It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

To be or not to be-- a God?

page: 2
6
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 16 2014 @ 08:21 PM
link   
WarminIndy
veteranhumanbeing
3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by Jesuslives4u
 



VeteranHumanBeingThe whole point was before there was 'religion' you find god within as you are God as its expression, (human) or a lower form of beaver (all the same just at different levels). Whomevers great idea it was to structure a belief in God as a system was only into powermongering, (intimidation fear factor) or thinking of ways to make a buck. Finding God only comes within, a singular personal experience (as it was planned so to be, plan working for some) not so for those stuck in false belief systems, architypes.



WarminIndyCan you prove from the most ancient religious sources how man viewed himself in relation to the divine? Before Judaism and Christianity is what you meant referring to religion. You need to get past that idea, because religion is older than Judaism and Christianity. How did the sages in the Vedic Age view themselves and God? They believed in the Ultimate, One, and they called Him Brahma. The first primordial sound, according to the Vedics, was Ohm, which they tantrically repeat over and over until some type of trance ensues.


Sure I can get past idea of religious dogma replacing the natural condition of the human to be directly connected to 'god' through telepathy. No lies can be told, or ruses to hustle your neighbor out of some goats (claiming they strayed onto their property; not properly branded or sheperded). I have no problem with pre-dynastic Egyptians or Vedics. Trance state more recently/popularly known as 'transendental meditation' technique in the 70s, (see Sufhi practices for the real deal) has always been a method to connect to 'God Kether or crown'. As said before we had a natural connection originally that was monkeyed with/genetic strands for such ability removed.


WarminIndyI have read the Rig Vedas, I know what they say. Even those who are Hindu will say that the original belief was Brahma but that the different tantric schools set about to understand the attributes and could not all learn about all so divided into different schools. Even today, ask who is God, they say Brahma.
In Turkic areas and especially Catal Hyuk, they believed in Tengri, the Sky Father. So in human to God relationship, still earlier than Judaism and Christianity, the concept that man was God was not present. You do find it later among the Egyptians. I think you fail to understand that religion did not start with Judaism, and neither organized religion.


Yes, but this is after the fact; as in 100s of thousands of years after the fact of the removal from the proto-human of the ability to directly channel/communicate with the/a 'percieved' god sourse.


WarminIndyCan you show me from any ancient source before the Rig Vedas, the Egyptian Book of the Dead or the Torah, where mankind believed they were God? If your criticism is with Judeo/Christianity, then please specifically name Judeo/Christianity. To say "religion" as though it were a recent concept is misleading.


Sure I can its all spelled out in the Qabalah, your link to and direct path to your creator, an ancient map (tree of life manual thought to be a 13,000 BC origination) to humans original devination; just doesnt know it. You could start at the top of the tree of life and work down and (not recommending this) you will grok the same AH HAH, so thats how it all works. I have no ax to grind with Judeo/Christianity as that is someones elses (the believer in) problem entirely. The major religions are very recent, if compared to IF (only 6000 years old) you include the Sumarians as the first modern writers/or first civilization that developed a written language (cuniform) of their percieved Gods, weights and measures, transference of goods and services etc. Someone thought we needed prophets as hybrid humans on earth occasionally to help us along; the Elohim, or Order of the Melchizedeks comes to mind.
edit on 16-3-2014 by vethumanbeing because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 16 2014 @ 09:39 PM
link   
reply to post by vethumanbeing
 


No, I asked if you can prove it from ancient sources.

The Kabbahla isn't ancient and isn't from Babylon, it's Jewish mysticism from the Middle Ages. No, Judaism wasn't influenced by Khemet of Egypt.

I want to know if you can provide any text, stele, tablet, parchment, monolith, anything that tells you how man was viewed in relationship with God or was god, pre-Judaism, Zoroastrianism, Egyptian, Greek, Roman, Vedic, anything, that you can show me without speculation.

You might say shamanism within Tengrism, however, that is about one person, the shaman, who makes the connection to the spiritual side, or says he does. Your speculation is that was a common, universal theme, but you can't prove it beyond speculation and no internet video or documentary has anything substantive because that's all based on speculation and conspiracy theorism. Perhaps you might say Buddhism or Tibetan, but those aren't even as old as Catal Huyk. We know that people in Jericho worshiped ancestors, they plastered the skulls of loved ones and buried them under their houses, but again, that's speculative as to why they did it.



posted on Mar, 16 2014 @ 10:44 PM
link   
WarminIndy
reply to post by veteranhumanbeing
 



WarminIndyNo, I asked if you can prove it from ancient sources.
The Kabbahla isn't ancient and isn't from Babylon, it's Jewish mysticism from the Middle Ages. No, Judaism wasn't influenced by Khemet of Egypt.


Next thing you are going to tell me is that the Israelites were enslaved in Egypt "Moses says to Ramses 'LET MY PEOPLE GO' (Charleton Heston-hollywood fake name) at his best. The only reason you may think the Qabalah is of Jewish mysticism is because the ESSENES studied it (not the Pharasee or Saducee). It was in polite terms 'borrowed' from the Egyptians; its source was as I said passed to the Sirians from the times of Atlantis. Jewish mysticism originally? Laughable (talk to Khem about this).


