizenc can relate the self-same experiences (or some things very close) with an almost professional air, who can stand his/her ground intellectually, and who welcomes harsh questioning as a matter of course? Do I detect sour grapes?

And as for the, assumed to come, fantastical side of this thread…well this is ATS. The home of the astonishing claim and the defender the exceptional individual. What better place to read, for the first time, of a sincere paranormal occurrence?

And saying that, in retrospect, it seems perfectly prudent for citizenc to have laid the ground with the knowledge he/she has at his/her disposal before explaining how it was gleaned. Because after that information is posted, then will come the calls for proof, and that is where we all stand on unsafe ground.

The trust will, or will not come when we eventually read of citizenc’s history. And again that trust in his/her words will be and individual choice, unless we are presented with something unexpected that gives little choice but to believe. But that is the stuff of idealism and supreme optimism.

Personally, citizenc and I started out, and maybe still remain, on opposite sides of a divide, and butted heads many times because of it. We have grown to respect for each others viewpoints, even if they may still differ, and I am grateful for the opportunity to have conversed with such an academic advocate of a subject matter that I still find hard to grasp. But he/she has given me the occasion to begin thinking about the reality of what truly surrounds us in a different, and unanticipated, light. For that, I am obliged, no matter where his/her enlightenment originates.




[edit on 17-11-2008 by Beamish]

[edit on 17-11-2008 by Beamish]

reply to post by Beamish


Thank you for your well-thought response.

You are, of course, right that many claims of the fantastic can not, and probably never will be, proven by any scientific process, unless that process is fit within a framework that defies comprehension at this time.

You mention a steel will, but truthfully these experiences can go a long way to isolating us. If you haven't had such experiences for yourself, try to imagine what it would be like to experience something that the majority of the world tells can not be so. For myself, simply because I'm the best example I can use, it has been a hard road at times.

For anyone to tell me these experiences are untrue is futile for both them and me. I know what happened, the effects are very real. So then, telling me I'm guilty of a "hoax" does little more than state a position of opposition to me on a deeply personal level. Not really changing anyone's mind, nor moving the world in any significant way. And even if it were a hoax, how many said hoaxers are apt to admit to it?

But I stated that for the broader argument, rather than for me personally, learning long ago that few would believe in my experiences, and learning also that this has no relevance. No one can believe with me, or believe against me, and change what happened. I share, personally, not to find those who will agree with me on the possibility, but those who know and have experienced like I have. Because it does the human heart good to know we are not alone. That being said, I believe there are those to whom it really does matter what others believe, though I tell them they are wasting their time and energy.

Simply, both sides of the issue are boxing whirlwinds.

But we seem to take a similar stance in ultimately wishing to combat fearfulness. But how is that end best served? All of us must choose that path. For myself, I ask only one question: What is more potent, denial or empowerment? And then determine how that choice is best served.

For me the choice is to work within the framework of belief to allay those fears. Not to challenge what happened, but rather how it is perceived. Personally, I consider this the most effective and progressive path. One that doesn't imply the changing of experience, but rather how it is considered.


[edit on 17-11-2008 by TravelerintheDark]

[edit on 17-11-2008 by TravelerintheDark]

[edit on 17-11-2008 by TravelerintheDark]

reply to post by TravelerintheDark

Thank you for your well-thought response.

My pleasure. It was nothing but a reflection of the tone of the thread, and that is thanks to citizenc. In return, my thanks for maintaining the level of the discussion.

Scientific verification of the fantastic is really the holy grail of all those who believe in the unexplained as being something that is as yet unsolved, but natural and normal nonetheless. Until this verification happens in the mainstream (please do not hold your breath) we will, endlessly, continue to discuss tenuous offerings and ersatz philosophies on ATS and the like.

And even if we are furnished with the undeniably genuine corroboration of a seemingly impossible event or declaration, there will certainly be a flood of imitations to follow. Citizenc’s argument is against the deluge of falsity we are wading through now, before that most desired of events has even happened, which may well wash away truths that are struggling to surface.

This is where the process citizenc is being subjected to in this thread could well be seen to be incredibly isolating. And it is the analogical “steel-will” he/she exhibits that is so encouraging. There are prophets and contactees a-plenty on this site, yet few of them, to my mind, have ever demonstrated a rational and a reasonable standpoint to support their claims. That, in my opinion, is an absolute prerequisite for any contactee/recipient of knowledge as the messenger has to have mastered the message.

If they have not, what significance has the message’s alleged provenance?

If it cannot be delivered in a form that is understandable and accessible, by a bearer that is eminently and obviously capable and deserving of its import, then it loses all credibility. And if that is the case, not only is the bearer questioned, but the message’s supposed instigators, too. And where does that leave a message that is already floundering at the first hurdle?

Well, to me it leaves it exposed as specious and spurious.

