New Web Page on the Revelation and Doctrine of the "Resurrection of the Dead", "Meditations On A Science of Consciousness", and "Commentaries on the Revelation of John"
(28SW2) Michael Cecil
Present active links include: 1) a series of essays describing the dev-
elopment of the Revelation and Doctrine of the "resurrection of the
dead" from the Torah, through the Prophets, the Dead Sea Scrolls, the
Gospels and the Nag Hammadi Codices; 2) a series of more philosophical
essays entitled "Meditations On A Science of Consciousness; and, 3)
"Commentaries on the Revelation of John".
The essays on the Revelation and Doctrine of the "resurrection of the
dead" were written to demonstrate the role of theological error in the
political-military conflict over Jerusalem; and primarily for Jews,
Christians and Muslims who have never been informed of the Doctrinal
Truths in the Torah, the Prophets, the Gospels and the Koran concerning
both the Revelation and Doctrine of the "resurrection of the dead" and
the Vision of the "Son of man".
"Meditations On A Science of Consciousness" were written primarily for
those who are uncomfortable with discussions of Revealed Truth, but are
much more amenable to either scientific and philosophical discussions of
the structure of human consciousness, or discussions from within the
Buddhist or other esoteric traditions concerning the "observing con-
sciousness", as found in the writings of J. Krishnamurti.
"Commentaries on the Revelation of John" were written to demonstrate
that the symbols in the Revelation of John are significant not only
from the frame of reference of the Revelations and Doctrines of the
monotheistic religions, but also in terms of the philosophy and science
of human consciousness as discussed within the Eastern and other sec-
ular esoteric traditions.
Future topics for discussion, Insh'allah, will include: 1) the Revela-
tion and Doctrine of the "Resurrection of the Dead" in the Koran; 2)
Fractal Prophecies in Daniel and the Revelation of John; and, 3) Essays
on Revelational Phonetics (In English).
The present active links have been arranged in such a way that they are
best understood when read sequentially.
That is, the essays on the Revelation and Doctrine of the "resurrection
of the dead" form the basis; but the "Commentaries on the Revelation of
John" (and any subsequent links) cannot be fully appreciated unless
there is, first, an understanding of "Meditations On A Science of Con-
sciousness".
See my web page for a detailed description of the Knowledge that has
been rejected and the Teaching that has been forgotten by the Jewish,
Christian and Muslim religious officials in fulfillment of Hosea 4:
4-6 and Daniel 12:9-10:
http://www.deadseanaghammadiresearch.com
Michael Cecil (Daniel 12:1, Sura 2:98 of the Koran, Column XVII of the
"Scroll of the War of the Sons of Light")
Sarai/Sarah-->Mohammed-->Elizabeth Cecil (Daniel 12: 9 & 13)
Hyperion Methane Cloud
http://www.deadseanaghammadiresearch.com
JoeS
> In response to popular demand, I have created a new web page.
> http://www.deadseanaghammadiresearch.com
>
> Michael Cecil (Daniel 12:1, Sura 2:98 of the Koran, Column XVII of the
> "Scroll of the War of the Sons of Light")
Nice work Mr. Cecil. Although not concise [easily forgiven considering
the depth of information conveyed], your website opus is now ordered,
well-written, thought-provoking, and a darned good read to boot!
I'm sorry if I upset or insulted you a month ago, but I'd like to
think that my rudeness may have had some part in motivating you to
polish up your life's work. If not, forgive my presumption.
I will have some questions for you soon, for my own curiosity and
desire to know Truth, if you don't mind. The website subject matter,
the "Resurrection of the Dead" and the Dead Sea Scrolls are
fascinating subjects to consider.
Thank you.
JoeS (no theologian, I promise)
(28SW2) Michael Cecil
JoeS wrote:
> "(28SW2) Michael Cecil" <mj...@earthlink.net> wrote ...
> > In response to popular demand, I have created a new web page.
> > ...
> > http://www.deadseanaghammadiresearch.com
> >
> > Michael Cecil (Daniel 12:1, Sura 2:98 of the Koran, Column XVII of the
> > "Scroll of the War of the Sons of Light")
>
> Nice work Mr. Cecil. Although not concise [easily forgiven considering
> the depth of information conveyed], your website opus is now ordered,
> well-written, thought-provoking, and a darned good read to boot!
>
> I'm sorry if I upset or insulted you a month ago,
Know something?
I've been on the Internet for about 7 1/2 years now.
And one thing I have noticed is that the FIRSTchoice of
the people who read me is to INSULT.
Just don't understand why that would be.
I have lost count of the people who have been rude and
critical and damning...
All around idiots.
But sometimes two months later they return somewhat
sheepishly with a completely different tone.
Then they do not open their mouth AGAIN in response
to what I have written
> but I'd like to
> think that my rudeness may have had some part in motivating you to
> polish up your life's work.
Why should I allow you to justify your rudeness--to tell you the
truth, I don't even REMEMBER you (after awhile EVERY rude
person sounds like every OTHER rude person)--by thinking that
it in some way helped me.
> If not, forgive my presumption.
It is irrelevant whether I forgive you.
These mechanisms are directed INWARD against
the perception of Truth.
This is MUCH more of a problem for you...
NOT that you may have offended ME.
>
>
But be careful in the way that you ask me a question.
If I consider it rude I will not be particularly motivated to
answer it.
>
> I will have some questions for you soon, for my own curiosity and
> desire to know Truth,
Curiosity and the desire to know the Truth are two DIFFERENT
things.
You will have to make up your 'mind' which it is.
> if you don't mind.
Don't know if I will or not.
Depends upon the way the question is asked.
> The website subject matter,
> the "Resurrection of the Dead" and the Dead Sea Scrolls are
> fascinating subjects to consider.
>
> Thank you.
>
> JoeS (no theologian, I promise)
Makes no difference.
You may very well talk like one REGARDLESS.
I guess we'll see.
(28SW2) Michael Cecil
Never Anonymous Bud wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Nov 2001 00:22:15 GMT, "(28SW2) Michael Cecil"
> <mj...@earthlink.net> took a timeout from their bin Laden chemistry set
> to say :
>
> >I've been on the Internet for about 7 1/2 years now.
> >
> >And one thing I have noticed is that the FIRST choice of
> >the people who read me is to INSULT.
