OK will do.

#1- I don't understand this question, but I think it may have to do with-are those who never knew Christianity condemed? NO! One cannot be liable for what one never learned or had no chance to learn about. Be understanding--what the world has is the old middle and dark age Euoprpen idea of things that they attached to the book (bible). It's a nonsensical interpretation and doesn't work. What we make of it is--all are judged by their peers, and that will be a "after" Armageddon. Which means---you'd better have friends that care about you or you may not make it back. Those taken out by Armageddon won't be coming back. It will be their conscious choice to be dead rather then liveing a more basic and blandish world. As the satonic bible says ( I never read the thing nor do I know for sure if it exists) satan says--I would rather rule in hell then serve in heaven. Hell=dead/Death not a place to go. Dead is dead, just as Heaven isn't a place to go but a concept that all alredy have. Going to hevasn in proper Christianity is nothing more then putting away the world as is and entering a new one, which is nothing more then changing the mind from what is important in this world may not be so in the next. The next is brought about by a removal of civil government and replaced by one's self just as Adam was. We Smurfs dopbn'r understand the "resurrection" idea or how that's suppose to work. But. Christianity in it's true form is about living in peace regardless of any miricle working or dead raising. How living in peace translates into immortality beats us. However, it's not required to believe in miracles or resurrections to be Christian. The belief is in the "human entity" is all that is necessary,  all else is secondary. In proper Christianity there is no power eschelon, as that's what it's all about-taking away and all giving up the pursuit of powers over others that cause all the social problems and international problems. There are no Popes or leaders. One is lead by human ideals rather then the animal ideals as is presently.

#2- Yeeess and Nnnnnoo, that's a missinterpretation. JC says in the end times false prophets will arise and decieve many--that's not one--that's many. During the end times there is a void of religion and governments leaving a time when many will start new religions. According to the book the end time comes about by ,first, JC returns. That's not a physical return. This comes about by the fact that Christianity was gone about 150 to 350 Ad or there about. Emperors cannot be Christian becasue that's what Christianity is--the giving up of power seeking and rule over others--there-fore, Constantine (352 AD)could not possibly have been a Chrsitian as a Christin would give up being an emperor. That means that Christinaity had by Constantines time returned to being an unknown. So, that's what the return of JC is--the reintroduction of what Christianity "is".

So--how does Christianity solve the worlds social problems--it doesn't. The world operates on a civil mindset, and that mindset is animalistic (predatory) in nature causing the social problems--the animal mindset cannot be solved--it can only be exchanged for the other, whch we all have, and that,s the human mindset. The human and Christinaity are the same thing (mindset). When the masses realize this all have to make a decision--which way to go. (it's the time of trial in the book of Rev.) Everyone can plainly see where the problems have been coming from or on account of. So according to the book, the masses begin and accomplish a change making governmnets extict or inert. That leaves open other options also, but, after a time the greater number fall away (according to JC) and want to go back to the former. And,at about that time the false prophets/leaders begin to appear with great promises and grandiose ideas. The "man of sin" is at work.  After a time period of that all hell breaks loose and armageddon begins/takes place.

The "man of sin" is not an individual but rather a social process of the masses falling away from being human and reverting back to animalism thinking they can reinsatll the former--and fail causeing them to kill each other as in the time of Noah. At the time of Noah the people of that region weren't under civil law/government. They became so evil they killed each other (a mental flood, not H2O). Be awae that the people at the time of Noah were still Adamites. The time of the Adamites ends with Nimrod's installation of civil law and government (civil government destroys Adam/Christianity). The man of sin is a singular, but not a singular individual, but rather the massed having a singular mindset causing their own destruction. There will be no civil government at that time--just as in the region of Noah. So, there is no "one" false Messiah". The "man of sin" is misconstrued an the false messiah, not so. The false mesiahs and the man of sin are two different things.

#3- JC will return--yes, but not as floks say or think. The "word" returns that was lost by the time of 350 AD. JC paid his dues and is of no count at this time. It's what he represents (the knowledge of Adam) that returns. He's no different then anyone else in the world except he's one sided, human. No one can be anyone other then one of these two at any given moment--animal minded or human minded. There is nothing else to be. In the world present the animal hides behind the human face--but are not the same thing/mentality. When one sees this--one has no choice but to choose. That's the time of trial for that person. It s the same as the battle between Micheal and the dragon. Micheal merely represents one of a person spiritual aspects. (I think it would be one's spirit of defence). There are no siritual entites outside of a material brain There;'s no such thing a free acting spirits in the universe, it's an impossibillity. All spirituals have to originate from a brain. The Euros are dead wrong.

#4- All of those dead will be resurrected- Not all. Hitler won't be. But--how that comes about we don't know. I can't believe in something I don't understand. Any way, a resurrection has no Chrisdtian requirement to belive in it. I have faith in Christianity (that which is human) but as previous, we have no idea how resurrections or miracles come about. It could be that there's more to the brain then we realize. As best we can make out from the book, no such will come about until after Armageddon, so with us it's "wait and see". We think/suspect it has to do with being a mild and childlike entity. Our Doc. GP is well aware that certain people with a mild lifes attitude and peacefull being have more effective immune systems and heal faster and better, along with having better health on the overall.

There's the phenominon of PTSD that we've discussed at one time. A mental shock/incident can damage the nervous system and cause changes in physical abilities and general health problems. So, what if a mental condition the other way can do the opposite. ??? We don't know. But there are clues to the possibilities.

