|
Post by lopezcabellero on Oct 15, 2019 10:36:03 GMT -5
As I see it, the human mind should at least possess a pattern embedded into it which would trace back to the origin of human unconsciousness. Well yes. Isn't that what the best of the nonduality material is really all about at it's core? I would hope so. Eckhart Tolle, for example, places a lot of focus on the pain body, and transcending it. More pointedly, he talks about the collective pain we all inherit by being part of an unconscious society, as well as the individual pain and pain management techniques we pick up as children. It was also Eckhart who I first heard mention spiritual DNA, and it is this concept which can be used to bridge back to the origin of human pain. Now, maybe I wasn't clear on that writing, but I wasn't talking about the origin of human unconsciousness being like source consciousness or the pervading intelligence interpenetrating the world of form, but rather, the conditioned aversion to self and the unconscious proclivity to compensate. Where did that start and with who? Was it a conscious idea? Like the idea to play God by separating future generations from the truth, thus prohibiting natural thought? Or something less mischievous, like a father's inability to cope with the loss of his family? Why do humans possess the conditioned tendency to be unconscious and hence demented and grotesque? I'm saying, we all have the codes to figure that out, or should at least based on theory. Now, I don't think most non duality material addresses that. Most non duality material is about the all pervading source, but few talk about the relative source of pain aversion, at least that I've encountered. But certainly, some do.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 15, 2019 11:47:19 GMT -5
Well yes. Isn't that what the best of the nonduality material is really all about at it's core? I would hope so. Eckhart Tolle, for example, places a lot of focus on the pain body, and transcending it. More pointedly, he talks about the collective pain we all inherit by being part of an unconscious society, as well as the individual pain and pain management techniques we pick up as children. It was also Eckhart who I first heard mention spiritual DNA, and it is this concept which can be used to bridge back to the origin of human pain. Now, maybe I wasn't clear on that writing, but I wasn't talking about the origin of human unconsciousness being like source consciousness or the pervading intelligence interpenetrating the world of form, but rather, the conditioned aversion to self and the unconscious proclivity to compensate. Where did that start and with who? Was it a conscious idea? Like the idea to play God by separating future generations from the truth, thus prohibiting natural thought? Or something less mischievous, like a father's inability to cope with the loss of his family? Why do humans possess the conditioned tendency to be unconscious and hence demented and grotesque? I'm saying, we all have the codes to figure that out, or should at least based on theory. Now, I don't think most non duality material addresses that. Most non duality material is about the all pervading source, but few talk about the relative source of pain aversion, at least that I've encountered. But certainly, some do. Natural processes are the explanation that I buy into, but of course, once again, that's just my conditioning at work. The way I think of it in short hand is that going to war with the world as a species worked quite well in many ways for us up until the point where we're at now. As long as our potential impact on the nature of the environment that supports us was minimal, the illusion of separation was profitable within the rubric of survival of the species, and this success manifested in a sort of fractal way over time into other divisions such as clan/guild, tribe/corporation, race/nation, etc. But the bottom line is that whether it was natural processes or alien interference, the fact of the unconsciousness is what matters, not the details of the story of how it manifested. If you're lost in the woods, does it really matter what specific twists and turns it took you to get to where you were when you finally admitted you were lost? Or, rather, would you be better served to find a stream or listen for the sound of traffic or walk downhill or note direction by season/time and the Sun? -- note how the type of vector to follow depends on the specifics of the terrain in which you're in, as the point is to find your way out, rather than to specifically retrace your original steps. As with any rule, the exception is that sometimes doing just that: retracing your specific steps, can work just fine. But that depends on the individual, as everyone forms their own, personal, terrain, as well as navigational skill set.