WarminIndyI want to know if you can provide any text, stele, tablet, parchment, monolith, anything that tells you how man was viewed in relationship with God or was god, pre-Judaism, Zoroastrianism, Egyptian, Greek, Roman, Vedic, anything, that you can show me without speculation.


Read the ancient Summarian cuniform clay tablets as interpreted by those that decifered them; as they are the earliest language describing God force and mans relationship to IT (there is nothing beforehand other than the Qabalah in its discription of mans relationship as MAN IS is God on a path to re-encounter in primitive form its creator). You are blustering me with coaglated unsubstanciated history; Im inclined to not take in account, as I am Gnostic and none of it matters; as is not true (like taking a comparative literature class/endless speculation and imperfect in those participating, postulations). The Tibetans have in their posession, 2 (mummified in gold) creature humans; one is 19 feet in length the other 21 feet. These 2 gigantic cone headed 'Gods' were their sourse of information and of another world (they admit freely) proof we are of an extraterresial creation. You always want proof; I can give you authorship page numbers by a Lama that was taken to the place these beings are housed; he was an adept of the current sitting Dali Lama and as far as I know still is.


edit on 16-3-2014 by vethumanbeing because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 17 2014 @ 12:15 AM
link   
reply to post by vethumanbeing
 


And where is Atlantis, pray tell? Have you found it?

Do you realize what you have just sounded like? A compendium of conspiracy theories. You might say you are Gnostic, and you may believe you are, but do you have Sophic knowledge?

Gnosis means knowledge learned through illumination. Your gnosis comes from Atlantis, originally? Nothing in your statements are correct historically. You may choose to believe they are, divinely illuminated one. But exactly what divine being has illuminated you? Have you asked this divine being for credentials? Did you make sure the divine being wasn't out to con you?

The Essenes were very religious. The Khemet were very religious. The Tibetans are Buddhists, and very religious. The Dalai Lama is religious. Therefore all of them ascribe to a religion. Khemet, state sponsored religion of Egypt.

The Sirians? Do you mean Syrians? Or Sirians as in Sirius? If you mean Sirius, then they told you where Atlantis was? I thought you were a rational person, but this Gnosticism you claim, isn't Gnosticism in the sense of early Gnostics as they came out of Greek mythological thought, and then claimed connection in some loose way with Christianity, forged books and lied about books in their possession.

OK so you are the modern Edgar Cayce. I get it now.



posted on Mar, 17 2014 @ 07:50 PM
link   
WarminIndy
reply to post by VeteranHumanBeing
 



[i[WarminIndyAnd where is Atlantis, pray tell? Have you found it?
Do you realize what you have just sounded like? A compendium of conspiracy theories. You might say you are Gnostic, and you may believe you are, but do you have Sophic knowledge?


Praying to tell? what does that mean. Atlantis is a sunken city in the Atlantic ocean. Conspiracy theories; (the 'pet rock' has actual scentience, Jesus lived and is just waiting for his next incarnation as an old growth Oak tree somewhere in Georgia, after IT as a tree learns how to speak to its human caretakers, "water me please" would be his first BARK words). I may say I am a Gnostic, and I may believe I am but YOU not knowing what this means/entails are out of your depth. Sophic knowledge implies:
1. Specious knowledge for the displaying of ingenuity in reasoning or for deceiving someone. 2. Any false arguement, fallacy; an acquired skill or method to be a Sophist. 3. (I find very interesting) a class of professional 'teachers' in ancient Greece who give instruction in various fields of study; general culture, rhetoric or politics. A person belonging to this class in a later period of time would, (while professing to teach skills in reasoning is more concerned with himself ingenuity/specious effectivenes) rather than any soundness of arguement. In light of all three definitions I most certainly AM NOT a Sophist.

WarminIndyGnosis means knowledge learned through illumination. Your gnosis comes from Atlantis, originally? Nothing in your statements are correct historically. You may choose to believe they are, divinely illuminated one. But exactly what divine being has illuminated you? Have you asked this divine being for credentials? Did you make sure the divine being wasn't out to con you?


Gnosis does not come from Atlantis as another religion or belief system. It is timeless and has nothing to do with written historical records (as it is a spiritual matter up to each and everyone to learn/decifer TRUTHS that had been hidden from you). I have no choice as in to believe or not to believe, it is apparent and so all distinctions within the realms of doubt; reality, truth are instantly revealed. Divinely illumiated? ME? Why would I put myself up to my own potencial execution; just like Jesus and John the Babtist (argueing myself to myself as my death will help as a sacrifice for others sinless in the first place). Not sure who you think the 'they factor is". As far as vetting goes look at my name. VETTing (the) HumanBeing or, a Veteran of the Human Race having lived many lifetimes. How can I con myself, its just not possible and unreasonable. Your last question is interesting; why do I need another devine being to explain myself to myself as I AM that 'devine being' simoultaniously living in two dimensions at ONCE.


WarminIndy The Essenes were very religious. The Khemet were very religious. The Tibetans are Buddhists, and very religious. The Dalai Lama is religious. Therefore all of them ascribe to a religion. Khemet, state sponsored religion of Egypt.
The Sirians? Do you mean Syrians? Or Sirians as in Sirius? If you mean Sirius, then they told you where Atlantis was? I thought you were a rational person, but this Gnosticism you claim, isn't Gnosticism in the sense of early Gnostics as they came out of Greek mythological thought, and then claimed connection in some loose way with Christianity, forged books and lied about books in their possession.