#5- Satan Reins for 1000 years. Bhaaah no. Here one has to go to the Hebrew numeric alphabet. John is using it exclusivly in the book of
Rev. There no longer is the original numeric alphabet of ancient tmes as it has changed over time. The closest we could find interprets 1000 to mean an unspecified period of time or application of "unspecified". In the numeric alphabet there is no 1000 of anything. You have to add 400 to 400 and then 100 and 100 (or 200) to get 1000. 400 is the highest number used and also means end, eternity, end of existance etc. When 3 zeros are used it means an unkown time or a unknown time of happening. You'll see that aposltes use creation as the prime interpreter of their teachings and John uses the numaric alphabet also. What the 1000- pretains to is the time of the "Man of Sin". There will be an unpredictable time from the falling away to the actual time armageddom begins. It's the attempt to return to the former. And, that is a period of time impossible to predict. What this very likely also means is---it will be the end of the existence of civil times. The end times come about when the masses realize that civilization can never solve itself shown by the information given (in the comming of proper Christianity/human mind) leaving the only other option. Civilization and "properly human" cannot exist together.

#6- No-NO=NO. Judged yes, but by whom. How about the "people". There's no such thing in the book anywhere that establishes a superhuman being. The universe isn't capable of creating such a thing, or anything super, or super anything. The universe is just that and cannot go beyond itself (Eistein is spinning in his grave on this religion deal). The only reference to god that can be found in the book is-----------------------Adam. In the beginning was the word (Adam, creation is Adam/adamites) and the word was with God and the word was God--that's Adam. The Aposle is referring to the beginning as they often do. If JC is the "word" of God, and is also Adam the 2nd, and is god, then Adam was God. It can't be anyother way. God in this case a specific mental condition that is also Adam. Adam is not about the physical. he/they are about the mental/spritual. While there is a "physical" that's not Adam. The term "God" is a dicription of what "rules" Adam--which is the humanities not the animalities. We've reduced the term"God" to it's final application--meaning- "that which rules". Anything and everything that rules one's life is "God". God is nothing more then a term that means "force". We are all ruled by forces, are we not---that's God. However, we can find no such term that is incuded in the book. It can only apply "after" the fall of the Adamites when Nimrod installed civil government--destroying the mindset of Adam. Instead of being ruled by the natural forces of "being" Nimrod replaced them with himself . OK-so whose God around here. What the book referes to as the fianl and supreme God is---the people. Because with the coming of the proper info--one can return to being---one's self insted of being government mage from birth. The Adamites had no concept of any God. They were it, so what need was there far any discription of it except--the self--so they didn't have a word such as God.

 When you know the makeup of your person, you then know everyone else--just as us Smurfs do. No one can hide from us anyone. Everyone knows everone, and then everyone can judge everyone--as to what manner of person one self and others are. The judgement starts when---you understand. You will be like us Smurfs--we know everyone. Even the president of the US can't hide. We know why he does everything he does--we don't need the NSA, and neither will you---you'll even know the NSA and why they exist---for real this time. So, now you can make your judgments--but now you KNOW you. You'll know who's good and who's evil--and why. You'll know one liar from the other. The PEOPLE are the final judge, but first--judge yourself.

#7-  A-Everyone already has a heaven. that's what is meant by a movie STAR. Why is a person a "STAR' because that's where you put that person--in your heaven. heven is the place in you being that you have a high regard for. It can be you new car ---until it turn into a rust bucket, and then it's taken out of your heaven and replaced by a new one. It can be Sex. It can be your friends. How about your kids. Anything you appreciate or like very well--is in your hevansand are the bright things in your life, or, that which lights up your life.. You already have a heaven. There's nothing in the book about going to heaven, it's not a place to go, but rather a new one acquired, it's about exchanging what you already have in yours for new things, but not every thing.  In order to become properly human/Christian, one has to throw out things and put new things in, that is, change the importance of things. In the world you have now you'll have to throw out the importance of what is animal, because it is the animal entity that is the most important and what civilization exists and operates on. In the book of Rev. there is a new heavens and a new earth which comes from an exchange of values making a new soul/earth/Eve. There can't be a "NEW" heavens and a new earth if there already isn't one. In proper Christianity it's what is human that becomes the social presedent, and removing the dominant animal presedent. Then--there is a new world. The only dieing to  go to heaven in the book is--your old personge has to be replaced by the new--and the old becomes dead. No one physically dies and goes anywhere--ded iz ded. There's no such place as a physical heaven. That's just Euro trash religion by dark age idiots. The book has nothing to do with Europeanism. No one goes to heaven, after all is done we'll be right here on good old planet earth. The only thing that changes is--what one is governed by--that's what it's all about. To change that will mean hell and high water. --In creation waters is equal to-mind.

 B- The 144000- Again, thousands= unspecified number, or eternity, or inthis case "a constant". There are six days in creation. In Rev. there are 24 elders. 6X24=144. Ref-JC---there are 12 hours in the light and 12 in dark equalling 24 hours in the day. This isn't day time as on your watch. They are representaive of the number of person things that make up one's person. This would mean that the human being opposite the animal has 72 and the human has 72. That is one's complete person of all characteristics. Creation creates Adam by changeing the previoius person from animal tense to human tense, that is, before becoming Adam they were as all others on the planet. When they become Adam (via enlightenment) they are human only which is Adam. The 7th day won't count because nothing is created or no changes are made, all creation is done in the 6 days. The 7th is "rest"/"peace"- a person at peace--attached to the tree of life, content, not wanting. What this is --is--you. The 144 is all the contents of your person in creation terms. Other ancient religions may be different but go to the same place, so to speak. Adding the zeros (inthis case) means there is nio more, or more is not possible, that's all there is of you spritualy/personally. Notice again how everyhting in the new testament ties to Creation--because--it is Christianty, and that is what the Apostles are teaching. Christianity from JC is an improvement over Adam becasue of the experience gained by history--of what to and not to do or be.

