Mhmm, many if not most people in first world countries that consider themselves Catholic were already more moderate than the stance previously taken by the Vatican. 

Imo, in this day and age, any religion with a centralized body like this needs to make changes to their doctrine periodically to keep up with public opinion. For example, when the LDS church president received a prophecy allowing black pastors. I don't know the details on how this change in the Vatican came about, but I'd bet my left arm it was influenced by negative perceptions about the Vatican that have strengthened in recent years: no longer relevant, child molestors, old greedy men, etc.

If their stance is closer to what you call the "Old Seer," that is probably coincidence, I think.

it seems people world over are dissatified with their governments. That definetly would prompt authorities to make changes--and likewise religiions. But to a Smurf, Government is religion as it depends upon a belief system. The beliefs of governmnets are the same as relgions. That which governs is the same as that which governs and what is considered government has the same goals as what is considered religions. Religions are also in the purposes of governing. Neither can use the rudiments of governing and different then the other--to us they are both the same. We do kinow in time our interpretaion will come in conflict with theirs--there's only 2 possible, and that being from a spiritual vs material viewpoint. Only one can be correct.

Who is Emperor Norton ? Sorry I could not resist asking that  

 > Other's thoughts are completely lost on you OP ?

 To the OP ((slow pitch softball doesnt seem to work with you, that would be under the heading of delusional disorders . .  basically under the sub-heading of  contemptuous derision, and a deeply held contemptuous derision! ''Whiles I stood rapt in the wonder'' ~ MacBeth Act 1 Scene 5 ))
 

    I have many beliefs and values that are very dear to my heart and which I will defend passionately (other places), but none of them are above scrutiny.  However wide ranging, perhaps there is a reason 'the Word' is not  usually interpreted like ''proper Christianity'' does, huh ? You flatly reject any criticism, as if you were the sole person on the planet . . Boy, This would be fun, if it weren't so not fun (it's to laugh) . . .

    But, But, But  . . .     A unquestionably warped sense of obligation doesnt make you any 'righter'

   TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN --

 '' A unquestionably warped sense of obligation doesnt make you any 'righter' ''

:
 

Well said, Harley.

Eh, that seems like an oversimplification at best. Religion and government are both authorities, and yes, they change with the times, but they are definitively different too. Governments are necessary for moderating society, unless you're a total anarchist. Religions are definitively dogmatic and largely superfluous. I certainly wouldn't conceptualize an opposition of government the same way I conceptualize an opposition of religion.

I shouldn't get into these posts unless the participants have analysed the findings. They have no idea where I'm coming from--that's understood. People only understand the world they inheited, to present another is quite a chore and can be a loosing cause. The thing is--it takes time to understand, and very likely most floks aren't willing to take the time. OK so be it.

Not that I agree with you since all religions are merely placebos, but just remember when you suggest he suggests you read something you haven't he is right, but when you suggest he reads something you are wrong.

I don't see the point in reading comic books other than for knowing humans write them and falsely believe they have magic powers and contain patents on human morality.

You could be talking about the Vatican or Mormon Church or Mecca or Synagouges and their leaders and it still amounts to a comic book club with a president who is an expert in mythology who pretends their book is a history book.