If the Greeks first identified this 'school of thought' so be it; they are wrong in premis IT CANNOT BE TAUGHT only be talked of as its a state of being in knowledge.
The Essenes were not 'religous' to a hebrew god law doctrine architype known. They were spiritualists "the first New-Agers' that understood the crystal powers of levitation, the Qabalah, the 'hidden mystery schools of the pre-dynastic Egyptians'. Those being a race from (planted here as a fully blown civilization of the 6th dimension, just like the ancient Maya of the fifth dimension); the constellation of Orion, Sirius. Gnostism is not anything of time or patent history telling, it is 'all knowing' all at once as there is no such thing as 'time' off of this heavy matter planet. Any Gnostic will not claim affiliation to doctrine, history or religion. You are in possession of the truth; all else is but of entertainment value.

WarminIndyOK so you are the modern Edgar Cayce. I get it now.

Never would take that away from him. He was a sleeping somnobulist prophet, Im wide awake and not dead.
edit on 17-3-2014 by vethumanbeing because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 17 2014 @ 08:38 PM
link   
reply to post by vethumanbeing
 


Do you KNOW what you sound like?

I know what you sound like, but do you? Get into my head then you'll understand.

Here you go, just for you.

edit on 3/17/2014 by WarminIndy because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 17 2014 @ 11:34 PM
link   
WarminIndy
reply to post by VeteranHumanBeing
 



WarminIndyDo you KNOW what you sound like?
I know what you sound like, but do you? Get into my head then you'll understand.
Here you go, just for you.


I know what I sound like, (in perfection) an empassioned Igor Stravinski's plea: 'Rite of Spring', "The Firebird" or anything symphonically notated by another Bohemian composer: Prokoviev; or 'Jesus Christ Superstar' the rock opera by Tim Rice and Andrew Webber starring Ted Neely as Christ fits my bill of stars (EMPHASESS) for God in proclaiming its existance. What do I sound like exactly and what does your head have to do with anything? I am a pop culturalist living now AS AN observer of trends; influencer of potencial outcomes of my own derivation (here is where the God observance factor comes into play and what may come of it, you are lucky I have a sense of humor).
edit on 18-3-2014 by vethumanbeing because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 18 2014 @ 12:09 AM
link   

vethumanbeing
WarminIndy
reply to post by VeteranHumanBeing
 



WarminIndyDo you KNOW what you sound like?
I know what you sound like, but do you? Get into my head then you'll understand.
Here you go, just for you.


I know what I sound like, an empassioned Igor Stravinski's plea: 'Rite of Spring', "The Firebird" or anything notated by another bohemian composer: Prokoviev; or 'Jesus Christ Superstar' rock opera by Tim Rice and Andrew Webber starring Ted Neely as Christ fits my bill of stars for God in proclaiming its existance. What do I sound like exactly and what does your head have to do with anything? I am a popularist living now as an observer.
edit on 17-3-2014 by vethumanbeing because: (no reason given)


Yeah, I see the pop culture.

I know Jesus Christ Superstar, I like that as well. I am related to the awesome Szbolcs Brickner. He's my mom's thirdish cousin from that Hunnic Empire formerly known as ZaZaland, home of the Gaborish clan.

What you sound like in my head...it's translated via binary to html, through the optic and fires through my synapses and crosses the blood brain barrier like a Harrier, shooting random missiles at the W T H ? sector. That's what you sound like in my head.

So what's the buzz? Tell me what's happening?



posted on Mar, 18 2014 @ 12:48 AM
link   
WarminIndy
vethumanbeing
WarminIndy
reply to post by VeteranHumanBeing
 



WarminIndyDo you KNOW what you sound like?
I know what you sound like, but do you? Get into my head then you'll understand.
Here you go, just for you.



VHBI know what I sound like, an empassioned Igor Stravinski's plea: 'Rite of Spring', "The Firebird" or anything notated by another bohemian composer: Prokoviev; or 'Jesus Christ Superstar' rock opera by Tim Rice and Andrew Webber starring Ted Neely as Christ fits my bill of stars for God in proclaiming its existance. What do I sound like exactly and what does your head have to do with anything? I am a popularist living now as an observer.



WarminIndyYeah, I see the pop culture. I know Jesus Christ Superstar, I like that as well. I am related to the awesome Szbolcs Brickner. He's my mom's thirdish cousin from that Hunnic Empire formerly known as ZaZaland, home of the Gaborish clan. What you sound like in my head...it's translated via binary to html, through the optic and fires through my synapses and crosses the blood brain barrier like a Harrier, shooting random missiles at the W T H ? sector. That's what you sound like in my head.


Seriously? Za Za land and own up to it? You need to understand that off world this place is made up of binary patterns of 1s and 0s. This is the way information is communicated (known). Blood brain only comprises what matter can pass to influence chemically. Thought form transferred within the brain is a completely different schema; diagram; organized structural framework, universal concept limited to phenominal knowledge (MAGICK); pure reason apprehended or quashed.


WarminIndySo what's the buzz? Tell me what's happening?