C- Todays Jews/Israelites---nada. Have no bearing on this interpretation by the Smurfs. While JC and the Apostles went to their own kind first they were basically rejected. Nimrod removed Adam (the meaning and knowledge of) long before the Hebrews or Hebrew tribes formed. That's why they reject JC as God,a likeness of the 1st Adam and hold to Abraham as their recognised origin, they don't know Adam. Because---in the fall (perpetrated by Nimrod) the knowlegde of God/Adam was lost/givenup and replace by Nimrod himself. Then Nimrod became God/the way. So the Israelites of today are of no count or concern in this affair other then the book coming throught their generations. They are no different then any other on the planet. They do hold that "god" is an invisible entity without physical shape,form or content, but what they don't realise that it's the person, invisible entity of Adam that was their original lineage. This is why they don't allow any material froms or representations of God, as the spritutal entity of one's person cannot be expressed in material terms, as the person isn't material or physical. The physical is not the person. Their religion is really no different then any other in the world--based on material and the superficial, where by they werer warned in antiquity not to adoore or worship the works of their hands (material and superficial) which replaced the mental recognition of Adam/person as God. That woulf be Adam the mental not the physical. So, they have no beriong in the end time any different then others. In the new testament the apostles use their terms of righteous as "Jew" or" Israel as pretaining to oen thnat is Righteous, and don't apply it in physical terms in all uses. Is is the Isrealite term for righteous/chosen. Yopu'll see what is meant if you try to draw apicture of you mind/spiritual self. It can be represented by a symbol but cannot be pictured specifically.

#8 - Jeeeze--no. It's easy to see that civil minds have interpreted this book into a meaningless mental glob. The lake of fire is representative of the desruction of this worlds presedents, meaning--once gone will never be re-instated. I don't recall of presicely "people" are destroyed but the world idealism will be. It "Lake of fire" merely means an everlasting desruction, a non-return, mno chance of a return. That's a time when it's all over and done with. Floks will be desroyed, true, but that's not necessarily what this is about. There is no physical/material lake of fire. In ancient biblical times burning ment complete destuction and oft time isn't used in the physical sense.  The present world and it's standing premises will be removed and never teturned is basically what this is about.

#9-We'll be right here. All that changes is what one is ruled by. Real Christian is merely "real Human" instead of this dog and pony animalistic concept we are now under. Real chrsitain and real Human are the same thing.

Re :: Again, this will give you a big hint

Attribute for YouTube's : Jasmine D Entitled :: Tribute To Saya and Haji Song by NickleBack

A must see video link for young and for elders alike --

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2CI3lST-qwA

The key with everything is inclusively summed-up in one word often times: 'determination'.

p.s. -- Apologies to lurkers, I don't have a time machine to jump into and have the animators' anime review committee, in the video, to somehow stop them from choosing to have the young lady's eyes turning red from clips in the series, (better be a "Lol"). Besides Jesus keeps the red out (serious).

Misc. -- Post
 

  >>  Exclusively  Off-site (Only)

  How the Rule of our group almost completely single handedly is solely blocking the doorway . . .

  Popcorn anyone ?     Serious(-ly) Popcorn anyone ?  Fore many changes are ahead, believe it, in but a short 40 days folks (glimpses of the future)!

  My forth favorite russian latvian 'folktale'

 ''Once upon a time there was an high holy emperor and who was empress who for many years had been childless. One day the chief empress wished for a son, were he no bigger than a hedgehog. The proverb says, "What one wishes for, that one gets," and so it was with her, for she shortly gave birth to a son who looked exactly like a hedgehog and was covered all over with sharp spines. Later some began to murmur within themselves, regarding the hedgehog prince, they said: "Why, what maiden would love you and take you for a husband?" After he finally came a-courting, with the classic signs, upon the lady in waiting, the King's princess. Though to tell the truth later on she would begin to doubt all the more, with this situation in which she found herself. She saw no help for it, and thought to herself, "I can never get out of this scrape; come what may, I'll take him. We have silver and gold and many treasures in abundance, and we shall easily get along through life."

  When the hedgehog had received her consent he went back to his remaining close relatives and told them what had happened to him (the hedgehog). His parents would not believe him, and sent the chamberlain to inquire if it was true that the emperor's son, the hedgehog, was to marry the king's daughter.

  When the chamberlain returned and told the emperor that his son had spoken the truth, the emperor ordered his horses to be harnessed, and went with his wife to visit the king, riding in their swan-driven carriage, while high holy emperor's son rode behind on his much older cockerel.

  When they arrived they found everything ready for the wedding. But, according to custom, the bridal party were obliged to go to the church a few days before the marriage to pray and make her confess to the priest.

  When the young lady came to finally make confession, apparently she asked the holy priest how she might manage to get rid of the prince and not be obliged to marry him. To which there was a sound scolding. The priest gave her a sound scolding, and said in conclusion, "Just keep quiet and all will end well. Mark what I say, and remember it well. When you are come into the church and are taking your place in the sacristy, do you follow close behind the others. When you get to the high altar sprinkle your bridegroom thrice with holy- water, and be careful to prick yourself each time with one of his own spines. Then three drops of blood will trickle out of your hand, and you must let these also fall upon both you and him."

   After confession the bridal pair went home to breakfast. The next day -- it was a Sunday -- the bridal party went at half past eleven into the church, and the bride did in every respect as the priest had counselled. And, behold, the hedgehog was transformed into a beautiful youth whose like was not to be found in all the world. Then the bridal party sat down upon the benches and heard mass, and the priest united them and preached them a sermon how they should cleave to each other all their lives long. After that they went back to the house, and the wedding feast lasted until late in the night (the end)?''
===================================================================================

          Post Script -- Let's quickly review, shall we, this is not on the side of nor signed by the prophet(s) of either the Canaanite, Assurian, nor Hurrian storm deity(god), Otay?!? It's what again ? Read the label!! Note the word of 'folktale', please!
 

The very fact you speak about spiritual concerns qualifies you as far more theist than atheist. I won't pretend there aren't atheists who talk about spiritual mumbo jumbo, though we don't have any of them here to my knowledge.

