Re: Old Seer's Corner

[En_Route]

Could you define 'spiritual' a little more clearly? I'm not sure if you are using the term as a synonym for rationality or have an entirely different meaning in mind.

The spiritual.
That which is the person. The emotional and mental, commonly in biblical forum--the invisible, that which is not (considered) material. The personage. The biblical (NT) ---the invisible things that can be clearly seen and understood from creation onward.  The being, or what one is, not the physical. The spiritual is the same in all---including dogs cats etc. There are differing degrees of Human and or animal application---IE a dog has more humanity then a garden slug. Another IE--- the human side of the dog is no different the ours. Thus then---animal is a state of mind of it makeup---and human is a state of mind of it's.
For future reference.
Human---the humane

Animal---the inhumane

Man---moral
Animal---immoral.

What makes you think that emotions, thoughts, or consciousness itself is anything other than a product of physical interactions? What evidence do you have that there is anything comprising reality that cannot be filed under the 'physical world'?

Excellent
We don't necessarily think that the universe contains two basic things. It may very well contain only material. But, until it's clearly understood how the brain functions we're all left with what can be discerned from common applications of the terms. There is no evidence that the brain is capable of producing a non-material. One needs to contemplate one's own self. We don't know if thought is a non-material for instance. We have emotion that is termed "love". But is love formed as material or from material and remains material. If the brain has the ability to form sub atomic particles in to a picture then the universe may very well contain nothing other then material. We are all the "result" of the brain. We relate to others through only two prospects---animal or human values. what produces this may be understood at some time. But to solve the "Human/animal problem it is needed to make a specification of each, or discern one from the other. We use the spiritual verses material to come to an understanding of personal direction. No one has seen hate in material form, but we can see the affects of it. But as to whether it is material or the brain is capable of producing a non-material is not known-but may be known someday. How can one draw a picture of hate itself. There is no ability that we know of for one to draw such a picture because as yet there's no way to know. So thus far we are stuck with established terminology. But regardless, material or not, if the person is found to be material it will still be the material patterns within the brain that are the person. In this case the person is not the rest of the body. There-fore then-person can be distinguished from the rest of the material that is the physical, or body. Then"spiritual" is used to understand the difference from person and body even though thought etc is material. 

I don't see any evidence in the above, only more assertions. We do understand that the brain controls emotion, thought, personality, and consciousness. We see in brain injury cases changes in behaviour such as a person previously stable becoming prone to uncontrollable rages. We control certain emotions such as depression with chemicals to alter brain chemistry. Your question of 'How can one draw a picture of hate itself'? It is meaningless - you cannot literally draw pictures of abstract concepts. It is a label we have ascribed to an emotion, or the acts that are inspired by that emotion. Concepts exist in reality only because of the organ in which they are conceived. We may 'see' hate by scanning the brain and observing patterns of blood flow, or measuring hormone levels. You say first that the 'person' (by which I assume you mean consciousness) may be material, and then assert that even if this is the case 'the person is not the rest of the body'.  I don't understand this train of thought - consciousness is produced by one organ, not any others, yes. Affected by others? Yes. Organs which produce hormones, blood vessels which transfer oxygen, carbon dioxide and nutrients, nerve cells that carry information to and from the brain . . . disrupt any of these and consciousness is altered in some way, because what you call 'the person' is a manifestation of physical processes. From all available evidence, the person and the physical body cannot be separated. Where does an extra-physical concept like spirituality, or any concept that supposes an independent 'spirit' or 'person' fit into our understanding of the mind?


BTW, derailment of threads is not necessarily an avoidance measure. It just happens. It's the natural flow of conversation and nothing to fret over. Also, the statement "You're up against the best"? The best would be able to convey an idea much more clearly and with better sentence structure. The best would also not call himself (or themselves) such.