"Whats the Buzz tell me whats a happening, hang on Lord we're going to fight for you HANG ON LORD! we're going to fight for you; hang on Lord what are we fighting for fighting for?" (said underneath the chorus line; listen closely as it is Judas singing).
edit on 18-3-2014 by vethumanbeing because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 18 2014 @ 01:43 AM
link   
reply to post by vethumanbeing
 


So as you think therefore you are?

Or, you think, therefore you are a thinker because you can be nothing else except the waiter?

Or, artificially created intelligence doesn't think therefore is not and off world you are the diner?

Or, this artificially created communication of binary 0 and 1 is the menu, garcon, check please!

Do you think off world so therefore you are off world?



posted on Mar, 18 2014 @ 02:16 AM
link   
WarminIndy
reply to post by VeteranHumanBeing
 


WarminIndySo as you think therefore you are?
Or, you think, therefore you are a thinker because you can be nothing else except the waiter?

You mean (instead of a waiter) I could be the grocery clerk (death messenger) sent as an errand boy, to collect the bill of someones souls misdeeds, ('Apocolypse Now' Col. Kurtz to Capt. Willard). "I think therefore I am"-- Its more like I told a friend of mine "I stink therefore I AM". If I think therefore I am, or Im Proust correcting himself; am Descartes wondering if Proust knows I exist (existencally) how would he know it) I did not as a tree fall silently in the forest with no observer. I am a thinker period (you might not think); however I am aware of the 'nothing else is new under this sun' and know how to avoid physical death prematurely. There is power in observation; especially if this power is held by someone such as me as can change paradigms (architypes).

WarminIndyOr, artificially created intelligence doesn't think therefore is not and off world you are the diner? Or, this artificially created communication of binary 0 and 1 is the menu, garcon, check please! Do you think off world so therefore you are off world?


I blink on and off just as you do. Artificially created intellegence, sort of like a Stephen King novel 'Christine'? Yes, exists in the form of robotic machines; on the assembly lines of car manufacturers. They have simple scentience of an awareness of themselves believe it or not. I can give you other frightening examples of the technology having a mind of its own; but why spoil all of the fun to come? I am off world mentally but my physical feet are on world. Im both physical yet also a 9D being so can straddle all dimensions (just as you can). Hope this helps.

edit on 18-3-2014 by vethumanbeing because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 18 2014 @ 09:59 AM
link   

vethumanbeing
reply to post by Jesuslives4u
 


Jesuslives4uYou speak religion newage and witchcraft


And YOU are keeping to YOUR promise of 3-4 weeks ago: of NEVER EVER starting another thread again even if tomorrow brings a 'new day' of revelations (as if you were available to learn/listen).


edit on 15-3-2014 by vethumanbeing because: (no reason given)


I have not started a thread, have I?

I made a post, didn't I?

Do you know the difference between making a thread and a post?

I don't think so.



posted on Mar, 18 2014 @ 11:31 AM
link   
reply to post by vethumanbeing
 


Clearly you associate much with movies, hence the movie references. But movies are nothing more than the imaginations of the writers, directors and actors, along with the technical grips, gaffs and various other sundry employees. While the movie industry is just that, an industry, it doesn't rely on the robotic nature of the assembly line.

As a movie writer (as I am) thinks, am I a movie? When you constantly refer rather pop-culturishly to movies, you are imbibing in the very arena of my gladiatorial struggle to write more than ten pages a day of dialogue. But from my perch, thank you for connecting to the work of my fellow-slaves.

However, as you dive into deeper meaning to find relevance from moving pictures, ala "You ain't seen nothin' yet" Al Jolson-esque, quite simplistically, but he wasn't the Trip To The Moon, as you aren't Melies. While the Melies thought moon shot, they weren't moon landing. I think it not unusual that you find meaning in 72 fps, but to apply it to your understanding of life, you seem to feel as though as the writer thinks, he is and as the director directs, he is. Part of the Collective Consciousness? Or could it simply be that you notice the iconography and universal themes?

I am also a movie reviewer of two published articles on film, how film describes the world and how it addresses the mores and taboos of society. I love to discuss film and its impact on society and that's my area of knowledge. But I have to remind you that movies are the imagination of the writer first. Does the writer tap into Collective Consciousness? Does the writer formulate Collective Consciousness? As I think, I write.

You have proven, at least, that film is spiritual, because the viewer, the audience (root word aud which means to listen or hear) has a spiritual experience. Couple that with the soundtrack and it intensifies the experience, much like magic mushrooms and the psychedelic mind trip. But leave that up to the director, he is directing you into Collective Consciousness, very Truman Capotish In Cold Blood, as Charles Bronson weeps to the rain, is Charles Bronson a murderer because the writer wrote a character from the consciousness of Capote? As Capote thought murder, was he a murderer?

But how are you a god because you watch movies? Is the writer god? Is the director also god? Is the actor and so forth, gods? They aren't there unless the Above The Line Overlord (otherwise known as Producer) barters the shells, invests shells and in turn has a large shell collection, all gathered from the fishermen (box office cashiers).

Thank you for at least recognizing that film is more than a cinematographic experience. However, am I a god because I write? No. Simply put, my colleagues have managed to make you believe you are turning the cards at the flower show presentation, Manchurian Candidate.