Whether the god is defined as a superbeing or as a collective consciousness or a reflection of the universe or whatever, there remains a quality that cannot be empirically tested, and therefore shoves your views too far into the realm of theism to avoid the badge.

If one is talking spirit. In the book spirit translates to person. Such as -- a high spirited horse, so what does that refer to. Somif an Atheist is speaking of "person" then they can't be an Atheist.Consider this-- at a time (bout 1986 or so) one of the psycho Smurfs came up with this when we began to form understandings differently then what is commonly interpreted.

"You know Guys, I came the the conclusion that when I'm studying the mind I'm studying "God". (this came in one of my info packs)

So, what's he seeing here. If one is studying the mind one also is looking at Adam/Creation. He's equating what's going on in creation with psychology. And---he was correct.

So, according to this, if an Atheist is into psyhcology he's into God, becasue god ,true or false, is a matter of the mind. Then, he/she is a theist. Then there is no such thing as an Atheist. Now you can see why we're having the problem of claiming either. So what are we. If we don't fit either--then we have something new, or previously not understood. It can be ,maybe--there;s no such thing as either. 

A mental condition that brings/results in harm-physical or mental. We have 3 Pschco dudes in our bunch. A mental condition in it self is not harmfull or helpful, there has to be a physical in order to bring about the good or harm, except if one wants to mentally do a mental /physical harm to one's self. Which would mean that such a one's brain isn't working properly commonly known as mental desease. This was all new to us at one time also. We don't see any such thing existing in the universe as "God". The term merely means that someone is ignorant of the universe and how it operates or is structured. All things came out of the big bang (at least as accepted at this time--we concur). The universe does not create, nor can it, a super human anything. No one can be an Atheist if a God cannot be existing. Atheist means (if I got it right) the opposite of something,ot, the other way,or maybe disbelief. How can one be opposite something, disbelieve, or be another way, of something that dosen't exist. If we don't recognize or see any spiritual entity in the universe how can we be theists. The only invisible thing possible would be the result of the brain, and that would be the forming of "the person, which in the book leads one to recognise that it's people that are invisible, and only the physical can be seen, and the physical is not the person. Npw that ayn this time cannit be exactly proven as to "what" this invisible thing is, but the book regards it as one's person.

For understanding sake look at it this way for a moment. I cannot see you, you are invisible, you reside in the brain as a product of the brain, that product is "you". I can only get to know you through the intermediary -the physical. I can know you by the words you physically form to speak to me, and by the actions you take. And through your physical body and what you do with it and how you do, and the manner of speech and words used, I can detect the kind of person you are. Without the physical I cannot know you. This is the essence (at least) of what the book is about. It's  of people and the values they live together with --social values and what those values are based upon and within. It's through the use of your body is what tells me what is going on in your brain. The body is the conduit from one brain to another, and in the brain is --us/person/people

OK,so there's no God to comprehend in ths affair is ther.e It's between me you and eveyone else--and that's what the is about. So, if there's no God in the works we Smurfs cannot be Theists. That cannot be found in the Euro version of interpretaion or even in the Jewish understandings of their own book.

Ok very good. Thank you for your input. I've always had a bit of reserve for what an Atheist is or isn't. There seems to be different points of view,at least 2 or 3 anyway.

Why do I use the term God--because others do. If you check my last post you'll see I point out that it's a bogus term. It actually (as we see it) doesn't mean anything as best we can determine, and is a carry-over from ancient times that expresses  the "Idon'tknow" syndrome. We've analyzed how the term is mostly used and it means nothing more then force, or the result of force. It's a label attached to something that can't be described or the clergy know anything about, that's why all their obtuse claims come about---they don'tknow.. I see the term as --descrbing nothing. When dealing with beleivers in religion one kinda has to accomodate them a bit. IE--In the begining was the word and the word was with God, and the word was God. In our interpretation this means that Adam was/is God, but how does one converse with a bible believer of their interpretation. (just look at the problems I have here on this site) If I say to a beliver in context with the passage by John--- Adam wasn't God, I just stripped his gears, because this passage dosen't mean the same to the beliver as it does to a Smurf. They don't correlate what the Apostles say to creation. That puts us back to the God=ingnorance thing, because in this case [ok here we go again--I have to use the word Christian when we Smurfs see that there are no Christians, so as long as that's the means to ID them we're forced to use it] there are no Chrsitians, as Christianity is--yup-- an unknown in the world. If they were Christians they would know Adam, becasue Christianty and Adam are the same, aaaaaand. it dosen't even have to be a religion. Thatwould be saying--Adam is a religion. The Adamites were just plain flok, simple and peaceful, non materialistic and highly human. So.the Smurfs believeiin what Adam represents, and that's the same as JC. So why would we put up a building to Adam for a church, when if I'm as Adam I could put up a church to myself. OK, so we're stuck useing terminologies that already exist.

What would I call a Christian when we say or see there aren't any. What name/label would we give them. From the evedence I can plainly se that the fella is fooled--but how do you tell him/her that. What is the religion of a person that says they're Christian and you know they're not--what are they--of what religion----the same as all the others. But, there;s no telling one caliming Chrsitianity  they're Muslim. The end result of their religions are the same --so,, then they believe the same things--Many of the claims and names are only different.