|
|
|
Post by lopezcabellero on Oct 15, 2019 17:19:41 GMT -5
I would hope so. Eckhart Tolle, for example, places a lot of focus on the pain body, and transcending it. More pointedly, he talks about the collective pain we all inherit by being part of an unconscious society, as well as the individual pain and pain management techniques we pick up as children. It was also Eckhart who I first heard mention spiritual DNA, and it is this concept which can be used to bridge back to the origin of human pain. Now, maybe I wasn't clear on that writing, but I wasn't talking about the origin of human unconsciousness being like source consciousness or the pervading intelligence interpenetrating the world of form, but rather, the conditioned aversion to self and the unconscious proclivity to compensate. Where did that start and with who? Was it a conscious idea? Like the idea to play God by separating future generations from the truth, thus prohibiting natural thought? Or something less mischievous, like a father's inability to cope with the loss of his family? Why do humans possess the conditioned tendency to be unconscious and hence demented and grotesque? I'm saying, we all have the codes to figure that out, or should at least based on theory. Now, I don't think most non duality material addresses that. Most non duality material is about the all pervading source, but few talk about the relative source of pain aversion, at least that I've encountered. But certainly, some do. Natural processes are the explanation that I buy into, but of course, once again, that's just my conditioning at work. The way I think of it in short hand is that going to war with the world as a species worked quite well in many ways for us up until the point where we're at now. As long as our potential impact on the nature of the environment that supports us was minimal, the illusion of separation was profitable within the rubric of survival of the species, and this success manifested in a sort of fractal way over time into other divisions such as clan/guild, tribe/corporation, race/nation, etc. Beyond the illusion of separation, I'm speaking to the tendency to block out emotion and compensate for it, and whether that was a natural process or the deliberate result of a thought out intention. I would say war as we know it is largely a result of projection and unhealed emotion, and the issues is what is the primal unhealed emotion? If becoming unconscious is a process of compartmentalizing emotion (which it is), it's possible that unhealed emotion in your own egoic structure depend upon the existence of a collectively held delusion. In this way, discovery of origin plays an integral albeit at times tangential role to healing identification. Meaning, I don't mean to say the path to freedom is buried in a library somewhere. Becoming conscious is something that can take place on a grand scale when a tipping point is reached, and on a local scale to an incredible degree through certain individuations. Truth revelation unfolds in tandem with emotional healing, and the loss of identification with thinking or being a thinking entity is something some teachers do experience and can point to, even if consciousness isn't an experience. But how many are at the point where they would never tell a lie? If a gun is to your head or to your child's head or to your wife's head or husband's head, and telling the truth means death and telling a lie means survival, how much of an eternal being are you or they at that point? And if you're willing to tell a lie to save your life, then to what degree is there already existing self deception with regard to what thought identification is and how repressed your mind might be? As far as alien interference, I can't say I subscribe to it, but I'm keeping an open mind. If telomere telomere fusion prevents cross species interbreeding, and the fossil record isn’t replete with a mass exodus from the previous species, who did this new species breed with? Did it happen among more than one couple or with only one? And if with only one, the only chance at reproduction stems from incest? Well, anyway, as far as the emotional vampire theory. I mean to get back to that. On an emotional level, it's fair to say humans created lower dimensional spaces. Meaning, through compensation, projection, and repression, humans descend into lower vibrational frequencies, and this descent gives rise to the possibility of ascension. I think what's happening in the lowest sphere, which seems to be where Earth is, is what we can speak of now in a mathematical way. We also see teachers like Jed Mckenna mention 'getting back to square one', which would be ascension back to the natural state, but would involve release of the energy that brought you down in the first place. The interesting part is how evil and fear based manipulation can so easily control peeps's behavior, and how a controlled mind state can be looked at as a free mind, which is a mass form of thought identification we see today. If being abandoned by our creators actually happened, and was actually blocked out by the earliest part of our race so that they could wield control, then bringing that truth into collective focus is also going to call attention to lots of emotions of abandonment. The issue I see with all this is that people pick up their associations for 'loving' behavior early on from their parents, and tend to view what love is in such a distorted way that people are too desensitized to their own pain and unconsciousness, because they are too busy perpetuating that pain externally under the guise of being a loving person. And so they don't believe they have emotions of abandonment, and so easily subscribe to theories that don't involve being abandoned by God or aliens or even our predecessors.