This explains why I am still reading this thread with interest as opposed to reading it purely skeptically.

Most hoaxers simply wish to convince readers to believe in their own nefarious causes and therefore gain celebrity and converts by the use of frightening, manipulative rhetoric.
That sort of ruse is easily spotted.
It is almost as if they enjoy relating tales of woe and imminent destruction so they can wallow with like-minded people in just how awful this world really is.

However, those who speak of genuine experiences do so with dignity and a distinct solemnity. This, to me, speaks volumes of a different sort of communication delivered to competent bearers by unseen hands. Is it too much of a supposition to theorize that the unusual is seen only by those who are able to communicate, or even just to understand its appearance successfully? Maybe I digress…

Of course I could be mistaken in these assumptions; even the eloquent lie. Even the rational may be unwittingly deceptive. People have agendas.

For myself, I ask only one question: What is more potent, denial or empowerment? And then determine how that choice is best served.

Both. They work in several ways.

To deny those who happily deceive is an empowering process.

To deny the genuine messenger only empowers negativity.

Originally posted by Beamish
reply to post by TravelerintheDark

 

For myself, I ask only one question: What is more potent, denial or empowerment? And then determine how that choice is best served.

Both. They work in several ways.

To deny those who happily deceive is an empowering process.

Here we diverge most notably, which is fine with me. I personally don't find it empowering to overcome anyone. Even to the open liar, I prefer to smile and go on my way letting them choose their own path which will pay out to them in the end. Of this I'm certain.

I can see nothing to gain from their exposure but perhaps an inflated sense of pride at being clever, and for them to feel shamed and bitter.

As to masters: Show me a master and I'll check for a pulse. Mastery implies completion and living implies the task is incomplete. The message to me should be valued by the merits of the underlying meaning rather than my perceived value of its deliverer or even delivery. In this way, I am never deceived from my own truth. Along this path I find value in most everything.

reply to post by TravelerintheDark


I think you read more into that particular part of my post than intended.

I do not find it empowering to overcome anyone either. I have no need to “defeat” another human. Being a rational, peaceful person, why would I?

I do, however, strongly object to liars, open or not. I have seen the damage lies can do, emotionally and physically, first hand and simply will not sit back and let untruths, as I perceive them, continue to be broadcast at will (this is of course dependant on my perception being correct. If it’s not, then I am the first to apologise). I am not certain that liars chosen paths of deceit always lead to apt punishment, however that may manifest. In this we will disagree.

I can see nothing to gain from their exposure but perhaps an inflated sense of pride at being clever, and for them to feel shamed and bitter.

Inflated sense of pride at being clever? Strong words.

There’s nothing clever in pointing out an individual’s dishonesty; if more people did it we’d have a safer world and less crime. Isn’t that logical?

And as to the term “mastery”; the inference here is on the messenger’s authoritative, influential position conferred by the task at hand.

I’ll state this again: in my opinion to disseminate a message successfully one has to understand it. To simply assume that anyone, a liar say, can preach a message of hope is to deny the message’s true credibility as it is being preached for reasons other than the intended ones. I do not want to hear that message from a liar as the message is tainted by their association.

If I stood on a pulpit and advocated Christianity whilst wearing a dog-collar purely because I wanted the attention the congregation gave, would the sermon count as valid because I am not a Christian? With respect, I do not believe it would.

Where would be the driving force of integrity and the accompanying sense of morality the sermon was designed to deliver? It would be corrupted because of the egocentric narcissism of the messenger.

reply to post by Cogito, Ergo Sum


Thank you for the more thorough and convincing response.

The match ends before it starts, because we agree on what you have posted, and also proves me right in the sense that, it was semantics that was and will continue to create problems about these themes.

Since these are not STILL taught in schools and using a unified field of concepts and terms, then we are bound to find differences of perception and HOW we define those perceptions.

In this case, I wanted to point out that the Mind is the PERCEIVING mechanism, which is independent from physical aspects, and can be used to go back and forth through different areas available, physical and mental, dimensional, whatever you wish.

It uses, and in some ways actually CREATES physical perceptions, although it is not limited in its scope to perception in only this "realm".


The Mind then, would not be the "Thinker", which is what you were referring to, as I understand it, more related to cerebral and brain functions, and more geared towards the mundane and everyday requirements of our life.

Have you ever caught yourself as you are awaking, when the ON switch is clicked on physical perception, and you begin to hear and feel the room where you are?
Before that moment, there was just "experience" of other types, such as dreaming, thinking, etc.

That sort of "connection" and "disconnection" of the 3d, mundane mechanisms is what YOU would then call "meditation" (if I understood correctly), where the Mind, the perceiving mechanism disengages completely from perception in this plane, and moves to "other".