I've posted on the invisible concept previous, but I'm going by what the book means/says. We are a non-material, non-physical. But that what's garnered from the writings and there's no proof of that. BANG--there it goes forming all the material in the universe. And over time and evolution this brain thingy forms for a means to live by being attached to sensers to exist in an environment, to find food, avoid becoming food etc. Then witjhin itself this gadget forms something that is (supposedly) non-material. (I'm doing my best to quote Bio Smurf) How does something material go to work and produce something non-material? He doesn't say or know. If it's material--how so, if not, how so. What he's looking at is an exciter, perhaps.The brain works by elctro and drug means, right. But what tells the drugs to go to work and do their thing. Dopamines have no way to know when to become active and eletricity can't know when flow, so what gets the drugs and electricity to go whn it's called for. ?????? Electricity and drugs aren't ,when and why intelligent and can't know anything. If there's something that "knows", then what is it that can know? Material can't know anything, that would mean that material can somehow be concious. What kick the adrenaline into action??? He says it could be an exciter, but can't secribe the exciter.

This invisible concoction (whatever it is) is what the term God is applied to in the book, the end result of this process is--us, and that is also the Adam crew. And that's what biblical creation is--the result of the brain---again, us. There's no reason that we know of to claim that we are non-material, and how wolud an ancient people know that for sure--but to them is is something that cannot be seen.  We could be the result of the brain that oganiizes and systemizes onfo bits and arrange them for use,.forming a subconsious opinion, and for more then just survival.

I'm going to study your info on nostisim so I can get a clear understanding of Athrisim. I haven't as yet ever dealt with it to any appreciable degree.

The term "God" really covers to much territory. Were placed it with "way" for most purposes. So that puts the "in the begiining word thing in a different way. In the begining was the way, and the way was with Adam, and Adam was the way.  In the past few years I become facinated with the brain and psychology, but don't put much effort into it. My thing is physics and #1 problem is---the brain doesn't have levers or gears, cams, and where da ell is the fulcrum. Well OK, Thanks Vastet for the conversation, I enjoyed it.  

Compared to biological processes those are all extremely primitive. Where is the lever or fulcrum in a computer? Even a computer is spectacularly inefficient compared to a life form, but it is enough closer to the same kind of system to be able to compare.

your understanding of the term, and what does it mean to you. An Apostle says--God is all things to all people. The term is then (according to them) generic. Be aware-- the Hebrew tribes formed only long "after" the fall. That means-- they have no understanding what was before. The Jews of today know their genetic/physical origin--but not how their anceters thought, mental and what they understood. In their ancestry it's about what they thought and knew, not about their physical.

Now we're going backwards, and you still haven't sufficiently described your position for me to agree you aren't a theist. A lot of what you said is demonstrably false, and more is incomprehensible.

 RE :: What is believed . . .

  What are you thinking ? (Seriously,) What are you even thinking in that mind of yours ?   You aren't even informed  yet!!

?

{Old Seer wrote}

    How about that terms do exist. They were communicated but apparently you've missed it or forgot to remember along the way.   About the definition.  As with many things aparently it's about cross fertilization , in part, your development of your mind on things is founded on completely missing things and truly a great deal of misunderstandings.

Pharisaical legalism & religiosity .. "shall receive the greater condemnation".  It  ultimately  causes only hurt on all sides.

  {Old Seer wrote  Oct. 25, 2012}

 To :: Old Seer --

 The Hebrew language used the Proto-Canaanite /canaanite alphabet as a basis in itself development (look it up). Because of continued fundamental misunderstandings, to this day. And additionally I am not at home but stuck behind a terminal so as to prevent the time necessary to answer your questions, I cannot begin to address this gross misunderstanding about what is believed! So, I'll shoot from the hip, (mainly due to very current time constraints). Old Seer, Kindly allow me to say, Off the top of my head  try words like . . .

   Elyon, El, the tetragrammaton   etc.

 p.s.  --  Hey Boy that, I eat dinners alone still.

Adam = a humane person.

I pointed to this item previous. According to how the apostles put things Adam and JC are of the same mental state. Compare- they say that JC is Adam the 2nd. That means that Adam and JC are a likeness or twins. Not physical twins but same mental pesonages, such as - kindred spiritually. JC is an improvement over Adam because of life expeiences over time. JC then, having the experience of history can discern what to avoid as not to make the same mistakes the Adamites did.

 JC is also said by the apostles to be "the word of God", and they say "that" word was in the beginning. Also-they express invisible things of creation that can be clearly seen, etc. So, they are seeing biblical creation from a different reference, and that reference is--that it is a spiritual assembly not material or physical.

When this is totaled what does one get. If JC is the starting of Christianity, then christianity and Adam are the same, becasue of the likeness that the apostles make of the two. That is because Christianity isn't about anything material or physical, and is, about what factors people relate to each other, and that, is what the Adamites were about. Thay had a different minds eye on life, just as JC did. That life is about a specific set of personal traits that all peoples are constructed in by nature. The word in the beginning can oly mean Adam, and the beginning is creation and creation then is the rudiments of the Adamites in how their mentals are situated. It isn't the pgysical that is Adam, ti's the mental, or personage. Their mental was in a specific direction of only two possible when it comes to a society and the factors on which their society related to each other. There areother mental situations that are used by anyone, but there are only two that relatonships are based upon. (by now you may have decerened that this is about the stucture of societies--if so-- you're right) Creation is that social order but constructed in only one of the two directions possible.

So, what about that social order. I'll explain it this way but don't expect this to be abolutely true in deatail. The migration out of Africa that settled in the region of the Tigress and Euphates rivers are the ones that became  Adam. Here's the process that we use to explain that. This group of migrants at one time (could be 30,000 years ago or more) sat down on the river bank and ask what any kid does when growing up--who am I, what am I? That's what they figured out. Thay came to the conclusion that the person is a matter of, and the mind itself, not the physical. They saw that they were the same as all other beings ( animnals) were the same as they, bhut could aslomsee that there was two sides to the situation. One side was inhumane, and the other humane. From this then they become self aware and ---choose one. They then change to the human only and that froms theri society on diiferent standing then the lions  tigers and bears, who relate to each other by domination and superiority--and that's what they put aside, and that's what makes them Adam. Adam is a society based on the humane only.