This makes none of us god. I feel as though you think perhaps you are Spartacus, maybe the Man With No Name, Hang 'Em High or hang 'em low, with a Fistful Of Dollars and Going For Broke rather Fast And Furious into the deepest space, Dave, that does not compute. What is YOUR Plan 9 For Outer Space?



posted on Mar, 18 2014 @ 08:58 PM
link   
WarminIndy
reply to post by VeteranHumanBeing
 


WarminIndyClearly you associate much with movies, hence the movie references. But movies are nothing more than the imaginations of the writers, directors and actors, along with the technical grips, gaffs and various other sundry employees. While the movie industry is just that, an industry, it doesn't rely on the robotic nature of the assembly line.

I am not associating the two as similar at all. The movie industry keeps us facinated in 'watching' ourselves being human; and paying for that privilage. It is a mirror reflecting our actions, laughing or crying at our behaviors. Animals caged in the human zoo (and no one seems to see this strange dicotomy of looking in a mirror at yourself and wonder what animates that creature looking back).

WarminIndy As a movie writer (as I am) thinks, am I a movie? When you constantly refer rather pop-culturishly to movies, you are imbibing in the very arena of my gladiatorial struggle to write more than ten pages a day of dialogue. But from my perch, thank you for connecting to the work of my fellow-slaves.

I have nothing but great patience for you/fellow screen writers to entertain me. James Cameron said 'Avatar' was shown to him as a dream (currently being sued by another saying the idea was stolen from him). Do you not see the ambiguous metaphor that film captures regarding the humans foibles, accomplishments (AND WE PAY to watch ourselves). Popular culture is a great source/way to study the human using culture anthropological methods.

WarminIndy However, as you dive into deeper meaning to find relevance from moving pictures, ala "You ain't seen nothin' yet" Al Jolson-esque, quite simplistically, but he wasn't the Trip To The Moon, as you aren't Melies. While the Melies thought moon shot, they weren't moon landing. I think it not unusual that you find meaning in 72 fps, but to apply it to your understanding of life, you seem to feel as though as the writer thinks, he is and as the director directs, he is. Part of the Collective Consciousness? Or could it simply be that you notice the iconography and universal themes?

Universal architypes rather (there are 22). Seven story lines invented by Shakespeare that adequately describe the human emotional condition in its natural habitat of relationships/survival.

WarminIndy I am also a movie reviewer of two published articles on film, how film describes the world and how it addresses the mores and taboos of society. I love to discuss film and its impact on society and that's my area of knowledge. But I have to remind you that movies are the imagination of the writer first. Does the writer tap into Collective Consciousness? Does the writer formulate Collective Consciousness? As I think, I write.

Yes, you are shaping perceptions of the movies you write about (power implied here). A creation of the writer yes, but must meet the demands of the audience targeted, sort of like the Bible, or the Koran. The stellar writer would be a William Faulker type, or Paul Bowles, writes in a state of such total focus that it is as if channeled from (as you say) the collective consciousness (both notorious substance users; that was a major driver), most geniouses do partake of mind altering substances; I could name many, hense the extreme focus upon their particular craft almost automatic without interference from the Ego.

WarminIndy You have proven, at least, that film is spiritual, because the viewer, the audience (root word aud which means to listen or hear) has a spiritual experience. Couple that with the soundtrack and it intensifies the experience, much like magic mushrooms and the psychedelic mind trip. But leave that up to the director, he is directing you into Collective Consciousness, very Truman Capotish In Cold Blood, as Charles Bronson weeps to the rain, is Charles Bronson a murderer because the writer wrote a character from the consciousness of Capote? As Capote thought murder, was he a murderer?

Robert Blake; I have a very elderly friend that served in the Marine Corps with him.
(always trying to get out of duty). Capote stepped into a time warp and experienced a paradigm shift; totally emersed but the risk rewarded him (this is dangerous) as he becomes the killers and the victims at the same time and must have equal empathy for both; on the one hand the violent senseless brutality of the killings and the sheep to unsuspecting slaughter/sacrifice (as a gruesome unexpected fate awaited those innocents on that night).

WarminIndy But how are you a god because you watch movies? Is the writer god? Is the director also god? Is the actor and so forth, gods? They aren't there unless the Above The Line Overlord (otherwise known as Producer) barters the shells, invests shells and in turn has a large shell collection, all gathered from the fishermen (box office cashiers).

I am no more God than you are. Is the writer God or the director. It took me 5 trys to watch 'The Truman Show' over 3 years; until it was finally time for me to do so (kept falling asleep during the first 15 minutes) and once done there occured a revelation; that none of this is real what you think you are experiencing here on earth is a game you are playing with yourself and prior accumulated Karmaic paybacks. I would liken the producer as having more control, the money machine to propel an idea into a fruition (he has the greater agenda as can change the script, decide the actors etc unless you have a runaway director such as Michael Cimino with the dud
stinker "Heavens Gate" (too much trust; "The Deer Hunter" being his first hit).