|
|
|
Post by lopezcabellero on Oct 16, 2019 23:58:12 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 17, 2019 2:42:55 GMT -5
Natural processes are the explanation that I buy into, but of course, once again, that's just my conditioning at work. The way I think of it in short hand is that going to war with the world as a species worked quite well in many ways for us up until the point where we're at now. As long as our potential impact on the nature of the environment that supports us was minimal, the illusion of separation was profitable within the rubric of survival of the species, and this success manifested in a sort of fractal way over time into other divisions such as clan/guild, tribe/corporation, race/nation, etc. Beyond the illusion of separation, I'm speaking to the tendency to block out emotion and compensate for it, and whether that was a natural process or the deliberate result of a thought out intention. I would say war as we know it is largely a result of projection and unhealed emotion, and the issues is what is the primal unhealed emotion? If becoming unconscious is a process of compartmentalizing emotion (which it is), it's possible that unhealed emotion in your own egoic structure depend upon the existence of a collectively held delusion. In this way, discovery of origin plays an integral albeit at times tangential role to healing identification. Meaning, I don't mean to say the path to freedom is buried in a library somewhere. Becoming conscious is something that can take place on a grand scale when a tipping point is reached, and on a local scale to an incredible degree through certain individuations. Truth revelation unfolds in tandem with emotional healing, and the loss of identification with thinking or being a thinking entity is something some teachers do experience and can point to, even if consciousness isn't an experience. But how many are at the point where they would never tell a lie? If a gun is to your head or to your child's head or to your wife's head or husband's head, and telling the truth means death and telling a lie means survival, how much of an eternal being are you or they at that point? And if you're willing to tell a lie to save your life, then to what degree is there already existing self deception with regard to what thought identification is and how repressed your mind might be? As far as alien interference, I can't say I subscribe to it, but I'm keeping an open mind. If telomere telomere fusion prevents cross species interbreeding, and the fossil record isn’t replete with a mass exodus from the previous species, who did this new species breed with? Did it happen among more than one couple or with only one? And if with only one, the only chance at reproduction stems from incest? Well, anyway, as far as the emotional vampire theory. I mean to get back to that. On an emotional level, it's fair to say humans created lower dimensional spaces. Meaning, through compensation, projection, and repression, humans descend into lower vibrational frequencies, and this descent gives rise to the possibility of ascension. I think what's happening in the lowest sphere, which seems to be where Earth is, is what we can speak of now in a mathematical way. We also see teachers like Jed Mckenna mention 'getting back to square one', which would be ascension back to the natural state, but would involve release of the energy that brought you down in the first place. The interesting part is how evil and fear based manipulation can so easily control peeps's behavior, and how a controlled mind state can be looked at as a free mind, which is a mass form of thought identification we see today. If being abandoned by our creators actually happened, and was actually blocked out by the earliest part of our race so that they could wield control, then bringing that truth into collective focus is also going to call attention to lots of emotions of abandonment. The issue I see with all this is that people pick up their associations for 'loving' behavior early on from their parents, and tend to view what love is in such a distorted way that people are too desensitized to their own pain and unconsciousness, because they are too busy perpetuating that pain externally under the guise of being a loving person. And so they don't believe they have emotions of abandonment, and so easily subscribe to theories that don't involve being abandoned by God or aliens or even our predecessors. The existential truth of every being is that they are eternal, and the primal unhealed emotion is founded on a trick of the mind otherwise. It is that illusion of seperation that is the root of the unconsciousness we're interested in here. This isn't to minimize or suggest a bypass of the suffering from that rift, and much of what you write is often quite illuminating as to a potential incremental process of emotional healing. But in the realization of that existential truth, life goes on. Why wouldn't someone lie to save their life or the life of their loved ones? Please don't misunderstand here, I respect your perspective, even though we appear to disagree on this