Yes we know all of that. we are scientists and researchers also. We are interested in the "result" of the brain not the brain itself. The brain produces the human and animal tendencies/directions. Our interest is --the social problems and why they occur. Social problems occur from how people think. Relationships are base on the values by which one relates to others. The world is based on animal mentality. Change to human and you have a different world. That change is Christianity. all have Christianity--it is merely one's human side. The book is the key to understanding this natural concept. Our objective is to relay the knowledge not get into arguments. The individual is to decide for them self. Adam is the prerequisite to living in peace. Adam and Christianity are the same.

Ah, I understand now. In other words, "I'm hear to preach, not discuss." Could've just said that right from the off and saved me a bit of typing.

I highly doubt that you are a collective, much less that of "scientists and researchers", given your unscientific manner, method, and terminology.

DB, you might to think to tweak your nutcase radar.

[Dobermonster]

DB, you might to think to tweak your nutcase radar.

Yellow alert had been established early on, but I was open to playing a bit.

[En_Route]

DB, you might to think to tweak your nutcase radar.

Yellow alert had been established early on, but I was open to playing a bit.

An admirable trait.

[Old Seer]

Old Seer, ever since you said that you had a particular interpretation of the Bible that you were going to present here, I've been looking forward to reading it. It remains to be seen whether I comment on the content of your interpretation much, but I'm glad to see that you've finally started, and I look forward to reading more. I'm sure that my fellow members will keep the interaction in this thread civil; you certainly have maintained a very respectable tone and demeanor in your time at HAF so far.

Thank you, just so you know. Alpha Smurf recommended I not be here at this time, so soon after the other forum. We don't care to get into mental wars. The thing is---we've learned to live in peace, and would like to give that to others. But it takes a different mental set that people are unaware of. The book has those understandings, but they can't be found or seen from the Euro version and interpretations. It takes time to see where we're coming from so we have to be patient. The Euro mind compared to the middle eastern mind have large differences. When one is raised from childhood as a European (we regard Americans as Euro) it is difficult to see the other. We understand all this so it can get to be a chore to hold patience. However---there is still quite a bit to go yet. In the end it'll be seen. But that doesn't mean it going to be accepted by everyone, as there are plenty who thrill on controversy.  Don't hold back on asking anything.  

[Crow]

Thank you---understood, but isn't that an inhumane thing to do. It looks like a slick way to avoid counter input. I can live with it. But, I'm still on topic with a lot more to go.  Sorry if I seem arrogant.     

I don't, you just seem to be misunderstanding the basics of digital communication, what TMP was pointing out was that the conversation between himself, Tank and En-Route was going off topic as it was a discussion within a discussion, not that you were derailing the thread in anyway. You then warned him of being a fool when it was yourself that had got the wrong end of the stick making yourself look like a fool similar to the common "your an idiot" that can be frequently seen across the web.

Personally I am not going to get involved in this thread properly simply because I have no interest in another interpretation of the Torrah, one that I have heard before many many times before. It might be new and refreshing to those who come from a Christian background but not for someone who is even slightly looked at the various interpretations of those in the Jewish faith. There are parts that I agree with in what you have wrote such as the reliability of the Christian documents, but also the Jewish books appear to be as reliable and read more like a document of propaganda in support of the Israelites especially when confronted with archeological evidence. To answer your question proposed before; human or animal are one and the same, to use a metaphor to further my explanation white and black are different shades of an achromatic.

[Old Seer]

Thank you---understood, but isn't that an inhumane thing to do. It looks like a slick way to avoid counter input. I can live with it. But, I'm still on topic with a lot more to go.  Sorry if I seem arrogant.      

I don't, you just seem to be misunderstanding the basics of digital communication, what TMP was pointing out was that the conversation between himself, Tank and En-Route was going off topic as it was a discussion within a discussion, not that you were derailing the thread in anyway. You then warned him of being a fool when it was yourself that had got the wrong end of the stick making yourself look like a fool similar to the common "your an idiot" that can be frequently seen across the web.