WarminIndy Thank you for at least recognizing that film is more than a cinematographic experience. However, am I a god because I write? No. Simply put, my colleagues have managed to make you believe you are turning the cards at the flower show presentation, Manchurian Candidate. This makes none of us god. I feel as though you think perhaps you are Spartacus, maybe the Man With No Name, Hang 'Em High or hang 'em low, with a Fistful Of Dollars and Going For Broke rather Fast And Furious into the deepest space, Dave, that does not compute. What is YOUR Plan 9 For Outer Space?

There is great wisdom proffered by film, it is a medium that has replaced the written word. Eastwood favorite is "High Plains Drifter" you get distinct architypal characters and behavors in this film. My answer to "Plan 9 from Outerspace" would be the movie:
the prawn filled "District 9".
edit on 18-3-2014 by vethumanbeing because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 18 2014 @ 09:57 PM
link   
reply to post by vethumanbeing
 


After all of that, High Plains Drifter is also one of my favorites.

But there are 47 tales of the hero's journey/wise man in the cave that all film students learn from Aristotle. BTW, Syd Field passed away last year, such a great loss for up and coming screenwriters. The first book I read about screenwriting was Syd Field. He was the first to connect the three saga parts of introduction, action and resolution in the Close Encounters Of The Third Kind, another one of my favorites.

High Plains Drifter is a Film Noir Western. Archetypes though, anti-hero. The anti-hero of the story gets your sympathy because he has redeemed himself in some way. Rocky Balboa, anti-hero.

What's your genre? Have you fastened the 47 steps, listened to the old man in the cave? Who is the wise man? Always someone must be a mentor, Obiwan. The Jedi, light saber-wielding, why wield a saber when you could use your mind? The audience must hear the "whooobuzzzz" before they believe the force is with them. I hear a great sorrowing cry, earth is no more.

Everyone believes a force is with them or in them and raises the light saber to the opponent. Why do we raise it against the dark side, if the dark side is our father? We come from darkness to light, the light defeats the dark, was it because we used the force or did we simply believe the we had the force?

Thus it is with religion, to know there is a dark and light side. We must have order, as the Jedi is an order.



posted on Mar, 19 2014 @ 08:18 PM
link   
WarminIndy
reply to post by VeteranHumanBeing
 


WarminIndy After all of that, High Plains Drifter is also one of my favorites. But there are 47 tales of the hero's journey/wise man in the cave that all film students learn from Aristotle. BTW, Syd Field passed away last year, such a great loss for up and coming screenwriters. The first book I read about screenwriting was Syd Field. He was the first to connect the three saga parts of introduction, action and resolution in the Close Encounters Of The Third Kind, another one of my favorites.

He was a visionary that changed the film industry; sequels much like one could have taken the Frank Herbert 'Dune' novels would/are examples. Eastwood did this with his Spagetti westerns (Franco Zefferelli) as happened with the triquals of 'The Good the Bad and the Ugly', A 'A Fist full of Dollars' and a 'Few Dollars More', or the 'Trinity' movies with Terrance Hill and Bud Spencer. Begining to end using a different format, novelist (chapter by chapter as a serial play just as Dickens presented in the local London Times he was paid by the circulation of the paper and wrote his novels chapter by chapter accordingly (one of the greatest English fiction writers of all time reduced to this).

WarminIndy High Plains Drifter is a Film Noir Western. Archetypes though, anti-hero. The anti-hero of the story gets your sympathy because he has redeemed himself in some way. Rocky Balboa, anti-hero.

Sure just like mythic figures of the past we relate to their problematic quests, here is one for you "Jason and the Argonauts" Tod Armstrong as projenitor 'Jason
; on a quest to find the 'golden fleece' to save Persephone. Ray Harryhausen as the animator of special effects (he fights Harpies, Posiden saves him at one point, fights the Titan Thalos, the bones of the dead and the 7 headed Hydra. You talk about a loss to the film industry it was Ray H. (another pinnacle masterpiece would be the 7 Faces of Dr. Lao) animation that is segmented you can see the movements which are entirely UNNATURAL in motion and therefor poinent.

WarminIndyWhat's your genre? Have you fastened the 47 steps, listened to the old man in the cave? Who is the wise man? Always someone must be a mentor, Obiwan. The Jedi, light saber-wielding, why wield a saber when you could use your mind? The audience must hear the "whooobuzzzz" before they believe the force is with them. I hear a great sorrowing cry, earth is no more.

I am the old man in the cave that ponders everything to excess at the same time being or seeming to be functional, I am all things at once in time and space. It does become tiresome but thats what I signed up for when I became a human (its a job for me, and believe me wisdom comes at a high cost of self sacrifice EGO being the main problem to rid oneself of). My genre is anything that provokes a different take on human experience; profound enough to cause one to be speechless for hours/days after recognising what you just witnessed, a changing of ones souls perception of what is real or unreal (and how/where to draw the line). There are very few films out there that have done this to me (but the fact the power of the film industry illustrates itself at is best moments in the ability to change paradigms of thought imposed architypes (perceptions). Nasa recently said the end of civilization is near (had no idea they had an Anthropology Dept). Earth will always be here and the human as well, the year 3000AD is a different scenario but will still exist.

WarminIndy Everyone believes a force is with them or in them and raises the light saber to the opponent. Why do we raise it against the dark side, if the dark side is our father? We come from darkness to light, the light defeats the dark, was it because we used the force or did we simply believe the we had the force?