In Christianity it is inhuman to rule over one another, as it casues the social problems that the world has. Sometime later along comes JC who has an understanding of Adam amd is naturally as Adam and tells everyone that this is what you have to be in order to get along with each other. Chrsitanity is result od the understanding of the two sides.

As can be seen there's no "God" in the works here. The term God can only apply "after the fact" of the fall. and that's nothing more then being duped back into what they were before, and their society once again was as it was previous. That's what the fall is--falling back into the the humane and inhumane personage of society--as all are today. The term God only comes into play because after a while the population that was Adam looses the understanding and out of ignorance begin to refer to the articles of creation as God. And then, going back to being superficial and materialistic and see life from a material perspective and then creation also becomes material. Bear in mind however the the creation story is written long after the understanding of Adam became lost. The Apostles have a different take on creation.

Creation is that procees of sitting down on the river back and figuring things out--that's all. It's put in ancient terms making it a bit tuff to figure it out. The book doesn't apply to the world on the first count--it applies to Adam's decendants who are the middle easterners, not europeans. But, if the Adamites figured it outso can everyone . So the Messiah then is someone who understands Creation differentyly, and is sayiong--if you all don't want the social problems you're having you should become like Adam, but I,ve got a bit better understanding then him.  This kind of thing we garnered from the Apostles according to how they put things.

So,where's there a God here. If you use it, we have to, and try to explain from the perspective of others. 

Consider this--An Apostle states--first there was the physical and then the spiritual. He's right. And- if God is spirtual under the idea of the present interpretaion God wasn't formed until after the physical--so the Pope and all others are ded wrong. But their idea of God isn't supposed to have a physical. In theirn understanding where does God come "after" the physical.

Going back 20 years we knew then that wasn't going to be easy to explain

OK, Adam was--a specific mental condition. One becomes as Adam by subscribing to his way of life. JC/Adam is subscribing life to the human factors of one's person and disallowing the inhumane factors in social relationsh.

In Chrisitianity The inhumane is regarded as the animal world. The Apostles make this distinction. But, Huston, we have a problem. Animal associates with "aniamte" , movement, and that's where the confusion comes in. We farmer kids know the problem if when in a study like the Smurfs undertook. There are several Farmers and this was easy for us--I'm a farm kid also. A cow herd is ruled by a dominent cow. This dominance is harmful and leads to inhumane treatmernt of the others in the herd. The herds social structure is based on greaters and lessers, Thats' why evey fall the hefeirs get there horns cut off, when they're big enough to get the cutter on. This has to take place because those in the herd with horns begin to gain dominence of the heard because they-----have weapons. The ones with the most guns wins. When the farmer sees that the hefeirs are beginning to rule the herd--time for the horns to come off. If not, terrible injuries take place. This all happens becasue thay have no higher intellect to make an adjustment to their society , and cannot become self aware. This interaction between cows is what is refered to as the "animal" mind--and we have the same. The same for dogs, cats, and birds. 

Considering that animal mind isn't exactly true there's nothiung else to refer to it as accept--the unhumane. But, we find in our study of the book this is what it is all about. The inhumane vs the humane, and our society is based on no different then the cow herd----(sorry about that) The apostles are saying--dump it, and become like Adam, (pesonified in JC) become self aware and make the same decision the Adamites did.

 There's no "God" term necessary in this entire works.

What there is -is these three qualifiers

1- Belief in one God as creator of the universe, without rejection of revelation---nope, not us

The univerese was created out of the big bang--at least untill a new idea comes about.

2- Belief in the existence of a God or Gods. -----nope--not us.

3- In short-- a supehuman something. --nope--not us. There is no human/animal entity outside of a brain. The person must reside in, or be attached (if that's said correctly) to a live brain, As we see it, the person is formed by the ability of the brain to do so. The brain is a product of an evolutionary process. The question is, what is  person. According to the book it is a makeup of certain mental traits that is of humane and inhumane nature/characters. Also according to our interpretation from the book, the writters say it's an invisible item that has no physical shape or material makeup. But, we don't totally agree with that becasue there's no proof that the brain is capable of producing a non-material form/item. We don't see how the ancients could know that. How can one know that such a thing exists if it cannot be seen, weighed, measured, or any devise (so far)used to show that to be true.

Deism--close but no cigar. I find it to be hypocritical. One can see nature as God but the term need not apply or be used. If the creator (if I got it right) of the universe is nature of a higher power---Hold it--hold it--- nature cannot be more or higher then itself----nope--not us.  Someone doesn't understand E=MC2. There can't be more matter then nature. There can't be more energy, or material then exists. There can't be more existance the what exists. --Not us.

Everyone is made up of both the humane and the inhumane, and so with cats,dogs, birds etc. Where there is a brain there is normally a person. Adam was "one sided", meaning, he/they related to each other in one of these natures,  that being the humane and puting asside the inhumane. The people of the world today and in the past relate to one another from both sides, with emphasis placed on the inhumane. The emphasis on the inhumane is where social problems originate. Christianity is based on the humane side- the same as Adam was. As JC says--let your eye be single, meaning, the minds eye, and means "be one sided. The invisible is referenced to one's person. The writers of the book view a person as being in the brian and one's person is considered non-material and non-physical. We're saying what the book means, not that we believe a person to be invisible and non-material. I went over this in one of my posts about a year ago. We can't say how they would know that even if they were right. The Smurfs don't see one's person as suprhuman or supernatural. We don't, find any such terms used in the book anywhere.

No, we can't describe something that is non-matrial, and we're not trying to. I pointed out to the effect that we don't necessarily say theyr right. We cannot agree with an unproven. I did not say we believed the person to be non-material. I said "the books" writters make that calim. I also said--we don't know how anyone at this time --or their time could know that. Interpreting the book does not mean we belive it. But--we do say the Spritual one is correct over the material one. You're making assumptions.There are times I get old things mixed in mistakenly, such as , I retain the concept that Adam was the first person on the planet, but that's not so. It's a carry over from being brought up with that misinformation.