point, and take no offense if the implication is that my propensity to lie in this instance suggests an egoic delusion on my part. And in my experience, it was a suspension of all that I thought I knew - including everything that I still believe about human origins - that set the table for that realization. I've both read and have corresponded with Christians, atheists, Hindu's, Jews, Muslims and folks with rather offbeat new-age based belief-systems, and many of them have been very insightful, existentially speaking. To my eye, there are certainly some ideas about those origins that have greater relative value than others, and, on the other hand, there certainly are facets from each of those cultures which reinforce the nightmare aspects of the consensus trance. To reiterate, once again, I fully acknowledge how that value system is founded on my own cultural conditioning, so it's relevance to the dialog is ultimately quite limited. Because, you see, the existential truth is non-relative, and it really doesn't matter how someone is conditioned to view the history that led them to wherever they happen to be at the point they spark an interest in it. Nor does it really matter all that much what they choose to believe after that truth has been realized. Beliefs can obscure that truth, and for the most part, they do, and they're essentially the only thing in the way of realizing it. If we consider the relationship between thought and emotion, your writing about the emotional body points this up quite starkly. So, I can certainly relate to a process of deconstructing these sorts of belief structures, and for me, meditation played a very specific role in that. But in my experience, and in many other stories I've read, there comes a point where one on an insight path such as this has to realize that this sort of deconstruction and back-tracking really has no end to it, and that the truth or falsity of the ideas that underpin their sense of reality aren't really the issue, but rather, that issue is the inherent emptiness of all relative movements of body and mind.
|
|
|
Post by lopezcabellero on Oct 17, 2019 14:36:56 GMT -5
Beyond the illusion of separation, I'm speaking to the tendency to block out emotion and compensate for it, and whether that was a natural process or the deliberate result of a thought out intention. I would say war as we know it is largely a result of projection and unhealed emotion, and the issues is what is the primal unhealed emotion? If becoming unconscious is a process of compartmentalizing emotion (which it is), it's possible that unhealed emotion in your own egoic structure depend upon the existence of a collectively held delusion. In this way, discovery of origin plays an integral albeit at times tangential role to healing identification. Meaning, I don't mean to say the path to freedom is buried in a library somewhere. Becoming conscious is something that can take place on a grand scale when a tipping point is reached, and on a local scale to an incredible degree through certain individuations. Truth revelation unfolds in tandem with emotional healing, and the loss of identification with thinking or being a thinking entity is something some teachers do experience and can point to, even if consciousness isn't an experience. But how many are at the point where they would never tell a lie? If a gun is to your head or to your child's head or to your wife's head or husband's head, and telling the truth means death and telling a lie means survival, how much of an eternal being are you or they at that point? And if you're willing to tell a lie to save your life, then to what degree is there already existing self deception with regard to what thought identification is and how repressed your mind might be? As far as alien interference, I can't say I subscribe to it, but I'm keeping an open mind. If telomere telomere fusion prevents cross species interbreeding, and the fossil record isn’t replete with a mass exodus from the previous species, who did this new species breed with? Did it happen among more than one couple or with only one? And if with only one, the only chance at reproduction stems from incest? Well, anyway, as far as the emotional vampire theory. I mean to get back to that. On an emotional level, it's fair to say humans created lower dimensional spaces. Meaning, through compensation, projection, and repression, humans descend into lower vibrational frequencies, and this descent gives rise to the possibility of ascension. I think what's happening in the lowest sphere, which seems to be where Earth is, is what we can speak of now in a mathematical way. We also see teachers like Jed Mckenna mention 'getting back to square one', which would be ascension back to the natural state, but would involve release of the energy that brought you down in the first place. The interesting part is how evil and fear based manipulation can so easily control peeps's behavior, and how a controlled mind state can be looked at as a free mind, which is a mass form of thought identification we see today. If being abandoned by our creators actually