God force exists in everyone and everything to degrees. Its up to you to recognise it; you are its expression starting from simple 1s and 0s plasma trying to organize itself into what is its final expression, or the extent of its expression: the humanbeing. Light will always defeat the progenitor, or jumpstarter, the dark. It exists to kick things into gear. It never will win because it is a negative and so left to itself will destroy anything it trys to manifest (itself). How to explain this; the universe needs polarity to grow, this does not mean one polarity will overtake the other, its all about balance. Believe me Evil cannot and will not succeed (its against nature/natural processes of growth and self sustainablity within this SYSTEM).

WarminIndy Thus it is with religion, to know there is a dark and light side. We must have order, as the Jedi is an order.

Sure, the Melchizedeks are the First Order of the Elohim, four majors; Machiaventa (Priest of Salem) Malavatia, Manovandet, and Mantutia, passed knowledge to the Essenes, then the Knights Templar, then the FreeMasons and Roscicrucions. These archangels? were the designers of the Local Universe, evolution, administration of Seraphic hosts, the constellations, the inhabited worlds, Universal Unity, local system administration, government on local planets, dawn of civilization on Earth etc. Some would call them the Archangels. Whatever you experience here on earth with its various governing factors was developed off world in a less dense environment. We/this in the 3rd dimension is just a mirror for the same thing, government exists in the higher realms, one still has a body and rememberance of this experience, its just a lighter version of it and easier to manipulate because its not solid sticky matter as it is here. In the higher realms of existance, you can create instantly anything you wish (dont have to work like a dog 24/7 to gain it). You are in the a process of soul progression is all; and it is very hard to become human right now, even if you have Karmic overload to recompense. No time is left. Realize you chose to be human and for others off world, you are to be acknowledged/recieve allocades as being very brave. This is a tough world (wherever you came from: a star system encarnated from) you will be PERCIEVED AS A HERO; or an ANTI-HERO they are the same.
edit on 19-3-2014 by vethumanbeing because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 19 2014 @ 08:52 PM
link   
reply to post by vethumanbeing
 


However, we are in the 4th Dimension, as we are subject to time. We live in time, we move and breathe, in time. Time is master over us.

We even travel in time via our memories. We remember a memory and it evokes sensory perception. Can we go backwards or forward in time, or can only our memories transport us? We are subject to and slaves of time. This 3D world is subject to time. Maybe it's an illusion to you, but illusions change with time. The universe is subject to time.

Power? I have no power over time. 72 frames per second, still a measure of time. 120 pages of slug/scene heading/action/dialogue is subject to time.


Persistence of vision is a commonly-accepted although somewhat controversial theory which states that the human eye always retains images for a fraction of a second (around 0.04 second). This means that everything we see is a subtle blend of what is happening now and what happened a fraction of a second ago.

In film and video, this phenomena is often claimed to account for our ability to perceive a sequence of frames as a continuous moving picture. However this idea was debunked in 1912 and there is no scientific evidence to suggest that persistence of vision works in this way. Rather, it is thought that the illusion of continuous motion is caused by unrelated phenomena such as beta movement (the brain assuming movement between two static images when shown in quick succession).

Despite this, persistence of vision continues to be incorrectly taught in schools as the physiological mechanism behind video's illusion of movement.


You see and then you see, juxtaposed, just quickly enough to catch your attention when subtle images are interposed. Not even physiologically can you escape time in the beta movement. Did you catch God in those fleeting moments of time? Did you see God between the shots, in the frames? At what Time Code did you connect to God in this world of moving pictures?

You sat in the cave and looked out on the world as it passed you by, but did you catch the image of God?


Ecclesiastes 1: 8 All things are full of labour; man cannot utter it: the eye is not satisfied with seeing, nor the ear filled with hearing. 9 The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.


But have you become the master of time? It's not for you or me as humans to be master over time. Neither our spirits or souls can defeat time. If we become part of the universe, we will still be subject to time.



posted on Mar, 19 2014 @ 10:15 PM
link   
WarminIndy
reply to post by VeteranHumanBeing
 


WarminIndyHowever, we are in the 4th Dimension, as we are subject to time. We live in time, we move and breathe, in time. Time is master over us.

That is only one part of the space/time continuim. You live in the 3.3 dimension whether you like it or not; meaning that extra .3 means your big toe is straddlling the 4th (not your entirety just a portion of an ideaform that should not consume you).

WarminIndy We even travel in time via our memories. We remember a memory and it evokes sensory perception. Can we go backwards or forward in time, or can only our memories transport us? We are subject to and slaves of time. This 3D world is subject to time. Maybe it's an illusion to you, but illusions change with time. The universe is subject to time.

This is in dream or astral travel state. Your memories are stimulated by past experiences of smells, sightings of a particular light fall seasonal, odd incranicities of time warping. You can go backwards or forward in time as wished (if youd like), its not just human memories transport you but all of your soul progression experences. Time is an illusion and you realize you have control of it (Im no slave to it) just allow the experience of past or future.

WarminIndy Power? I have no power over time. 72 frames per second, still a measure of time. 120 pages of slug/scene heading/action/dialogue is subject to time.

Of course you do as you have a readership that relies upon your critiques. 72 frames a second reminds me of claymation, or "Nightmare Before Christmas" models made to act as form animated in motion variated with timing (hard to miss as it is unnatural motion).