Personally I am not going to get involved in this thread properly simply because I have no interest in another interpretation of the Torrah, one that I have heard before many many times before. It might be new and refreshing to those who come from a Christian background but not for someone who is even slightly looked at the various interpretations of those in the Jewish faith. There are parts that I agree with in what you have wrote such as the reliability of the Christian documents, but also the Jewish books appear to be as reliable and read more like a document of propaganda in support of the Israelites especially when confronted with archeological evidence. To answer your question proposed before; human or animal are one and the same, to use a metaphor to further my explanation white and black are different shades of an achromatic.

Thank you very much. I see I'm not using the forum properly. I apologize if any were offended. The layout is confusing to me. I'll have to be more careful. I'm having troubles with who is posting what.
We found that Animal and or Human are separable. The term "humane" is separable from Inhumane. If one can willfully set aside one then they are separable. They are both necessary for the embodiment of person but cannot stand alone. What we say is---the animal needs to be set aside (it can't be gotten rid of) to produce a society based on human values rather then animal values. It is the animal side that leads to social problems.

[Old Seer]

There's a PBS documentary on The Mind's Big Bang in case anyone's interested.

Of course, it's a documentary and not a scientific research paper, so...

But still fun to watch if you have a lot of spare time. 

I watch PBS exclusively. That;'s all I get out here in the boonies.

[Recusant]

We don't care to get into mental wars. The thing is---we've learned to live in peace, and would like to give that to others. But it takes a different mental set that people are unaware of.

So, you're not only writing about a particular interpretation of the Bible, but a particular way of looking at the world as well, eh? Which came first? Is the interpretation a result of an independent insight which was applied to the Bible, or was it formed by reading the Bible and finding something thought to have been hidden there?

The book has those understandings, but they can't be found or seen from the Euro version and interpretations. It takes time to see where we're coming from so we have to be patient. The Euro mind compared to the middle eastern mind have large differences. When one is raised from childhood as a European (we regard Americans as Euro) it is difficult to see the other. We understand all this so it can get to be a chore to hold patience. However---there is still quite a bit to go yet. In the end it'll be seen. But that doesn't mean it going to be accepted by everyone, as there are plenty who thrill on controversy.

Sure, love of controversy might serve as a motivation for somebody not accepting ideas. Another motivation might be finding the ideas unconvincing.

Don't hold back on asking anything.  

Not to worry. I doubt that anybody here will be holding back.

* * *

. . .
Our objective is to relay the knowledge not get into arguments. The individual is to decide for them self. Adam is the prerequisite to living in peace. Adam and Christianity are the same.

[Emphasis mine]

I hope that in your exposition, you're not planning on going much further with statements such as the one I italicized above. We have a rule here against preaching, and though assertions like this one might be required to get your ideas across, I'd ask that you refrain from expanding on such unless in answer to a direct question.

[Old Seer]

We don't care to get into mental wars. The thing is---we've learned to live in peace, and would like to give that to others. But it takes a different mental set that people are unaware of.

So, you're not only writing about a particular interpretation of the Bible, but a particular way of looking at the world as well, eh? Which came first? Is the interpretation a result of an independent insight which was applied to the Bible, or was it formed by reading the Bible and finding something thought to have been hidden there?

The book has those understandings, but they can't be found or seen from the Euro version and interpretations. It takes time to see where we're coming from so we have to be patient. The Euro mind compared to the middle eastern mind have large differences. When one is raised from childhood as a European (we regard Americans as Euro) it is difficult to see the other. We understand all this so it can get to be a chore to hold patience. However---there is still quite a bit to go yet. In the end it'll be seen. But that doesn't mean it going to be accepted by everyone, as there are plenty who thrill on controversy.

Sure, love of controversy might serve as a motivation for somebody not accepting ideas. Another motivation might be finding the ideas unconvincing.

Don't hold back on asking anything.  

Not to worry. I doubt that anybody here will be holding back.

* * *

Our objective is to relay the knowledge not get into arguments. The individual is to decide for them self. Adam is the prerequisite to living in peace. Adam and Christianity are the same.

[Emphasis mine]

I hope that in your exposition, you're not planning on going much further with statements such as the one I italicized above. We have a rule here against preaching, and though assertions like this one might be required to get your ideas across, I'd ask that you refrain from expanding on such unless in answer to a direct question.