(If I'm the one that your directing this to) I'm not a person of self importance. Narcissism is a component of the world we're all in at this time. It's my place in the Smurfdom/Older Seers (or Smurfdum if prefered) to relay info to others. No self importance in the works. But if people don't care or want to look then--so be it. There's 30 of us with 3 Psycho types and others in schools of endevour and we ought to know if we have something or not. If we didn't recognize the importance of what we know then we wouldn't bother. So then-- if we feel what we know is important for others to know then we have to accomodate, and then--- that exempts us from any fault for not doing so because we tried, and tried again--and again. so --if no one cares and thinks we're dillusional (which the Psycho types would know, right) then so be it. We will move on in time and forget the whole thing and let happen what happens--with no guilt feelings--because we --said, we told, we pointed out, and we tried again. It's not our fasult anymore that the world is the way it is--and it would be "if" we know something important that others should be aware of. The way the world is--is everyone's fault at this time ---except us. We tried. so--we can go off and enjoy the rest of time and not have to worry about self importance and the likes. Thast's why we made up the website--so we don't have to deal with this after we decide to quite, and==it was there--pointed out, suggested, and no one cared or looked. Dana--we don't care at this point because we've been at this long enough. Now, if anyone needs help in fixing this world it is suggested to confer with the Menza society to see if they can come up with solutions to mankinds problems that everyone is complaining about. with their body of top 2% of the geniuses they'll have done in no time. Strange, isn't it that they haven't come up with anything so far except use there super menatal abilities on solving kiddy puzzles and riddles and let you all out there in the world hascking and chopping on each other--when they should be using that super genius of there's to inform you all of the solutions to your problems. Appaently we know something no one else cares to know. Okay. Call the Menza floks.  

Eh...that's not atheists' reasoning. 

Of course, when I ask someone to prove something on an online forum, I'm not asking them to send me fossils though the postal service. Some fairly reliable websites are sufficient or you could present a topic from an angle I hadn't considered, etc. You only need to establish a degree of certainty, at which point I can say, "Yeah, that's probably correct."

I can't validate every scientific theory postulated by humanity in my kitchen. That's just impractical and leads us dangerously close to solipsism. That's why we share and record information. You said it yourself here: after the scientist does his experiment, he gives all the other scientists his info for peer review and so they can do his experiment as well. How do they know they can trust his information? Well, because, meh, why not? This is an inductive process. We gradually accumulate knowledge with increasing confidence and build on top of what we have already learned.

trying to make a point, not condem anyone, if that's how you took it. I'm saying (and explaining) that one cannot be expected to prove a verbal Claim. I can prove our claims--but, it'll take the entire site to explain it, or, write a book as thick as the bible itselfto get it explained. We understand these problems. One problem that to late to rectify is --I was asked here by the others to present our findings because I am a writer. But, I'm not very good at writing anymore creating a problem. and also because I have extreme patience with people of which they don't--and because mostly they didn't want to even deal with it but understood the job has to be done. Now you can see why they don't particularly care if the effort brings no result. I've seen plenty of post that state if one makes the claim they have to prove it. There'sto many things and instances that a verbal cannot be proven by another verbal--it takes reason on the part of the one receiving the info. Sorry, no offense intended.

A verbal is only material fact until the sound disapates and then it's gone. and being a verbal origintes from the mental it oft times take the mental of the listener to perseive it. A verbal may not have anything  going for it but the other person's mental. Either the recipiet makes a try to reason it out or has to let be. That's why I was advised to make up the website--a material fact to study.

 > Breakthroughs don't happen by themselves

  And then there are those seamless attributes of continuity and change ebb and flow and you develope. There is nothing to be ashamed of in owning up to one's inadequacies and lack of understanding, however an acutely draining and difficult a journey that may be for one; instead of being concernfully absorbed in our own little worlds

   I remember my first semister in college, I had a close friend there is a very curious omission to most but a few was how very guilty I was / am of not talking about ''how close'' we were. It surprising how innocent relations between the sexs can be if they are honest ones, whereas if they only want something out of it, then theirs can harshest and most wretched experiences of fighting with should be loved most deeply . .

  And, What do you think about that thought ???

you correctly. One of the oustanding troubles in societies comes from how we a re taught to see each other. We are engineered to see others from a physical perspective rather then spiritual. Spiritual means from person to person in the mental aspects rather then material/physical. We are judged more buy7 what we are physically worth rather then a person. In esence, thye person/mental get jumbled together with the physical, but the physical gets the greater regard. From mental to maental (person to person) it's an information exchange and that's all. From the physical it's sexual, money, food, fun, etc that are of the material exchange. That puts the emphysis on physical relations because we are worth more to each other physically. In the physical exchange "ther person/mental" takes a back seat to the physical and the persm isn't regarded properly leading to the social problems we see in the world. Thats the essence of Christianty--I mean-proper Christianity, is to make the change from physical recognition to person reccognition. The book sees people as the spiritual not the physical, and in turn bring about an understanding of that spirtual that it sees one is. Thusly then--each has to get to know the self and how the self is constructed and of what--that's what psychosychiatry is about. The civil aspect guides one to see the physical as the person and make judgements accordingly--such as job capability or athletic abillity. Physical demention means more then mental demention.