Humane to another person and inhumane to the same person at the same time. If you can't, pick one.

We're not necessarily "following the book. But, if the book makes a distinction between the humane personality and the inhumane (animal)  as we'ew foournd that it does, which one of these would you rather I follow. Wouldn't it be silly to bge inhumane when I can decide to be humane. It's the "human" that himan is drawn from, nit the inhumand, which is thew same as "inhuman".

Now then --can you be both at the same time. If not, we are correct, and so is the book.

If one cannot think of two things at the same time, then also, one cannot be both at the same time. The total mission of the books writers is to give the option of exchanging social values based in the inhumane (animal, of which is presently)  to a humane (human ) based social value. The book sees "human" differently then the worlds view of it. When one is "being" humane one is also human at that time or instance. If one is being inhumane one is being animalistic at that instance or time.

Morality has to be connected to humane--or it's of no value. That's exactly what morals is--refraining form be harmful (inhumane) toward others. A person refraning from harming others is a moral person. What is meant by the -humane society- that sees to the caring of dogs and cats. Morals is beign cognative of harm that one may cause upon another--and to be moral one has to refrain from the harm that is understood to take place upon another. Morals is of no value if one it doesn't reastrict or eliminate  harming another. Morals is a relationship regulator. Morals is the ceasing of harming another.

A definition from an online dictionary---a person's standards of behavior or beliefs concerning what is and is not acceptable for them to do.

Morals retains acceptable behavior. It's what facilitates "being " human. If there's no such thing as inhuman --then what does human mean. Inhuman means non-human. Why isn't a dog considered human, because it's opposite human. But it stilkl has a humans makeup, but it's traltions toward other dogs is base in the animal--or inhuman. It's the same social stucture people live within. Can a person be non-human. I say definetly. It happens all the time, and most of the days news is about the inhumanities of the day. Wahts' going on in syria pesently if base in the inhuman.

You can't objectively have either. But if I play along, it is certainly possible to treat someone well and badly simultaneously. It happens all the time. Prisoners being executed, but being treated nicely, given a last meal, and efforts made to reduce their suffering is just one example out of billions.

Obviously you and the book are incorrect.

I said that already. What you are failing to see is that morality is not objective. Someone can try their damndest to be a nice person and accomplish nothing but strife in the process.

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of morality, and it helps put you in the theist category. The more you try and explain humane vs inhumane, the less sense you make.

Not true.

Not true.

Ridiculous. The reason we still beat the shit out of computers is because we CAN think of multiple things at the same time. A computer can think faster, but it can only process one variable at a time. Humans can do more.

Just because you don't need to focus all your attention on something doesn't mean you can do it without thought. Disconnect your brain while doing something you think you don't have to think about and see how well you do.

The brain is quite capable of handling dozens of tasks simultaneously. It is a marvellous machine.

You understand morality as well as you do the brain. Which isn't very well.

The person who programmed it. Because chess has a finite number of moves, and even a cell phone has sufficient capacity to hold them all. If the program was done properly, the absolute best you could ever accomplish is a tie.
But life isn't a chess game, and programming must fit the limitations of the system being programmed. No computer could beat a human at Star Craft, because there are too many variables for a programme to respond to. Even a perfectly programmed AI opponent would be easy to beat, because a human can process four or five strategies simultaneously, while a computer can only handle one at a time.

As far as the spinal column goes, I'm waiting for you to provide evidence that you can still ride a bike or drive or do ANY habit with your brain disconnected. Until you do you're just proving your ignorance of the nervous system.

The only one who needs studying is you. And lots of it.

It is unfortunate that you've decided to remain willfully ignorant on the brain and nervous system, and have decided to end the conversation instead of enlighten yourself. Neither of us was being explicitly insulting, so I don't understand why you would do so.

We can't focus on multiple tasks very well, but thought doesn't require focus (and not very well doesn't mean we can't do it at all). Training allows us to accomplish a task without focusing, but it doesn't allow us to accomplish a task without thought. No matter how well you train yourself to drive, you just can't drive well while talking on a cell phone. No matter how good a driver you are, or how good a talker you are, driving and communicating require focus.

I urge you to study more on thinking and focus and the nervous system. While you're at it, you should study lateral, vertical, horizontal, parallel, and adversarial thinking to understand more the differences between computers and the brain, and what the brain can do.

And after that, you should look into morality and subjectivity to better understand the terms you use and how you fail to use them correctly.

Take care.

Confession for the female, they say is good for the soul . . .

 Oh! Oh, Bother !!!

 (?) A better understanding of the Smurfdom on Anger . .

 Well ?

 0ff-site --

 Re:: Why do I have to suddenly think of you now ?

 Re:: Why do I have to suddenly think of you now ?

       TALK TO ONE ANOTHER YOU GOT TO LEARN TO TALK IT OUT, YOU GOT TO KNOW EXACTLY WHAT the PUZZLE IS ABOUT . . .

     ((TALK TO ONE ANOTHER YOU GOT TO LEARN TO TALK IT OUT, YOU GOT TO KNOW EXACTLY WHAT the PUZZLE IS ABOUT . . . ))

The alternative responses are a person's  anger  and the loss of virtue of a virtuous man or woman is such a response. However, DO NOT swerve from the righteous path.

Unforgiven

  Communication is a NECESSARY 'key', 'she' like many have lives THAT still deserve calm, healing, and even peace. And can still attain it without forgiving people who do not deserve it. "

  Know  ..You deserve better (dear one)

 THE BOOK OF NEHEMIAH -- (Confession they say is good for the soul)

 "But they, our ancestors and our forefathers, became arrogant and stiff-necked, and they did not obey God's commands..''