WarminIndy Persistence of vision is a commonly-accepted although somewhat controversial theory which states that the human eye always retains images for a fraction of a second (around 0.04 second). This means that everything we see is a subtle blend of what is happening now and what happened a fraction of a second ago.

I think what you are talking about is 'the persistance of memory' .You dont have any idea of what living in the 'Now State" is (being present in a freeze frame or no past/future). You are qualifying the nature of digital imagery as being FAKE (trying to capture real world motion) is in fact is dead, dry and very obvious (no life) as too much information is packed into nano seconds of observation (the brain can interpret even at those speeds). You are obviouly living every other place than in the "NOW PRESENT" rather you continue to EDIT those things not congruous to your particular 'take on things'. This type of perception is congruous to when do you begin percieving someone waving at you?

WarminIndy In film and video, this phenomena is often claimed to account for our ability to perceive a sequence of frames as a continuous moving picture. However this idea was debunked in 1912 and there is no scientific evidence to suggest that persistence of vision works in this way. Rather, it is thought that the illusion of continuous motion is caused by unrelated phenomena such as beta movement (the brain assuming movement between two static images when shown in quick succession)
Despite this, persistence of vision continues to be incorrectly taught in schools as the physiological mechanism behind video's illusion of movement.

Our ability to see motion is not relagated to 8/16/32 frames of still images per second. Do you have any idea what the human mind can do; think or interpret between these frames (so much time). Digital imagery causes a problem as it is not filmatic, its bombasic and toooooooo fast unless one slows the DVR replay into a 1 to 1/15th replay. Do you not see a time when actors never have to appear on film at all, they are digitized. You can see this now with Johnny Dep movies, "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" as one example.

WarminIndy and then you see, juxtaposed, just quickly enough to catch your attention when subtle images are interposed. Not even physiologically can you escape time in the beta movement. Did you catch God in those fleeting moments of time? Did you see God between the shots, in the frames? At what Time Code did you connect to God in this world of moving pictures?

I can see it, if others cant I have nothing to say. I am a Creator Being (always have been) and in so that coursework of mine can identify unnatural movement or fakery that borders on evil intent. You may watch it Eyes Wide Open; I am not so merciful in allowing it. Did I catch myself in the fleeting; NO what I see is what is missing of and exists as IAM. At what time does God connect to the world of moving images; everyday this is a splendorious spectacular (a David Zanuck Production) called human vs earth; The Greatest Story Ever Retold 2014; starring underpaid union SAG members unknown actors and actresses.

WarminIndyYou sat in the cave and looked out on the world as it passed you by, but did you catch the image of God?

If you mean I watched a cow walk by my window; saw the nose, head, horns, front feet, back and missed seeing its tail? I must have blinked.

WarminIndy Ecclesiastes 1: 8 All things are full of labour; man cannot utter it: the eye is not satisfied with seeing, nor the ear filled with hearing. 9 The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.

Proverbs 13: 1. A wise youth accepts his father's rebuke; a young mocker doesn't. 2. The good man wins his case by carefull argument; the evil-minded only wants to fight. 3. Self control means controlling the tongue. A quick retort can ruin everything.

WarminIndy But have you become the master of time? It's not for you or me as humans to be master over time. Neither our spirits or souls can defeat time. If we become part of the universe, we will still be subject to time.

Wrong, the spirit endures and overcomes the fleshy body just as Jesus tryed to exemplify in his reserrection. Master of time; there is no time on the other side of non materialism. Spirit is not relegated to/of a time constituant at all, its eternal. Only the material body is defeated as it is subject to the normal timely process of decay (birth to death as the human machine/mechanism gives out; you have only 1 billion heartbeats total to make the most of; so my advice: dont run marathons).
edit on 19-3-2014 by vethumanbeing because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 19 2014 @ 10:58 PM
link   
reply to post by vethumanbeing
 


All this sounds wonderful and nice, but is it true?

That's the sum total of the argument, is what you are saying true? Why should I accept that you are a Creator Being? Was that a rebuke on your part to put me in my place, because you are a Creator Being? So if you cause an emotional reaction to rise in me, then you have accomplished something great? Did you notice how I raised it in you first? Now watch this....

Click....



posted on Mar, 19 2014 @ 11:13 PM
link   
WarminIndy
reply to post by VeteranHumanBeing
 


warminIndy All this sounds wonderful and nice, but is it true?
That's the sum total of the argument, is what you are saying true? Why should I accept that you are a Creator Being?

Yes it is true as much as Id like to deny it IAM a CreatorBeing. It was my determination to incarnate as its all on me; not to convince anyone of anything, Im just here observing and rectifying problems is all (with humorous intent always).

WarminIndy Was that a rebuke on your part to put me in my place, because you are a Creator Being? So if you cause an emotional reaction to rise in me, then you have accomplished something great? Did you notice how I raised it in you first? Now watch this Click..

Well in the first place as a PRIME Creator as a Human living here I have vast knowledge of the Bible and I can out scripture "WARS" anyone (I may have even instigated it). You cant negate your hormonal responses; thats part of being human, the adrenal glands and all; (waiting for the laughter its well deserved).
edit on 20-3-2014 by vethumanbeing because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join