The writers if the book see people as the mental and saying to adjust the mental to see the other person--not by physical sight but by minds eye. That means relating to each other mental to mental rather then physical to physical. Physical to physical doesn't properly recognize the other person. We make mental judgements of each other without realizing that it's the person the that judgements are made accrording for ro against, because in the world of civilizations it's the physical that hold sway over the mental. The book sees this as an improper regard for others. What the boo0k is forwarding is--everyone go back to where they came from and start over and be yourself rather then a system/government made person. People in civilizations are a system engineered being ajnd created unnatural. That means that people are what the authorities create them as for specific purposes. A society engineered by a few leads to desater time after time. The writer of the book know very well that a fwproplewill never be sicessful at managing a society, becasue what's wrong with the leaders becomes what's wrong with everyone and then the few try to correct it by force and don't realize it's they that are the problem. No one or small group can possibly know enough to maintain a peacefull society because it's the operators that make it go the wrong way.

The book covers this phenominon. Untill the time of Nimrod in the cancestory of the middle easterners they were Adamites. Nimrod changes that by creating society to his specification which change them to being like everyone else on the planet. Before Nimrod they had a society that was spontanious and natural and there was no civil government controlling. along comes Nimrod and dupes them into his idea of how things should be and ----changes them to being like him. before him the people were considered God, after Nimrod --Nimrod becomes God. God = force. Before Nimrod the Adamites were subject to natural pushes and pulls of their society whaich were understood to be God, and after Nimrod they become subject to forces of Nimrod and his cronies . This is what the fall of Adam is about--changing from the natural to the government engineering.  Consider this passage. As it has been said,as Nimrod a mighty humter before the lord. The lod is--"the people", and what does this mean--it means all became as Nimrod the predator--and the prodigy of Adam has been as such to this day. Every other government is the same--none are any different. Civil societies are predatory societies as all must prey upon the others for existance--hence--social problems that the operators haven't and can't solve to the present time.

Ok Dana--are you deceived or not. That's for you to decide. We are merely giving you the information to make that decision. we say we have the right interpretation of the book. But. it is up to each to detemine that for themselves. We are not clergymen,we aren't going to be building any churches, we aren't going to gather a congregation, we're not going to ask for money, we ask for no recognition above anyone else nor will we accept any. As you can see we no longer belong to the world as it is. We found another, a world of self governance by understanding the self and the componants that make one. We decide what we are. No Seer is subject to another. Their is no leader, there is no authority in our ranks, we are what we want to be taken from a knowing of the things that are--not made up by someone else. 

No one needs to put away the physicalas it also is of the things that are. But be aware that it may not be you as you may very well be something else. It is for you to decide and don't let anyone else make that decision for you  

you correctly. One of the oustanding troubles in societies comes from how we a re taught to see each other. We are engineered to see others from a physical perspective rather then spiritual. Spiritual means from person to person in the mental aspects rather then material/physical. We are judged more buy7 what we are physically worth rather then a person. In esence, thye person/mental get jumbled together with the physical, but the physical gets the greater regard. From mental to maental (person to person) it's an information exchange and that's all. From the physical it's sexual, money, food, fun, etc that are of the material exchange. That puts the emphysis on physical relations because we are worth more to each other physically. In the physical exchange "ther person/mental" takes a back seat to the physical and the persm isn't regarded properly leading to the social problems we see in the world. Thats the essence of Christianty--I mean-proper Christianity, is to make the change from physical recognition to person reccognition. The book sees people as the spiritual not the physical, and in turn bring about an understanding of that spirtual that it sees one is. Thusly then--each has to get to know the self and how the self is constructed and of what--that's what psychosychiatry is about. The civil aspect guides one to see the physical as the person and make judgements accordingly--such as job capability or athletic abillity. Physical demention means more then mental demention.