happened, and was actually blocked out by the earliest part of our race so that they could wield control, then bringing that truth into collective focus is also going to call attention to lots of emotions of abandonment. The issue I see with all this is that people pick up their associations for 'loving' behavior early on from their parents, and tend to view what love is in such a distorted way that people are too desensitized to their own pain and unconsciousness, because they are too busy perpetuating that pain externally under the guise of being a loving person. And so they don't believe they have emotions of abandonment, and so easily subscribe to theories that don't involve being abandoned by God or aliens or even our predecessors. The existential truth of every being is that they are eternal, and the primal unhealed emotion is founded on a trick of the mind otherwise. It is that illusion of seperation that is the root of the unconsciousness we're interested in here. This isn't to minimize or suggest a bypass of the suffering from that rift, and much of what you write is often quite illuminating as to a potential incremental process of emotional healing. I would say the primary existential truth of every being is that they are not while a transcendent reality independent of their relative existence Is. A common issue seen in spiritual circles is the relative belief in That as a mask for the ego to wear. Let me be clear about a few things. First, there are some things that I will never speak on in life. One thing that comes to mind is the victim mentality. I'm tired of it and it's far too prevalent in modern society. People use the shame and guilt of other people to gain sympathy and then use sympathy toward a darker cause. If I was running a business or a government, I might even be capable of espionage to weed out undesirables. Now, as far as why someone wouldn't lie to save their life? If you believe in the afterlife and that lying would somehow be detrimental to your spirit life to follow, then you might see justification. I can't say I believe in a separate point of perception after this life, meaning, that the point of perception continues. It might, I don't know. Even people that say they remember their past lives gain these memories in this life, so it's entirely possible that such memories never 'happened' until they were brought up for conscious recall. As such, I'll stick with present moment intangibility prior to claiming I know anything more. Know that you know, and the bottom line is creation could have started 5 seconds ago. I can't prove that it didn't. The primary issue I see with thought identification is self deception. Lying to oneself. People do that to save their egos, and that's where conscious oversight comes in. Did you watch the vid I posted? The science guy in that vid seems to have his ducks in a row, and seems to smash the idea of common descent into pieces. If we remember this fusion theory was only born in 1991, it's not surprising so many evolution theorists have tried to stuff their beliefs into the results. Now, this doesn't make the case for alien intervention, which I imagine the guy in the vid is not a proponent of. Maybe fusion theory itself is entirely wrong, and chromosome two is not the result of fusion at all. Which means you may be right, that the evolution happened naturally. But there's currently virtually no theory to suggest that, while interference theory, on the other hand, certainly fills the gaps. Although, we still run into the issue of motivation, which I'm not sold on. Well, I mean, if you've realized the truth, then I think you have no choice but to believe the truth, relative or existential. There's things we know we know, things we know we don't know, and things we don't know we don't know. I think the fact that most people have goofy beliefs about God and creation and evolution is due to some underlying fears. But beyond the big questions like the chicken or the egg, most people can't even get past the possibility of being unloved as a child playing a role for how they are being mistreated at work, or these simple associations that stand out to the astute psychologist. I met a woman recently, well a year ago or so, and she had a story to tell. Her parents went overseas, as part of the military service, I can't remember what branch. Anyway, from age 10-13 she was left in the care of her uncle. Fast forward to age 12 or 13 and the little girl is starting to 'show'. One of her teachers noticed and sent her to the nurse. Where a pregnancy test was eventually administered and where it was confirmed she was indeed pregnant. An investigation gets launched, the girl has no boyfriend, and all vectors are pointing to the Uncle, who she then proceeds to tell me was sexually abusing her since prior to her parents leaving. Some of it, terrible stuff. There was mention of sodomy, and my heart breaks for this woman. She didn't even know what pregancy was, or what sex was. And now there she was in 8th grade with a baby bump. Talk about life shattering. She is 7 months pregnant during this conversation, 20 