1- Yes. Our interpretation causes one to see a different perspective of the world. That's what the book is all about and makes us hard to understand. OK- From what we've discovered--the book is about how to live at peace with one another as found by Adam, and that takes a different direction from the way the wold is. The reason this is not seen by others is that the book is not about fixing the world and it's problems as it is. It's about removing the world as it is and installing another. The other is not seen because of the expectation that civilization can correct or fix itself, which it cannot do. The other is merely a different way of thinking and being. Adam figured this out, and in their time came from the same state of mind as all others, but in the "discovery" of the self and understanding he became aware of a choice. That choice was pursued and accomplished. Sometime later they fell away from that way and then again returned to the former. That change back is the fall of Adam. In order to live in peace there must be a return to the previous ways that they came to know, but that couldn't be done because the way back became lost/unknown. This is where a Messiah comes in. The Messiah was to come and return the Adamites back to the origins of Adam.

The actual fall of Adam is the institution of civilization by Nimrod. The Adamites were a free entity on the land, but when they become civilized they loose the status of Adam, as one is no longer a natural being as created at creation, as creation is not a civil process. In civilization one becomes subject to the state, and if one is an Adamite he is subject to no one. One then is created by the state to become what the state specifies and creation then is overridden by those running the state. In this case then---the institution of a Sate corrupts creation. There-fore, the Adamites are no longer Adam (proper man)

To remedy this situation someone knowledgeable of what comprises Adam (creation)must become present to give knowledge to the masses of what is to return to - to return to being Adam. Then from that understanding of what it takes to live in peace anyone submitting to that knowledge becomes ---Adam, a peaceful personage.

Civilization was instituted before the Hebrews became a tribe, but this idea of a Messiah was carried down through their generations. But-- their idea of a Messiah was skewed and not understood. Their Messiah then became one that was to appear with armies and destroy their enemies. Being that the knowledge of Adam was lost they have no mental concept of returning to as Adam, as they have no understanding what Adam represents. The understanding is threaded through-out the book but cannot be discerned because all are thinking in the wrong direction as what to look for. That's' why Christianity today and since about 100 AD seems to be a farce. The Euros interpreted it from their perspective much the same as the Hebrews. JC is a representation of Adam, which in turn makes Christianity the Messiah. The understanding of this is that JC is not the Messiah per sec---it is what he represents that is. There are no Christians or Christian religion present in the world at this time. One must understand JC and the sameness to Adam to become one. There is no Religion that can return the masses to Adam. There-fore then-there are no Christians.  

I've avoided biblical terminology and application so things wouldn't be to confusing. There is nothing special about Adam or JC. they are just regular common guys that understand the difference between the two worlds, or states of mind. If Adam was a personage of peace (but not necessarily in all cases) and so was JC, to live in peace requires an understanding of Adam who was the origin product of the knowledge. The knowledge that is needed to do so is the messiah, the word, as the word is Adam and JC is also detailed as the word, and the word is creation itself---then by understanding we can change the world to a peaceful place.

We're not preachers, we simply convey findings from a study.

[Dobermonster]

http://www.angelfire.com/weird2/obscure2/adam.html

Is this sect related to whatever sect you're a part of? Some of the ideas sound vaguely related.

[Old Seer]

http://www.angelfire.com/weird2/obscure2/adam.html

Is this sect related to whatever sect you're a part of? Some of the ideas sound vaguely related.

We aren't a sect or any organized religion. I can only put it this way. All of us have our separate beliefs derived from the study----it's just we all believe the same things, but not to every detail. At one time we were all in a religion of some kind, except me that I know of. We are not Christians, but we understand it's makeup. One cannot be a true Christian at this time because the world interferes to much. It's a different world and the present one must be removed first to eliminate interference. That's one thing that tells that there are no Christians in the world at this time. If they were they would understand the world they're in, they don't.

Familiar Ideas-- all religions have some things correct, but if you ask them what they have wrong they can't answer. ??????? It's a loosing deal. They've accomplished nothing and may  has well  never been.  It's been a complete exercise in futility.