>
> And it's AWLAYS their fault, never yours.
I just KNEW that you would EVENTUALLY say something that
I could agree with.
> That's a _classic_ sign of a mental problem.
Let me tell you something that may surprise you:
It makes NO DIFFERENCE.
Even if I were stark raving mad, someone would STILL
have to present a LOGICAL argument against my
essays on the "resurrection of the dead", "Meditations
On A Science of Consciousness" and "Commentaries
on the Revelation of John".
And this is something that you could not do if your life
depended upon it...
If your LIFE depended upon it.
Your LIFE.
Remember that.
Peter Lemesurier
<the...@san.rxyzr.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 15 Nov 2001 00:22:15 GMT, "(28SW2) Michael Cecil"
><mj...@earthlink.net> took a timeout from their bin Laden chemistry set
>to say :
>
>>I've been on the Internet for about 7 1/2 years now.
>>
>>And one thing I have noticed is that the FIRST choice of
>>the people who read me is to INSULT.
>
>And it's AWLAYS their fault, never yours.
>
>That's a _classic_ sign of a mental problem.
>
As is posting articles with headers so long you can't read them...
--
Peter
(28SW2) Michael Cecil
Never Anonymous Bud wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Nov 2001 08:08:58 GMT, "(28SW2) Michael Cecil"
> <mj...@earthlink.net> took a timeout from their bin Laden chemistry set
> to say :
>
> >Even if I were stark raving mad, someone would STILL
> >have to present a LOGICAL argument against my
> >essays on the "resurrection of the dead", "Meditations
> >On A Science of Consciousness" and "Commentaries
> >on the Revelation of John".
>
> People HAVE done that, you just refuse to admit
> that anyone ELSE could be right.
I first advertised this web page--and "Meditations On A
Science of Consciousness"--a little over 24 hours ago.
Please point out any messages to these groups over the
past 24 hours which have, in any way, addressed the
argument that I present in these essays.
> Another classic sign of mental illness.
On the other hand, I would argue that there is not a snowflake's
chance in HELL that you could be 'mentally ill'.
The term "mental illness" implies the existence of an 'ego'
consciousness (symbolized by the "king of the South" in
Daniel 11 and the 'beast of the earth' in Revelations 13
and Sura 27 of the Koran) which is then overwhelmed by
an eruption of the chaos of the 'unconscious' (symbolized
by the "king of the North" in Daniel 11 and the "beast from
the sea" in the Revelation of John). (And, if you are uncom-
fortable with arguments based upon Revealed Truth, I would
suggest you read "Denial of Death" by Becker and "Character
Analysis" by Reich to get a much better understanding of
precisely what "mental illness" is than you presently have.)
And, it is out of the chaos of the destruction of the 'ego'
consciousness that there emerges an "observing con-
sciousness" (as symbolized by Daniel 12:1) (I suggest you
read the writings of C. G. Jung concerning this process and
the writings of J. Krishnamurti concerning the character-
istics of this "observing consciousness".)
On the other hand, there is no evidence that a tape-recorder
has either an 'ego' consciousness or an 'unconscious'.
And the tape recorder I am arguing with simply pushes the
"play" button when it encounters information which is un-
pleasant or painful. And the "music" that is then played
concerns the "mental illness" of anyone who has the temerity
to challenge its fundamental images.
And, as long as this "music" can be played there is no chance
of this tape-recorder EVER achieving consciousness.
Oh, by the way, it similarly does no good to say that Osama
Bin Laden is "mentally ill".
Whether or not this is true, the fact remains that the LIES
that he tells about the Revelations in the Koran are widely
accepted by many Muslims; and THIS is the problem, NOT
whether or not he is "mentally ill".
The simple fact of the matter is that the linear consciousness
cannot effectively perceive Truth OR evil.
(28SW2) Michael Cecil
Peter Lemesurier wrote:
Uhhhhh...
And precisely how long is THAT?
How many words must one read until one no longer has the
ability to read?
Certainly an 'interesting' view...
That there is somehow a limit to the number of words that
a person can read...
And then, all of a sudden, they can no longer read.
Does this have something to do with "catastrophe theory"?
Michael Cecil (Daniel 12:1, Sura 2:98 of the Koran, Column
XVII of the "Scroll of the War of the Sons of Light")
>
>
> --
> Peter
Timothy Rue
>Never Anonymous Bud wrote:
>> On Thu, 15 Nov 2001 00:22:15 GMT, "(28SW2) Michael Cecil"
>> <mj...@earthlink.net> took a timeout from their bin Laden chemistry set
>> to say :
>>
>> >I've been on the Internet for about 7 1/2 years now.
>> >
>> >And one thing I have noticed is that the FIRST choice of
>> >the people who read me is to INSULT.
>>
>> And it's AWLAYS their fault, never yours.
>I just KNEW that you would EVENTUALLY say something that
>I could agree with.
>> That's a _classic_ sign of a mental problem.
>Let me tell you something that may surprise you:
>It makes NO DIFFERENCE.
>Even if I were stark raving mad, someone would STILL
>have to present a LOGICAL argument against my
>essays on the "resurrection of the dead", "Meditations
>On A Science of Consciousness" and "Commentaries
>on the Revelation of John".
No Michael, that is not true.
>And this is something that you could not do if your life
>depended upon it...
>If your LIFE depended upon it.
>Your LIFE.
>Remember that.
Logic does not dictate to you your madness or sanity. That is a choice
you make, a choice of yours that another has absolutely no control over
and you seem to lack in control of too. Perhaps why you want to put that
responsibility upon another?
Who do you think you are, god? that you try and put yourself in a position
of control over the life of another, at your whim of insanity?
No Michael, you shall not impose a threat upon anothers life that if they
cannot change your mind, they shall die.
For it is you who is the only one that can change your mind and clearly
Logic has little to do with that.
Remember that!
Just who is it that you think you are Michael?
Say it! Identify your self image identity.
What would you do shall another present you a logical and correct
arguement against your essays, but to modify the essays in such a
manner as to continue on in your direction, without any real change?
The perspective you hold on matters doesn't allow you to do anything to
change the prophesies you claim to have been given. To do so would mean
the failure or death of them. It would make you wrong, it would strike out
at your obvious ego.