years later. Well anyway, rewind back to the first pregnancy, she had the baby. Her parents flew home. Uncle pleads guilty in court. Didn't see anything wrong with it. The whole 9 yards. Well, anyway, she is now 7 months pregnant (when talking to me), in tears, and still defending her parents decision to leave her with the Uncle. It was the best thing for the family. They were trying to set up my future. And they just so happened to be leaving their little girl in the care of a predator, which who'sever brother it was, would have known had they not been in denial themselves. Not to blame them, or even judge them, but to see how self denial can lead to unintended consequences. Simultaneously, the father of the current child, who she thought was a good guy, the new baby meaning, abandoned her. Left her alone to deal with the pregnancy and everything else. And because of her unwillingness to express grief for parental abandonment, she was now living through the compensatory effect of that grief. An emotion of abandonment playing itself out, which will play out even further unless she's able to get to that emotion. She was a Jehovah, and shared this story openly, otherwise I wouldn't share it here, but it just shows what happens when we have emotions that we don't take care of. They play out in insane and unconscious ways, and that's what awakening can put an end to. Not by ending emotion, but through expression in consciousness with dissection of denial mechanisms. While this woman shared her grief with me, the truth of the matter is the grief from her sexual assualt was underpinned by an emotion of abandonment from her parents, that she refused to look at. If she doesn't address that emotion, I would say it's likely that when that child gets older, he or she will likely abandon her as well. Some might call this an unloving universe, which I just can't agree with. Everything always adds up, even if it's not the answer we want to see. I would say there is an end to reverse engineering one's egoic structure, and this can take place because consciousness can be gained of the thinking mind's capacity for unconscious programming. You are consciousness, so awakening is the loss of identification, and to the extent you are not in the process of compartmentalized emotion, is to the same extent lots of other stuff is going out the window. I also posit this 'end' to reverse compartmentalization should roll over into the collective engine and create a ripple of reverse compartmentalization there as well, which may very well explain my passing interest in discussing human origin. If for nothing else, the inability to exist within a dysfunctional co-dependent relationship. What happens to people when they are addicted to 'you' and 'you' go away? Nevertheless, life goes on.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 8, 2022 2:58:18 GMT -5
ok, gotcha' on the distinction between the Ananuki and channeled material. I was aware from other sources that many of the parables in the bible were old stories taken from elsewhere - certainly in the new testament, say, for instance, the virgin birth, which I guess came from Persia. And, if I'm not mistaken, the Hebrew culture that wrote down the Adam and Eve story emerged several thousand years into the story of the region, so, it wouldn't surprise me if that was derivative as well. But what if the idea of the overlords as being non-human was the result of a game of historical telephone? What if, instead, they were colonists or refugees from a human civilization that was more technically advanced than the ancient Sumerians? Compare that notion, say, to the way the Aztec's reportedly related the arrival of the Spanish to their lore about the coming of one of their "Gods". Here's the significance of starfish. If you notice, your body has five branching points: two arms, two legs, and a head. Your face, which branches from your head, has: two eyes, two nostrils and a mouth. Each of your appendages has five branches into fingers/toes. The similarity with the starfish is no accident, it's genetic. So if an antelope is related to something as simple as a starfish this way, it seems to suggest to me that the evolution of H.S. from something chimp-like into us is even less of a change, most of it being in terms of mind. This isn't to preclude the possibility of alien interference, simply to point out that, in the grand sweep of all the planet flora, generally, evolution is sufficient to explain the diversity without any need for that interference. Adam and Eve story,the Genesis is taken from very old Elohist text , that's why God appears to be plural there(For an instance Let us create the world,Let us go down and collapse the language) but after the first two books, you can't find God in a plural sense because those are taken from Yahwist text where God is singular. Very very few people know this truth. Thanks Gopal, that's an interesting explanation. I did wonder who was the 'us' in Genesis 3:22
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 8, 2022 5:29:16 GMT -5