[Crow]

We found that Animal and or Human are separable. The term "humane" is separable from Inhumane. If one can willfully set aside one then they are separable. They are both necessary for the embodiment of person but cannot stand alone. What we say is---the animal needs to be set aside (it can't be gotten rid of) to produce a society based on human values rather then animal values. It is the animal side that leads to social problems.

I would argue the opposite. It is due to humanity trying to set aside what it is by creating concepts such as morality with clearly defined patterns of what it is to be a human and what is a right way to behave. If you had said acting on gut reactions without thinking then I would agree with you but that is very different from animal behavior, as there is a clear thought process that can be observed in other species. How do the studies on dolphins, whales and other sea mammals fit into your cult? Which are closer to our own in terms of complex thinking, empathy, self awareness, social structures and communication though very different at the same time.

[Old Seer]

We found that Animal and or Human are separable. The term "humane" is separable from Inhumane. If one can willfully set aside one then they are separable. They are both necessary for the embodiment of person but cannot stand alone. What we say is---the animal needs to be set aside (it can't be gotten rid of) to produce a society based on human values rather then animal values. It is the animal side that leads to social problems.

I would argue the opposite. It is due to humanity trying to set aside what it is by creating concepts such as morality with clearly defined patterns of what it is to be a human and what is a right way to behave. If you had said acting on gut reactions without thinking then I would agree with you but that is very different from animal behavior, as there is a clear thought process that can be observed in other species. How do the studies on dolphins, whales and other sea mammals fit into your cult? Which are closer to our own in terms of complex thinking, empathy, self awareness, social structures and communication though very different at the same time.

Ok, here we have a difference in what we understand humanity is. To us humanity is that which is humane, Animal is that which is inhumane. In studying the term human one can find different applications of the term. One is---we are human because of a higher intellect. Another is assumption of being human. The one we use is mental condition or direction with regards to what values are used to recognize or relate to others, this is the one that enlightens one to understanding the problem. Intellect as we see it is neither human or animal and a neutral, as it can be applied to anything to any problem to be contemplated. This is where we become hard to understand as we use the term to denote a mental condition rather then a physical/material position. This is where Christianity enters the mix. What makes Adam is the understanding of what makes one a person. It is the combination of human and animal that is the person. Then there is a neutral condition. Everything one thinks or initiates is to serve or facilitate one of the two sides. And there are things that facilitate neither. The two are the total sum of one's person. With that understanding one can choose one side as the main frame of ones life. Neither can be deleted as both must remain. This dividing of the mental states is what makes Adam, who chose the human as the mental frame work. Adam and JC are the of same framework, but JC has some modifications and additions and a better Adam then Adam #1 in light of an Apostle who regarded JC as Adam #2.

Other species--- We say that other species are of the same personages as we. The bodies are different It is evident that others have a human/animal makeup just as we. But we observe different levels. IE a garden slug has less human/animal mentality then a dog, and very likely none. There are reptiles that have more humanity them others. One reptile lays eggs and departs leaving them on their own. another guards the nest showing concern for safety. The one guarding the nest (according to us) has more humanity about them then the other. But, the animal entity is the same as in all. It seems that the animal entity remains the same, but the human side is varied.

By the willful division of the two we don't mean one can get rid of either. What we mean is- one can willfully choose one as the main relationship factor toward others. Adam did it. If one chooses the humane that one is/becomes a Christian. But that would be quite an accomplishment and probably impossible under the circumstances. The object of JC is to give the info to be Adam. In order for that to be successful the present world has to be put away as it would be a hindrance. Being the animal side is dominant it would have to be removed as the mainstay of social relations. JC's idea isn't to fix the world but to replace it. The world can't be fixed simply because animal remains animal and produces the same result. That's why history repeats itself. all civilizations have been founded on the same premise---a few ruling the many. Ascending above one another extends from the animal entity, and there-fore the same fault is installed to solve the problem of a previous collapse, eventually causeing another collapse. We all relate to each other via that human and the inhumane, but it is the inhumane that is SOP