You really don't seem to have the motive to make things better, but
instead the motive to make such things happen, so that your obvious ego
gets stroked.
How far has your ego taken you here? Far enough to threaten death on
another if they cannot prove to you that you are wrong?
You are not wrong Michael, but you are also not right either. And with
that, who you really are shows.
There may very well be a fundamental core truth to expose in order to
bring understanding and peace between Judaism, Christianity, Muslim,
Buddism, etc. It may be such a reality that brings an end to such
separation of gods domain, or maybe it'll be just an understanding of the
power of the mind and how many ways there is to look at the same stuff
existing in reality from different perspectives.
In a place where all things are possible, it's not a matter of how to do
something but a matter of "what do you want to do?" And out of all things
possible, you chose to play prophet. Ok, fine. But remember, where all
thing are possible, prophesy can and will fail, if only for the reason that
beating prophesy is also possible. And isn't prophesy a warning to heed,
and then prove the heeding of, by making it fail?
Perhaps you deserve to stroke your ego now, considering what your future
apparently holds in your being preceived as a loon by those heeding the
warnings of and then beating your prophesies.
What people think, does make a difference Michael, for it is the basis of
their actions in controlling and manipulating physical reality. To push a
necular bomb trigger or invent a cure for a disease. Where you have chosen
to promote the former and without hope of a different outcome but only one
that strokes your over abundant ego and apparent desire to control life
and death of others. And if you were god, who would you then blame for
what you do not like, but yourself for your own creations and what it
does to you and yours in fighting over what it preceives of you to want.
No one has to present you with a logical arguement to your essays, nor do
they have to accept them if they don't. It's up to you to see your error
in logic, not for another to point it out only to be threatend to be
struck down dead because you refuse to listen.
---
*3 S.E.A.S - Virtual Interaction Configuration (VIC) - VISION OF VISIONS!*
*~ ~ ~ Advancing How we Perceive and Use the Tool of Computers!*
Timothy Rue What's *DONE* in all we do? *AI PK OI IP OP SF IQ ID KE*
Email @ mailto:tim...@mindspring.com >INPUT->(Processing)->OUTPUT>v
Web @ http://www.mindspring.com/~timrue/ ^<--------<----9----<--------<
(28SW2) Michael Cecil
> On 15-Nov-01 03:08:58 28SW2 <mj...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >Never Anonymous Bud wrote:
>
> >> On Thu, 15 Nov 2001 00:22:15 GMT, "(28SW2) Michael Cecil"
> >> <mj...@earthlink.net> took a timeout from their bin Laden chemistry set
> >> to say :
> >>
> >> >I've been on the Internet for about 7 1/2 years now.
> >> >
> >> >And one thing I have noticed is that the FIRST choice of
> >> >the people who read me is to INSULT.
> >>
> >> And it's AWLAYS their fault, never yours.
>
> >I just KNEW that you would EVENTUALLY say something that
> >I could agree with.
>
> >> That's a _classic_ sign of a mental problem.
>
> >Let me tell you something that may surprise you:
>
> >It makes NO DIFFERENCE.
>
> >Even if I were stark raving mad, someone would STILL
> >have to present a LOGICAL argument against my
> >essays on the "resurrection of the dead", "Meditations
> >On A Science of Consciousness" and "Commentaries
> >on the Revelation of John".
>
> No Michael, that is not true.
Yes it is.
Just like it will not help to kill Bin Laden.
It is not Bin Laden but the LIES he conveys
that is the problem.
>
>
> >And this is something that you could not do if your life
> >depended upon it...
>
> >If your LIFE depended upon it.
>
> >Your LIFE.
>
> >Remember that.
>
> Logic does not dictate to you your madness or sanity. That is a choice
> you make, a choice of yours that another has absolutely no control over
> and you seem to lack in control of too. Perhaps why you want to put that
> responsibility upon another?
Have to admit that I have NO idea what you are saying here.
It has a VERY tight curvature on it.
> Who do you think you are, god?
This is the typical assumption of those who assert an experience
of a consciousness that is non-spatial/non-temporal. But what
this indicates is just how DEFICIENT is the linear consciousness
in its perception of Reality.
In any case, this is not about "me".
It is about the capacities of human consciousness itself: whether
there is another mode of consciousness for perceiving Reality
OTHER than the linear consciousness.
>that you try and put yourself in a position
> of control over the life of another,
Huhhhhhhhhhh???????????
HOW could I put myself in control over the life of another?
HOW???????????
I am merely describing how seriously DEFICIENT is this
person in demonstrating any errors in what I have written.
He could not demonstrate this if his LIFE depended
upon it.
> at your whim of insanity?
>
> No Michael, you shall not impose a threat upon anothers life
oooooooooooohhhhhhhhhh...
shakin' in my boots here.
> that if they
> cannot change your mind,
Don't have one, as I have stated before.
> they shall die.
It is TOO LATE.
In my terminology--terminology also found in the Nag Hammadi
Codices--they are ALREADY dead...
"Dead" being defined as having no Knowledge of the Truth
and cutting off the possibility of RECEIVING a Knowledge of
Truth.
> For it is you who is the only one that can change your mind and clearly
> Logic has little to do with that.
>
> Remember that!
Well, there is no logical proof that the 'mind' even EXISTS,
if that's what you mean.
> Just who is it that you think you are Michael?
First of all, it is of no importance who I *think* I am.
Secondly, irrespective of who I am, what is important
is what I say; and whether what I say is the Truth or
not...
Can we just stick to the QUESTION for once?
That question being "What is the Truth?"
>
> Say it! Identify your self image identity.
My signature is plain enough.
> What would you do shall another present you a logical and correct
> arguement against your essays,
I CERTAINLY hope that someone TRIES this.
Seriously.
> but to modify the essays in such a
> manner as to continue on in your direction, without any real change?
TRY me.
Should I not ADMIT that I am wrong if it is demonstrated that
I am wrong?
> The perspective you hold on matters doesn't allow you to do anything to
> change the prophesies you claim to have been given.
Well, I have certainly TRIED...
Just like Jonah did.
Do you think I WANT the loss of life that I have seen?
> To do so would mean
> the failure or death of them.
GOOD.
> It would make you wrong,
Thank GOODNESS.