Adam and Eve story,the Genesis is taken from very old Elohist text , that's why God appears to be plural there(For an instance Let us create the world,Let us go down and collapse the language) but after the first two books, you can't find God in a plural sense because those are taken from Yahwist text where God is singular. Very very few people know this truth. Thanks Gopal, that's an interesting explanation. I did wonder who was the 'us' in Genesis 3:22Genesis says that God is not a single person, that's why it uses "us" in genesis 3:22.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 8, 2022 6:30:21 GMT -5
Thanks Gopal, that's an interesting explanation. I did wonder who was the 'us' in Genesis 3:22Genesis says that God is not a single person, that's why it uses "us" in genesis 3:22. Yeah. If Genesis did have it's origins in the Torah then it would have been known that the tree of life was the Sephirot.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on May 8, 2022 20:20:56 GMT -5
Thanks Gopal, that's an interesting explanation. I did wonder who was the 'us' in Genesis 3:22Genesis says that God is not a single person, that's why it uses "us" in genesis 3:22. Interesting. That's similar to A-H always using "We" instead of "I", giving it a more impersonal touch.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 9, 2022 2:26:28 GMT -5
Genesis says that God is not a single person, that's why it uses "us" in genesis 3:22. Interesting. That's similar to A-H always using "We" instead of "I", giving it a more impersonal touch. But Bible is not talking about Impersonal, they are talking God as multiple persons in the first two books, New Testament people are confusing this with Father, Jesus, Holy Spirit.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on May 9, 2022 12:21:02 GMT -5
Interesting. That's similar to A-H always using "We" instead of "I", giving it a more impersonal touch. But Bible is not talking about Impersonal, they are talking God as multiple persons in the first two books, New Testament people are confusing this with Father, Jesus, Holy Spirit. Read something in passing a few years back, that the "Celts" held triads to be somehow important or sacred, something about a "law of three". As you might know, the "Celts" were the Romans primary early enemy, and the Romans tried to assimilate them to various degree of success in Gaul and Britain. Just as there are some hints that the Christians incorporated Northern European paganism into the dates and characteristics of their yearly rituals (Halloween, Christmas and Easter), this "law of three" might be a hint as to the origin of the trinity. Another thing to consider about the trinity: (Perceiver, Perceived, Witness).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 9, 2022 14:52:26 GMT -5
But Bible is not talking about Impersonal, they are talking God as multiple persons in the first two books, New Testament people are confusing this with Father, Jesus, Holy Spirit. Read something in passing a few years back, that the "Celts" held triads to be somehow important or sacred, something about a "law of three". As you might know, the "Celts" were the Romans primary early enemy, and the Romans tried to assimilate them to various degree of success in Gaul and Britain. Just as there are some hints that the Christians incorporated Northern European paganism into the dates and characteristics of their yearly rituals (Halloween, Christmas and Easter), this "law of three" might be a hint as to the origin of the trinity. Another thing to consider about the trinity: ( Perceiver, Perceived, Witness). I always thought the 3 as one was Perceiver, Perceived and Act of Perceiving.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 9, 2022 15:04:44 GMT -5
Interesting. That's similar to A-H always using "We" instead of "I", giving it a more impersonal touch. But Bible is not talking about Impersonal, they are talking God as multiple persons in the first two books, New Testament people are confusing this with Father, Jesus, Holy Spirit. It's not multiple persons, it's multiple perspectives. Though perhaps that challenges your view that other perspective can't be proven.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on May 9, 2022 20:43:08 GMT -5
Read something in passing a few years back, that the "Celts" held triads to be somehow important or sacred, something about a "law of three". As you might know, the "Celts" were the Romans primary early enemy, and the Romans tried to assimilate them to various degree of success in Gaul and Britain. Just as there are some hints that the Christians incorporated Northern European paganism into the dates and characteristics of their yearly rituals (Halloween, Christmas and Easter), this "law of three" might be a hint as to the origin of the trinity. Another thing to consider about the trinity: ( Perceiver, Perceived, Witness). I always thought the 3 as one was Perceiver, Perceived and Act of Perceiving. Seems to me that there are many possible triads of this nature, and that's not to suggest that they all amount to the same notion or notions or any sort of value judgment about which is the best of them.
|
|