The writers if the book see people as the mental and saying to adjust the mental to see the other person--not by physical sight but by minds eye. That means relating to each other mental to mental rather then physical to physical. Physical to physical doesn't properly recognize the other person. We make mental judgements of each other without realizing that it's the person the that judgements are made accrording for ro against, because in the world of civilizations it's the physical that hold sway over the mental. The book sees this as an improper regard for others. What the boo0k is forwarding is--everyone go back to where they came from and start over and be yourself rather then a system/government made person. People in civilizations are a system engineered being ajnd created unnatural. That means that people are what the authorities create them as for specific purposes. A society engineered by a few leads to desater time after time. The writer of the book know very well that a fwproplewill never be sicessful at managing a society, becasue what's wrong with the leaders becomes what's wrong with everyone and then the few try to correct it by force and don't realize it's they that are the problem. No one or small group can possibly know enough to maintain a peacefull society because it's the operators that make it go the wrong way.

The book covers this phenominon. Untill the time of Nimrod in the ancestory of the middle easterners they were Adamites. Nimrod changes that by creating society to his specification which change them to being like everyone else on the planet. Before Nimrod they had a society that was spontanious and natural and there was no civil government controlling. along comes Nimrod and dupes them into his idea of how things should be and ----changes them to being like him. before him the people were considered God, after Nimrod --Nimrod becomes God. God = force. Before Nimrod the Adamites were subject to natural pushes and pulls of their society whaich were understood to be God, and after Nimrod they become subject to forces of Nimrod and his cronies . This is what the fall of Adam is about--changing from the natural to the government engineering.  Consider this passage. As it has been said,as Nimrod a mighty humter before the lord. The lod is--"the people", and what does this mean--it means all became as Nimrod the predator--and the prodigy of Adam has been as such to this day. Every other government is the same--none are any different. Civil societies are predatory societies as all must prey upon the others for existance--hence--social problems that the operators haven't and can't solve to the present time.

Ok Dana--are you deceived or not. That's for you to decide. We are merely giving you the information to make that decision. we say we have the right interpretation of the book. But. it is up to each to detemine that for themselves. We are not clergymen,we aren't going to be building any churches, we aren't going to gather a congregation, we're not going to ask for money, we ask for no recognition above anyone else nor will we accept any. As you can see we no longer belong to the world as it is. We found another, a world of self governance by understanding the self and the componants that make one. We decide what we are. No Seer is subject to another. Their is no leader, there is no authority in our ranks, we are what we want to be taken from a knowing of the things that are--not made up by someone else. 

No one needs to put away the physical as it also is of the things that are. But be aware that it may not be you as you may very well be something else. It is for you to decide and don't let anyone else make that decision for you  

Correct on it would take extensive writing to complete the entire works. We know what questions would be asked before hand and I would attempt to answer all questions known (some still unknown however--we don't know it all and don't care to) . For example consider my last post to Dana--and that wasn't complete.I could have went further yet, but cut it short to for a PS or edit to explain "proper christianity". Haveing gone just 2 paragraphs on that I pressed to wrong key and lost it , so I let it for another time.

You are created by government mandates are you not. What you're saying is--you beat Nimrod---mmmmm could be. If so how did you do that. Todays governments are no different then Nimrods. Is a Monarchy different from a Democracy. If so. how so. To regulate a society takes the same decisions Monarchy or Democracy. 400 people regulating a society have to make the same decisions as a  King. The rudiments of rule are the same. How do a few operate a government without decption. Rule is force, force produces the same results no mattern the origin of the force.