My "meditation" is just to willingly disengage and manage the Mind, so that then, when performing OTHER functions (go back to my football-sports analogy) I can use my perceiving mechanism to "throw" it and let me have a look where I WANT to go, rather than where it or my mental activity would take me.

The reason why I wanted this to be clear is because, as far as I am concerned, it is extremely important that this be understood, so that other things can be as well, without having to return many times over to the "real" attributes of a Mind, and what it can do or not.

As I am about to start writing the beginning of the new thread, I realize that this is a crucial matter, so I thank you for the attention and well thought concepts that will help us avoid in the future the unnecessary debate.

Originally posted by Beamish
And as to the term “mastery”; the inference here is on the messenger’s authoritative, influential position conferred by the task at hand.

I have found that influential positions are conferred by those perceiving the message rather than the message itself. The message itself often seems to confer quite the opposite on its carrier. So I find it more valuable to assess how the message lifts me by its own means rather than the position of the messenger.




[edit on 17-11-2008 by TravelerintheDark]

Posted by Cogito, Ergo Sum

"Ps. As a simple experiment to anyone interested. Try sitting quietly and relaxed with eyes closed while just being aware, and not thinking. Being honest with ourselves, how long does it last? Some might even find it difficult to begin. For some it might only be seconds before the mind sneaks in on its own and starts rambling, but eventually it will. If we don't put the thoughts there voluntarily, who or what does? Why? Where do they come from exactly? "

I have seen this question asked many time in many different ways, I will respond to it, perhaps because of other things you said... exactly why this time and not any other time I do not know.

Awareness yes, however it is not a matter of quiet but of listening to everything else around you. Think of it like a symphony, once you are done enjoying, absorbing, or identifying a sound move on to the next one. You may notice sometimes the busiest environments have the quietest background or ambient noise.

If the mind is busy listening it cannot talk...

reply to post by Cogito, Ergo Sum


Thank you for a fine response, one that can take us places as well, which is in my opinion, the definition of an enlightening conversation.

I never for one second took ANY of your questions to be rhetorical. As a matter of fact, I am sure that I and we will be able to touch on some of that material, and create some occasions for further discussion, as soon as I post my other thread.

I thought they were thorough and honest, and it seemed as a set I would have prepared for any grilling myself. I believe they will lead us somewhere, as a fine representation of all the holes of the "usually left out" themes of anything "mystical" and the sort.

Coming to the meditation business, I see now that we have a slight problem of semantics, depending on what you mean.

The Mind=thinker is the one we DO NOT want in the middle of awareness of any kind, in the sense that the Thinker should be the PERSON.

(I know we delve now into seemingly arbitrary terms, but since these themes are still not taught in schools, we have to strive to find some common ground from all the "new agish" mumble.)

Continuing, Mind= perceiver is a TOOL of the Thinker, of the Personality as it experiences and creates experience. That is the Mind that is trained, quieted, directed into different realms and levels of "matter" and not.

That Mind, is therefore a Part of the Personality, and not the Personality.

For example, as you think, where are you?

Is that you between the ears and behind the eyes?
Is that you the one you hear think right there?

To put it clearly, the Mind there is PERCEIVING thought, not creating it. THIS is the mind I am talking about.

Once you TRAIN and learn to operate the Mind (going to the football-sports analogy I used) is that you can get to perceive the "other", that might interest us here.

The reason why this may seem counter-intuitive and arbitrary is because we are used to EQUALING the two, to the point where in modern science, pretty soon some would like to show a brain and say: "There's Bob" and not just Bob's brain.

Just to say that, from some points of view, the subtle and exquisite differences of the vast array of details that make each one of us up, are still approached rather bluntly.

Our PROCESSES do NOT equal OURSELVES in a strict sense; this is the crux of the matter.
These are fine and useful differences to put to our USE, to incorporate newer and more sophisticated functions where there were non previously, or non EXPLOITED previously.

Understanding these processes in this fashion, and putting things to work in harmony and with clear roles and eliminating the static, is that you then get to experience what you term the "Spiritual" and the "Mystical", as soon as we send willingly and deliberately our Mind to PERCEIVE SOMEWHERE ELSE.

Understanding the geography of such other realms and possible places where we can "reach" with our mind, is another discussion, but at least we start from a common base.

These are NOT things that happen mysteriously and with "no explanation".

This is a concept that I have never accepted, and one that I touched on at the beginning.

This is why, as you can very well begin to see, I am very even "mechanical" and "matter of factician" in some ways while I go about approaching the, again, "Mystical".
Any given experience is not for one bit less wondrous or void of meaning for these reasons, quite the contrary.

To be able to perceive some things in an informed, respectful, and rigorous manner makes the experience all the more meaningful and fills me with awe, at least this is my experience.

Sunsets happen at a specific point in the horizon, at a predictable hour.
Going to find one and enjoying it on purpose does not make it one bit less spectacular and beautiful.
The fact that I went to MEET it, only makes my smile wider.