The failure of the Prophecies would mean that they had
achieved their PURPOSE: People had REPENTED of
the evil that they were committing and decided NOT to
continue in this evil.
If people would acknowledge the Truth about the Revelation
and Doctrine of the "resurrection of the dead"--thus making
the fuflillment of the Prophecies unnecessary--I would be
THRILLED.
> it would strike out
> at your obvious ego.
No doubt you think so.
You think that it is FUN to receive such Prophecies of
destruction. But that is because you have no EXPERIENCE
of such a thing.
> You really don't seem to have the motive to make things better, but
> instead the motive to make such things happen,
A certainly incredible statement.
Had I WANTED these things to occur, I would not have breathed
ONE WORD about them to ANYONE.
Yet, when I do precisely the OPPOSITE...
When I attempt to inform as MANY people as possible of these
Prophecies I am accused of having the SAME motivation as if
I had not breathed ONE WORD of them to anyone else.
Certainly a BIZARRE conclusion.
> so that your obvious ego
> gets stroked.
O......................K................
> How far has your ego taken you here? Far enough to threaten death on
> another if they cannot prove to you that you are wrong?
Don't know WHO this person is.
Don't know WHERE this person is.
Don't know WHAT this person looks like.
Don't even know the SEX of this person.
And I have NO power in the world AT ALL.
And yet you make such an accusation.
Utterly BIZARRE.
> You are not wrong Michael, but you are also not right either.
As IF you could actually tell the DIFFERENCE.
> And with
> that, who you really are shows.
>
> There may very well be a fundamental core truth to expose in order to
> bring understanding and peace between Judaism, Christianity, Muslim,
> Buddism, etc. It may be such a reality that brings an end to such
> separation of gods domain, or maybe it'll be just an understanding of the
> power of the mind and how many ways there is to look at the same stuff
> existing in reality from different perspectives.
I prefer the terminology that I use rather than your counterfeit
version,
if you don't mind.
> In a place where all things are possible, it's not a matter of how to do
> something but a matter of "what do you want to do?" And out of all things
> possible, you chose to play prophet.
Point out to me where I have EVER referred to myself as a prophet.
You CANNOT do this.
Because I do not use that term in relation to myself.
Go back 7 YEARS of my notes to the Internet and you will not find
ONE time that I have EVER called myself a prophet.
> Ok, fine. But remember, where all
> thing are possible, prophesy can and will fail, if only for the reason that
> beating prophesy is also possible.
OF COURSE it is.
And I would not mind looking like a FOOL for these Prophecies
in order that the Truth be acknowledged about the Doctrines
in the Torah, the Prophets, the Gospels and the Koran.
> And isn't prophesy a warning to heed,
> and then prove the heeding of, by making it fail?
Well OF COURSE it is
> Perhaps you deserve to stroke your ego now, considering what your future
> apparently holds in your being preceived as a loon by those heeding the
> warnings of and then beating your prophesies.
Don't CARE if I am perceived as a loon.
Seriously.
If I cared about that, do you actually think that I would CONTINUE
sending notes to these groups?
In any case, the likelihood is almost NIL that even so much as
ONE person in a position of power will acknowledge the Truths
that I have conveyed.
> What people think, does make a difference Michael, for it is the basis of
> their actions in controlling and manipulating physical reality.
Physical Reality EXCEEDS people's ability to manipulate it.
> To push a
> necular bomb trigger or invent a cure for a disease. Where you have chosen
> to promote the former and without hope of a different outcome but only one
> that strokes your over abundant ego and apparent desire to control life
> and death of others. And if you were god, who would you then blame for
> what you do not like, but yourself for your own creations and what it
> does to you and yours in fighting over what it preceives of you to want.
Sorry.
But I've heard "word salad" that makes more sense than this
paragraph.
> No one has to present you with a logical arguement to your essays, nor do
> they have to accept them if they don't. It's up to you to see your error
> in logic,
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...
In other words, I am merely to acknowledge that I am wrong for NO
reason WHATSOEVER...
Merely because the linear consciousness INSISTS that I am wrong.
> not for another to point it
No "pointing out" occurred.
Merely the throwing of stones.
"Pointing out" would be quoting what I have said and then
demonstrating that there is an error in that...
Not merely that it is wrong, but that there is a specific
reason that it is wrong.
> out only to be threatend to be
> struck down dead because you refuse to listen.
Maybe you could explain to me how EXACTLY I would go
about doing this...
Not knowing where the person lives, what he or she looks
like, not what his or her name is...
And for what REASON?
In my terminology he or she is ALREADY dead.
Just like you are.
Not merely because you have no Knowledge of Truth; but,
also, because, when someone attempts to convey to you
that Knowledge, you reject it.
Poor bastard.
You are dead--or in hell (take your pick)--and you don't even
KNOW it.
Timothy Rue
>Timothy Rue wrote:
>> And isn't prophesy a warning to heed,
>> and then prove the heeding of, by making it fail?
>Well OF COURSE it is
Then so be it! Done! No need to dwell on the past.
JoeS
> JoeS wrote:
> > Nice work Mr. Cecil. Although not concise [easily forgiven considering
> > the depth of information conveyed], your website opus is now ordered,
> > well-written, thought-provoking, and a darned good read to boot!
> > I'm sorry if I upset or insulted you a month ago,
>
> Know something?
>
> I've been on the Internet for about 7 1/2 years now.
>
> And one thing I have noticed is that the FIRSTchoice of
> the people who read me is to INSULT.
>
> Just don't understand why that would be.
>
> I have lost count of the people who have been rude and
> critical and damning...
>
> All around idiots.
But YOU insulted ME first. I made every effort in my first post to you
to be polite and respectful. Oh well. [heavy sigh] Why try?...
> But sometimes two months later they return somewhat
> sheepishly with a completely different tone.
Fearful?
> Then they do not open their mouth AGAIN in response
> to what I have written
No kidding.
> > but I'd like to
> > think that my rudeness may have had some part in motivating you to
> > polish up your life's work.
>
> Why should I allow you to justify your rudeness--to tell you the
> truth, I don't even REMEMBER you (after awhile EVERY rude
> person sounds like every OTHER rude person)--by thinking that
> it in some way helped me.
>
> > If not, forgive my presumption.
>
> It is irrelevant whether I forgive you.
Yes it is. But it's important to me that I do the right thing.