 Do not, I mean, do not allow restrictions to ruin imporant connection(s) in not heeding the warnings  (yes,  many are the pitfalls of this life) ::

   MANY ARE THE NEEDLESS PITFALLS OF THIS SITUATION . .

  I would see some consequences of my indulgence BUT IN THE LONG RUN  YOU WILL KNOW MORE.  Sorry for the wait, hun

   Sorry also for the lack of details, in this; this assumes you have some prior knowledge in what I quoted >

  Astika Parva

 (Quote) "Once upon a time, there was a king, of the name of Parikshit, born in the race of the Kauravas. And, like his great-grandfather Pandu of old, he was of mighty arms, the first of all bearers of bows in battle, and fond of hunting. And the monarch wandered about, hunting deer, And One day, having pierced a deer with a sharp arrow and slung his bow on his back, he penetrated into the deep forest, searching for the animal here and there, like the illustrious Rudra himself of old pursuing in the heavens, bow in hand, the deer which was Sacrifice, itself turned into that shape, after the piercing. No deer that was pierced by Parikshit had ever escaped in the wood with life. This deer, however wounded as before, fled with speed, so the hunter went on for a distance in pursuit. Having become fatigued and very thirsty,  he came across a Muni a practiced assetic, in the forest, seated in a cow-pen and drinking to his fill the froth oozing out of the mouths of  p. 89  calves sucking the milk of their dams. And approaching him hastily, the monarch, hungry and fatigued, and raising his bow, asked that Muni of rigid vows, saying, 'O Brahmana, I am king Parikshit, the son of Abhimanyu. A deer pierced by me hath been lost. Hast thou seen it?' Please answer me. I ask you again: Have you seen it ? But that Muni observing then the vow of silence, spoke not unto him a word. For he was under a vow of silence. And the king in anger thereupon placed upon his shoulder a dead snake he found near by, taking it up with the end of his bow. The Muni suffered and suffered much from him without protest. Fore he spoke not a word, good or bad. And he spoke not a word from start to finish. And the king seeing him in that state, cast off his anger and became sorry later on. And he returned to his capital but the Rishi continued in the same state. The forgiving Muni, knowing that the monarch who was a tiger amongst kings was true to the duties of his order, cursed him not, though insulted. That tiger amongst monarchs, that foremost one of Bharata's race, also did not know that the person whom he had so insulted was a virtuous Rishi. It was for this that he had so insulted him.  "That Rishi had a son by name Sringin, of tender years, gifted with great energy, deep in ascetic penances, severe in his vows, very wrathful, and difficult to be appeased .. For space you can pick up the story about what happens then. Others' actions AT THE SLIGHT (at the angry insult), brought about the undesirous results indeed, as you all recall (lol), that eventually lead to the direct death of the monarch. Through the festering snake bite (poetic justice?)..''

    . . .

  p.s. -- Missions  .. remember

I've been off and gone on transports of moyorcycles from MN to AZ and CA, and then back to WI, one Modela A Ford from Weldon Ca to Chippewa falls WI.. And, the first week of Jjune off again from WI to AZ and back again to WI. Just got back today.

I take it you want my comment on your 2 NT inputs.

In Christianity there are 2 lifes to consider, the one you presently are living and the one that Christianity is supposed to be. The life  you have now is made up for you by civil authority who create right and wrong, good and evil, from what they perfer and in turn creates the world you now are under.

Then, there's the Christian life that is natural and made by no one which is divided into 2 specific mental directions,, that of the animal mind ans that of the human mind. It os the "human" mind that is Christianity---but the world we have now is of the animal mind, hence, where social problems originate.

OOOOOKayyyy. When one understands this one must make a choice--which will it be.  When you find this you must loose one, and in finding about yourself you gain the knowing of another/the other. So, to gain one you must loose one. If you loose the man-made world you then enter the other--that means if you (giveup) the life the authorities create for you you become an independent person,free in your own thought and perwson--to be as you choose gained from the new knowledge of --You.  What is being done is--exchanging one mindset for another. As the world operates on the animal mindset changing to the human mindset makes you a new person.

Such as us Smurfs. We don't think anymore as your world does, but have to contend with it until others change also. Westill have to do as the world dictates bhut don't believe in it. Tjhere will be a time of change when this understanding will become common. Then the masses will demand change by walking(mentally) away from what they are presently constructed as. The trap will be set--- When the masses see and understand that the world they have cannot be changed but only opted out of then the changes will begin. The system you have cannot be fixed, and in this the masses are continuously fooled into believing that it can by those operating it,,, and those operating it are just as fooled into thinking that someday they will fix it, when the common understanding becomes that all know that it cannot be fixed--then what. When all know that it cannot be changed or fixed why and how can the masses go on with something that cannopt "be" fixed. Only one choice can be made---go back to the natural as nature intended.

There are only 2 worlds possible--the natural, and the manmade. The world made by men is an absolute failure to find a way to live in peqace with one another, and will always be so. The animal mind produces only one result, and that's the world you have now. For 10000 years since the man made world began not a single social problem has been solved. All the materialism, freeways, buildings, Olympic champions and sports, aircraft, or any invenntion or material developments have not in any way produced a better society.

Civilization was not designed to create better people. It was created for the cause of the few that created it--to farm the masses for the benefit of the same few. No matter how it is modified it will always revert back to it's original intent--as the financial situation of 2008 proves. In civil societies the animal rules, and it cannot be any other way.

Peaceful life only can originate from the human mind.

No. We get it. I like your humor.

Your psychosexual manifestations are brought to your dorsolateralprefrontalcortex and transmitted via your cerebral cortex in the form of cartoons. There was a Farscape episode like this.

Simple solution... go get laid. Maybe by the person you laughed at.

Just observing...

More to oldseer's point

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGld9SqrKpY