For these reasons, is that I think that some of this might be useful to SOMEBODY.

We can, or rather, pretty surely discuss this some more in the future I am sure, hopefully for the sakes of making some more steps in the right direction, or at the very least, away from the less fruitful ones.

reply to post by TravelerintheDark

Originally posted by TravelerintheDark

Originally posted by Beamish
And as to the term “mastery”; the inference here is on the messenger’s authoritative, influential position conferred by the task at hand.

I have found that influential positions are conferred by those perceiving the message rather than the message itself. The message itself often seems to confer quite the opposite on its carrier. So I find it more valuable to assess how the message lifts me by its own means rather than the position of the messenger.

[edit on 17-11-2008 by TravelerintheDark]

I have to say it somewhere, so I hope that you don't mind me saying in this format of "Response to" you:

I thoroughly enjoyed the discussion that you and Beamish gifted us with, and feel very honoured that you participate in this, which can be an important discussion when conducted at the level we have aimed, to warn others about standards that do not quite meet the earnest desire to be useful and be creative generosity you both have shown.

I quote you for this reason:

While agreeing with both of you on some issues, this one I would like to touch, for it is rather important as we discuss the merits of the title of this Thread.

Not one bit because Beamish spoke specifically about me, but in general, there MUST be a relation between the CONVEYOR of a message and the message itself. And I use the term to differentiate from Messenger, less "aware" of the content, for example.

Just publishing ANY content or information, requires and demands responsibility and accountability, whether this be obvious or not, for reasons that, if I may call the M (morality) word, have to do with energy and collective responsibility issues.

Any word, even the ones of a "simple" comment, carry the imprint, the weight and some of the "intent" of the Conveyor, and this we must take into consideration at all times.

You yourself know that, adhering to the most basic of your "spiritual" or moral standards, you would never say or publish openly or anonymously anything that wet against your moral grain.

On the contrary, by the care shown by you and a LARGE amount of people here in ATS and other venues, it is noticeable that great care is put into every word and thought, leaving the level of finesse, eloquence and resolution to depend on other factors like preparation, education, personality, etc.
(and this is without even mentioning the effects in the Mental plane, another issue I have touched upon in a couple of threads, but I will leave to the side here, to touch upon on the other thread).

This is the conflict that I interpret Beamish as wanting to stress, and one that must be taken into consideration while warning against harmful content.

Beamish and I where discussing this very issue on seemingly opposing sides in another thread, and this because I defended vehemently a Message that I considered important and quite crucial in some ways, while relegating the importance of the "messenger" to a second plane, simply because it was quite obvious that there was little mastery of some themes by the OP, ones that he really wanted to get across somehow.

With this said, even in that case the Conveyor-Message entanglement was important, but to a lesser degree, and this was the source of our first diatribes.

It is never NOT important, and this I think is where we would invite you to reflect.

One example: If I were to tell you: "Give and you shall receive"... but it came for the Federal Reserve and not from Christ, how would that be nice?

It is an extreme example, but goes to show that there is no such thing as a completely "sterile" message, and this is very good news.

Tell me what you think, for maybe this is also a theme that can be usefully exploited on this thread.




[edit on 17-11-2008 by citizenc]

And to my dear friend Beamish and all those of you who keep hammering away:

It is thanks to YOU that there is a constant of coherence in this and other threads, for you CAN REALLY keep someone on his toes, when operating deliberately and in the right spirit of the search for truth and knowledge.

THAT is the ATS we want.

[edit on 17-11-2008 by citizenc]

citzenc I find your thread fascinating, may I ask if you are searching for someone or something?

also

How is the perception modified thru the simple act of observation?

It would appear to me that an action needs to be taken for an event to occur.

How do you distinguish between what is changeable and what is probable?

Originally posted by citizenc
One example: If I were to tell you: "Give and you shall receive"... but it came for the Federal Reserve and not from Christ, how would that be nice?

Well, it doesn't tell what to give or to whom. Therefore the conclusion is drawn by those who interpret it. No matter who said it, if it inspires me to give to someone who has less than I do with only an expectation of receiving thankfulness in return, does it matter who said it? I will feel I've done the right thing according to my values.

Now, certainly anyone could make the assumption that coming from the Fed or Christ it implies something negative (Read Christ as the Church and you understand what I mean.). In my interests, I care not for the motive behind it, only the message. If the message can be interpreted with purity in action and purity applied in the intent of that action, it matters not even a little to me who gets credit for it.

Here is a real example. Driving past a man with a sign that read: Please help me. I gave him $5. Talking to a friend later, he said that the man likely made 100's of dollars a day doing this. To this my response was, "He asked for help. Because I gave him money doesn't mean that was the help I gave him."

[edit on 17-11-2008 by TravelerintheDark]