> These mechanisms are directed INWARD against
> the perception of Truth.
Mechanisms?
> This is MUCH more of a problem for you...
>
> NOT that you may have offended ME.
>
> >
> >
>
> But be careful in the way that you ask me a question.
>
> If I consider it rude I will not be particularly motivated to
> answer it.
You and everyone else on the planet.
> >
> > I will have some questions for you soon, for my own curiosity and
> > desire to know Truth,
>
> Curiosity and the desire to know the Truth are two DIFFERENT
> things.
>
> You will have to make up your 'mind' which it is.
Cryptic...
> > if you don't mind.
>
> Don't know if I will or not.
>
> Depends upon the way the question is asked.
I think we can pretty much rule that out now, Mr. Cecil.
> > The website subject matter,
> > the "Resurrection of the Dead" and the Dead Sea Scrolls are
> > fascinating subjects to consider.
> >
> > Thank you.
> >
> > JoeS (no theologian, I promise)
>
> Makes no difference.
>
> You may very well talk like one REGARDLESS.
>
> I guess we'll see.
>
> Michael Cecil (Daniel 12:1, Sura 2:98 of the Koran, Column
> XVII of the "Scroll of the War of the Sons of Light")
Note to Self: Don't respond to posts by paranoid narcissists. This is
very important. You already knew this. Don't forget next time. Okay?
Self: [meekly] okay.
(28SW2) Michael Cecil
Timothy Rue wrote:
> On 15-Nov-01 15:51:31 28SW2 <mj...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >Timothy Rue wrote:
>
> >> And isn't prophesy a warning to heed,
> >> and then prove the heeding of, by making it fail?
>
> >Well OF COURSE it is
>
> Then so be it! Done! No need to dwell on the past.
>
What are you saying?
Are you saying that the Chairman of the "Jerusalem Post" has
decided to publicize the Truth about the Revelation and Doctrine
of the "resurrection of the dead"?
Or, are you saying that the Chief Rabbis of Israel, or Pope John
Paul II or some major Muslim religious official has declared that
Judaism, Christianity or Islam has been WRONG about the
Revelation and Doctrine of the "resurrection of the dead"?
OR, are you saying that the leader of a major country involved
in the "peace process" in the Middle East has FINALLY admitted
that politicians and diplomats are INCAPABLE of resolving this
conflict because it originates in theological error and the LIES
told about the Revelations in the Torah, the Prophets, the Gos-
pels and the Koran?
Which is it?
(28SW2) Michael Cecil
JoeS wrote:
> "(28SW2) Michael Cecil" <mj...@earthlink.net> wrote in message...
> > JoeS wrote:
> > > Nice work Mr. Cecil. Although not concise [easily forgiven considering
> > > the depth of information conveyed], your website opus is now ordered,
> > > well-written, thought-provoking, and a darned good read to boot!
> > > I'm sorry if I upset or insulted you a month ago,
> >
> > Know something?
> >
> > I've been on the Internet for about 7 1/2 years now.
> >
> > And one thing I have noticed is that the FIRSTchoice of
> > the people who read me is to INSULT.
> >
> > Just don't understand why that would be.
> >
> > I have lost count of the people who have been rude and
> > critical and damning...
> >
> > All around idiots.
>
> But YOU insulted ME first.
Quote me.
If I insulted you first, I will apologize.
Seriously.
Often people are not aware of the deep structure of the
comments they make.
If I was in error for what I said to you I will apologize.
It is as simple as that.
> I made every effort in my first post to you
> to be polite and respectful.
Well, maybe you were unsuccessful.
> Oh well. [heavy sigh] Why try?...
Why TRY???
Because maybe you will learn something that you did
not know before.
I respond to people who insult me ALL the time.
If I did not, I would not have ANY communication on
these newsgroups.
Don't be so FRAGILE, for Chrissakes.
> > But sometimes two months later they return somewhat
> > sheepishly with a completely different tone.
>
> Fearful?
Yes, sometimes.
And sometimes they realize that, horrors, they were
WRONG about their initial impression of my words.
> > Then they do not open their mouth AGAIN in response
> > to what I have written
>
> No kidding.
Well, it simplifies my life.
>
>
> > > but I'd like to
> > > think that my rudeness may have had some part in motivating you to
> > > polish up your life's work.
> >
> > Why should I allow you to justify your rudeness--to tell you the
> > truth, I don't even REMEMBER you (after awhile EVERY rude
> > person sounds like every OTHER rude person)--by thinking that
> > it in some way helped me.
> >
> > > If not, forgive my presumption.
> >
> > It is irrelevant whether I forgive you.
>
> Yes it is. But it's important to me that I do the right thing.
Well, that is nice to here.
These words occur seldom on these groups unless you
have not noticed that.
> > These mechanisms are directed INWARD against
> > the perception of Truth.
>
> Mechanisms?
Sure.
The mechanism of attack that is directed against someone
who tells the Truth has FIRST been employed WITHIN the
consciousness of the person who does this.
This is the relationship between the linear consciousness
and the "observing consciousness".
> > This is MUCH more of a problem for you...
> >
> > NOT that you may have offended ME.
> >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > But be careful in the way that you ask me a question.
> >
> > If I consider it rude I will not be particularly motivated to
> > answer it.
>
> You and everyone else on the planet.
Well, often people are QUITE rude to me.
And then, surprisingly, they turn around and demand that
I explain something to them.
>
>
> > >
> > > I will have some questions for you soon, for my own curiosity and
> > > desire to know Truth,
> >
> > Curiosity and the desire to know the Truth are two DIFFERENT
> > things.
> >
> > You will have to make up your 'mind' which it is.
>
> Cryptic...
Are you asking questions for merely curiosity sake or are you
genuinely concerned with the answer?
> > > if you don't mind.
> >
> > Don't know if I will or not.
> >
> > Depends upon the way the question is asked.
>
> I think we can pretty much rule that out now, Mr. Cecil.
Then it appears you were merely curious rather than
genuinely concerned with the Truth.
Don't worry.
Maybe you will outgrow this in the near future.
Maybe another incident like September 11, 2001 will
be necessary for you to become more than just
curious.
> > > The website subject matter,
> > > the "Resurrection of the Dead" and the Dead Sea Scrolls are
> > > fascinating subjects to consider.
> > >
> > > Thank you.
> > >
> > > JoeS (no theologian, I promise)
> >
> > Makes no difference.
> >
> > You may very well talk like one REGARDLESS.
> >
> > I guess we'll see.
> >
> > Michael Cecil (Daniel 12:1, Sura 2:98 of the Koran, Column
> > XVII of the "Scroll of the War of the Sons of Light")
>
> Note to Self: Don't respond to posts by paranoid narcissists.
NOW I remember you.
> This is
> very important. You already knew this.
And, apparently, I also knew that you thought this.
> Don't forget next time. Okay?
>
> Self: [meekly] okay.
Grow up.
Life is difficult.
Sometimes you have to "die a world of dreams" before
you can encounter the Truth.
There is no growth without suffering.
Timothy Rue
>Timothy Rue wrote:
>> On 15-Nov-01 15:51:31 28SW2 <mj...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> >Timothy Rue wrote:
>>
>> >> And isn't prophesy a warning to heed,
>> >> and then prove the heeding of, by making it fail?
>>
>> >Well OF COURSE it is
>>
>> Then so be it! Done! No need to dwell on the past.
>>
>What are you saying?
>Are you saying that the Chairman of the "Jerusalem Post" has
>decided to publicize the Truth about the Revelation and Doctrine
>of the "resurrection of the dead"?
>Or, are you saying that the Chief Rabbis of Israel, or Pope John
>Paul II or some major Muslim religious official has declared that
>Judaism, Christianity or Islam has been WRONG about the
>Revelation and Doctrine of the "resurrection of the dead"?
>OR, are you saying that the leader of a major country involved
>in the "peace process" in the Middle East has FINALLY admitted
>that politicians and diplomats are INCAPABLE of resolving this
>conflict because it originates in theological error and the LIES
>told about the Revelations in the Torah, the Prophets, the Gos-
>pels and the Koran?
>Which is it?
None of the above, for it is not up to them, these few to do so.
Certainly many knew Galileo is right and have for a very long time,
though it took up to about ten years ago before the catholic church, the
Pope to say so.
Perhaps what is needed now is for you to have something to fill the gap
that is left in you, now that such error is behind you and us, that the
prophesies have failed? Or are you like the church, having to much
invested to let go of the past and move forward?
(28SW2) Michael Cecil
Timothy Rue wrote:
> Perhaps what is needed now is for you to have something to fill the gap
> that is left in you, now that such error is behind you and us,
HOW is this error 'behind you'?
The bloodshed has not STOPPED in the Middle East.
There is NO mention of the Truth in the media
> that the
> prophesies have failed?
Look.
They CANNOT fail UNTIL their purpose is fulfilled.
Either the Truth WILL be made known on this planet
on a world-wide scale or there will be NO escape
from the fulfillment of the Prophecies of Daniel,
Ezekiel, Isaiah and others.
Merely for this Knowledge to be available to a
comparatively FEW people on the Internet is
not in ANY way sufficient for there to be a
cancellation of the Prophecies as happened
with the Prophecies of Jonah.
Timothy Rue
>Timothy Rue wrote:
>> Perhaps what is needed now is for you to have something to fill the gap
>> that is left in you, now that such error is behind you and us,
>HOW is this error 'behind you'?
you are not listening Michael, you are ignoring what you do not want to
see. And what that is, is that it is over, the prophesies have failed.
>The bloodshed has not STOPPED in the Middle East.
So is it increasing or decreasing?
>There is NO mention of the Truth in the media
The media prints what is popular, what will sell. You know that. And you
also know that just because the media prints something doesn't make people
believe it. These two perspectives work together - print what is
believable and popular to the people because it will sell. You know this
Michael, you keep saying it over and over.
So how is it that you still don't realize that it is not up to the media
to do what you so expect of them?
>> that the
>> prophesies have failed?
>Look.
>They CANNOT fail UNTIL their purpose is fulfilled.
And when will that happen? in a split second, a minute, an hour, a day, a
week, a month, a year, a decade, a century, two centuries?
Who decides Michael?
>Either the Truth WILL be made known on this planet
>on a world-wide scale or there will be NO escape
>from the fulfillment of the Prophecies of Daniel,
>Ezekiel, Isaiah and others.
prohesies shall fail Michael, or are you having difficulty with matters of
convience to you?
>Merely for this Knowledge to be available to a
>comparatively FEW people on the Internet is
>not in ANY way sufficient for there to be a
>cancellation of the Prophecies as happened
>with the Prophecies of Jonah.
Then lets count the numbers. Was it alot of people that committed
terrorism, or just a few? Is it a whole population that wants to kill
another whole population or just a few saying this to try and spur it into
happening? Did the Pope all the sudden proclaiming Galileo correct that
caused all catholics to suddenly believe it?
What is considered "alot", what is considered a "FEW", that these
definitions can be clearly consistant in use, rather than used as a
matter of convience to you?
You should better listen, even when it's what you do not want to hear. For
the catholic church removed their claims against Galileo not because they
wanted to be nice, but because they were losing membership over such an
obvious error. And when the Pope did this, he also said the there are many
things about our religion that we may have to change our perspective of
(or something to that effect), opening the door to adapt to the changing
population and ideas, as apparently the galileo issue wasn't completely
alone.
There is more to the changes happening in the world then the religious
perspective of the changes.
It is not the medias or governments or even religious organizations who
have made the extreamisim of prophiese fail, but the people, even
children.
The change is well under way, yet you do not know it because you do not
want to see it, even though you are using the main media of the peoples
communication. The battle is not where you have thought it to be, but
right where you have been playing.
It's not about who is right or wrong, but about who is doing what and does
it infringe upon anothers freedom to do what they want.
For you, you are doing what you want, believing things have yet to happen,
ignoring all that says otherwise, and that is your choice of which you are
free to chose so long as you do not impose upon another what they do not
want.
Consider the following and how you place constraints upon what you chose
to see and not, in order to make you imagined world real to you. Does it
make you crazy? Or what about the billions who believe in what you
consider crazy or not real? And what about a dancer, who's world of
thought is not composed primarily of religion issues, but rather dancing?
Of course in teh following you can replace "the V.I.C." with what your are
about.
(from: http://www.mindspring.com/~timrue/vic-must-read.html)
---
Concept #3:Constraints as Creation Tools
a) There is the possible in physical reality, within and beyond our
current knowledge.
b) We define our reality and create tools based on what we define. Then
we use these tools to refine and/or redefine our understanding of
reality, and then refine and/or redefine our reality. Knowing our
definitions and tools are not perfect but serve us to control physical
reality better and better, via creating new and better tools. This
process or cycle is a constant. We discard or replace some tools for
better tools. We can also go the other direction by replacing better
tools with inferior tools.
c) To completely understand and control physical reality, something
changes. The constant is understood and applied by choice. The
question of how to do something, or anything, becomes a choice. The
question of "what to do?" becomes the main question.
To Do Something:
c) What to do? Let's do this objective: create and use the V.I.C. One
question will be "which direction?" Doing means movement and time.
b) We use the constant, set the motion in the direction we want, and
apply constraints (tools) to reach the objective.
a) There is the possible in physical reality, within and beyond the
current constraints (tools) of what we are doing.
---
I understand donations for the victims of Sept. 11th has gone over
1 billion US and in less than two months. That's people Michael, not
governments, or religious houses or any other sort of organized body of
"control"
Now look here, where many in high controlling positions are and even
supporting such effort in word and participation.
http://www.osearth.com/resources/wwwproject/
19 billion to eliminate starvation and malnutrition. At a rate of
1 billion every two months, we can do this in 38 months or a little over
three years.
Wow, look how much it took to eliminate smallpox! and that's suppose to be
one of the possible terrorist threats?
Christians Childrens Fund for this fiscal year will have moved
$105.9 million into programs/services to children. Each year they do
better too. But that's a small drop in the bucket compared to the over 1
billion dollars people have given in less then two months to a great deal
smaller group of people.
Oh so it must be such a difficult to impossible task to solve world hunger
especially when you include this into all the other things that are wrong
in the world, that also need fixing.
But wait! Understand what the hell it is you are looking at on that link.
Understand how exposing it is of those who promote the threat of war, of
destruction, of death, like and including the prophesies.
Understand that it is the giving of power to such things that prevent
otherwise from happening. Otherwise being solving all the problems, not
once, not twice but three times over. And given that you only need to
slove it once only mean that of today things can be three times better
than they are, for everyone.
You promote helplessness because you have to in order to promote the world
you want to live in. But everyone knows we are not helpless but rather the
ones in control, the only ones responsible for our actions.
---
Concept #0:Consciousness
Einstein searched until the moment he died for the equation of the
"Unified Field Theory". He never realized the missing element was the
same element that caused so much of his life to be what it was. From the
cheers and recognition from supporters of his work to the threats on his
life, exile out of his country and destruction of publications on his
work. All this caused from the element Einstein was exercising, but not
realizing, the element of consciousness. It was Einsteins' conscious
efforts that lead him to produced his work. The consciousness of those
who recognized his work and put forth the effort to honor him for it.
The conscious efforts of some to create an illusion, leading many into
action of threat, destruction and force to have a physical impact on
Einstein and many others. And it was the conscious efforts to apply
Einsteins' work that contributed to creating the physical power that
removed the force which cause Einstein to leave his country. Perhaps
Einstein did come to intimately know what the missing element was, in
those last few moments of his life.
The Spinoza equation "T1 = T2 k" expresses two perspectives: All things
in physical reality can be comprehended/translated into conscious thought
and conscious thought can be converted/translated into physical reality.
For those who have doubt about the validity of this equation: Look around
and note all the physical things you perceive. Then determine, to the best
of your ability, what exist as a result of conscious comprehension of
physical reality and conscious directed action, effort and intent to apply
physical movement to create? In other words: What do you see that
originated in conscious imagination?
For those still in doubt: What don't you perceive, but know by what you
do perceive, that there must exist both the conscious ability to
comprehend physical reality and conscious imagination to cause intentional
control of physical reality? (i.e. Computer usage and its internal
operations. Software and it's existence on magnetic media. Disease
identification and treatment or cure. Radio wave creation used in sending
and receiving data, and its' translation to and from what we can perceive
- music, pictures of stars we cannot see from earth but now know they
exist. The life we create via genetic control and duplication, etc..)
---
You can come up with all the alphabet soup terminology you want for
consciousness, but it's not going to change what people know, day in and
day out.
But you know what, there is alot more going on in the direction of the
people taking control. How about a bit-o-foreign policy?
The Internet Under Siege
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/issue_novdec_2001/lessig.html
Oh but wait, that's just one small article right?
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/11/14/2355237&mode=thread
http://www.law.duke.edu/pd/papers.html
All of which are worth reading to better understand the frontlines of the
battelfield but worth an additional note (maybe because it's not included
in the "all papers" link)
But what are those papers and articles really?
Attempts to describe, define, understand and perhaps even control
something new and of the power of people working openly and without
the control of some leading party.
And to think, you Michael, don't believe a small number of people working
thru the internet can accomplish anything. But in your world Michael, you
have no choice but to believe in being helpless and subjected to the power
and force of what you have no control over, otherwise your world would
fall apart, your propheies would fail you, as you would know that the only
thing to cause such a time of trouble to happen, is believing it will,
being threaten by the possibility.
But that is not my world Michael, nor is it the world of a growing number
of people, who know they are not helpless and are taking control. Taking
control away from those making such threat, including the prophesies and
those promoting them.
And it really is as simple as "So be it, DONE!"
For what is it really that is preventing world problems from being solved,
but nothing more than "threat"?
You are playing around in the battlefield Michael, where you have no
choice but to be self defeating.
Imagine a world where people are to busy being productive and good in
the here and now in order to reap the benefits of such, to have any time
for concern or thought about having to account for wrongs they didn't
commit in this lifetime, in their next one. Simply because "threat" was
removed along with the effect it had in supporting itself.
JoeS
> JoeS wrote:
>
> > "(28SW2) Michael Cecil" <mj...@earthlink.net> wrote in message...
> > > JoeS wrote:
> > > > Nice work Mr. Cecil. Although not concise [easily forgiven considering
> > > > the depth of information conveyed], your website opus is now ordered,
> > > > well-written, thought-provoking, and a darned good read to boot!
> > > > I'm sorry if I upset or insulted you a month ago,
> > >
> > > Know something?
> > >
> > > I've been on the Internet for about 7 1/2 years now.
> > >
> > > And one thing I have noticed is that the FIRSTchoice of
> > > the people who read me is to INSULT.
> > >
> > > Just don't understand why that would be.
> > >
> > > I have lost count of the people who have been rude and
> > > critical and damning...
> > >
> > > All around idiots.
> >
> > But YOU insulted ME first.
>
> Quote me.
>
> If I insulted you first, I will apologize.
>
> Seriously.
>
> Often people are not aware of the deep structure of the
> comments they make.
>
> If I was in error for what I said to you I will apologize.
>
> It is as simple as that.
I wrote you:
"Mr. Cecil,
You've made this statement repeatedly ["theological conflicts
resulting from the errors and lies of the Jewish, Christian and
Muslim religious officials"]. I may be starting something that
others here would rather avoid, but could you please simply and
succinctly summarize those theological conflicts resulting from
the errors and lies of the Jewish, Christian and Muslim religious
officials?
I'm sure they have been posted previously in these newsgroups,
and are expounded upon at your website, but--and I'm not implying
anything about your beliefs--I have little time to spend reading
through mountains of crap on the internet searching for occasional
nuggets of truth.
If you keep your thesis simple and succinct, then you'll increase
the chance that someone like myself will invest the additional
time reading through your website."
You evidently didn't like the "deep structure" of my request and
responded:
"I have little time to spend spoon-feeding the Truth to someone
who the chances are probably THOUSANDS to one that he will even
believe what I say."
The words "spoon-feeding" are an insult and a rudeness. I simply asked
for a thesis statement.
> > I made every effort in my first post to you
> > to be polite and respectful.
>
> Well, maybe you were unsuccessful.
>
> > Oh well. [heavy sigh] Why try?...
>
> Why TRY???
>
> Because maybe you will learn something that you did
> not know before.
>
> I respond to people who insult me ALL the time.
>
> If I did not, I would not have ANY communication on
> these newsgroups.
>
> Don't be so FRAGILE, for Chrissakes.
It is not I who am being fragile by taking a defensive and superior
tone in response to EVERY SENTENCE that is written to me. This format
of discussion, responding point by point, becomes merely combative.
> > > But sometimes two months later they return somewhat
> > > sheepishly with a completely different tone.
> >
> > Fearful?
>
> Yes, sometimes.
>
> And sometimes they realize that, horrors, they were
> WRONG about their initial impression of my words.
I admit that your TONE and ATTITUDE in your posts is stunningly at
odds with that in your website writings. So much of what you wrote on
your website is intriguing--and I agree with much of it as well--that
I decided to approach you again on this newsgroup as respectfully as I
could. But now I realize that it is too difficult to engage you in
polite discussion on this newsgroup as you are so damned defensive. My
guess is that you have little joy or humor in your life. Thus, your
style unfortunately defeats your substance. You seem to have much to
offer the world.
> > > Then they do not open their mouth AGAIN in response
> > > to what I have written
> >
> > No kidding.
>
> Well, it simplifies my life.
Don't you care to help others, or do you enjoy berating and
intimidating them instead? Are you perhaps secretly afraid to really
connect with people?
> >
> >
> > > > but I'd like to
> > > > think that my rudeness may have had some part in motivating you to
> > > > polish up your life's work.
> > >
> > > Why should I allow you to justify your rudeness--to tell you the
> > > truth, I don't even REMEMBER you (after awhile EVERY rude
> > > person sounds like every OTHER rude person)--by thinking that
> > > it in some way helped me.
> > >
> > > > If not, forgive my presumption.
> > >
> > > It is irrelevant whether I forgive you.
> >
> > Yes it is. But it's important to me that I do the right thing.
>
> Well, that is nice to here.
>
> These words occur seldom on these groups unless you
> have not noticed that.
There is kindness and generosity all over these newsgroups, but one
must seek it out.
> > > These mechanisms are directed INWARD against
> > > the perception of Truth.
> >
> > Mechanisms?
>
> Sure.
>
> The mechanism of attack that is directed against someone
> who tells the Truth has FIRST been employed WITHIN the
> consciousness of the person who does this.
You hold a grim view of humanity if you assume this of everyone.
> This is the relationship between the linear consciousness
> and the "observing consciousness".
You mention this distinction on your website, and again I am curious
to understand what you are saying. When I seek Truth, which is a
full-time pre-occupation, something first intrigues my sense of
curiosity. I then study the idea and put it through a thorough series
of questions and investigations, after which I either accept it or
reject it. Sometimes this is done consciously, sometimes less so. But
curiosity is part of the process of seeking and discovering Truth, is
it not?
> > > This is MUCH more of a problem for you...
> > >
> > > NOT that you may have offended ME.
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > But be careful in the way that you ask me a question.
> > >
> > > If I consider it rude I will not be particularly motivated to
> > > answer it.
> >
> > You and everyone else on the planet.
>
> Well, often people are QUITE rude to me.
>
> And then, surprisingly, they turn around and demand that
> I explain something to them.
I demand nothing of you. I attempt to engage you. You respond. I
decide whether to continue or not based on a number of factors
including your openness, friendliness, and likelihood that you have
anything to offer me for consideration. So far you only present a
challenge to me with no hint of personal or spiritual reward.
> >
> >
> > > >
> > > > I will have some questions for you soon, for my own curiosity and
> > > > desire to know Truth,
> > >
> > > Curiosity and the desire to know the Truth are two DIFFERENT
> > > things.
> > >
> > > You will have to make up your 'mind' which it is.
> >
> > Cryptic...
>
> Are you asking questions for merely curiosity sake or are you
> genuinely concerned with the answer?
If I didn't want to know, do you think I would have asked? If not,
then you have a dark view of humanity.
> > > > if you don't mind.
> > >
> > > Don't know if I will or not.
> > >
> > > Depends upon the way the question is asked.
> >
> > I think we can pretty much rule that out now, Mr. Cecil.
>
> Then it appears you were merely curious rather than
> genuinely concerned with the Truth.
>
> Don't worry.
>
> Maybe you will outgrow this in the near future.
>
> Maybe another incident like September 11, 2001 will
> be necessary for you to become more than just
> curious.
Nice snotty attitude, Michael. There ain't no Truth to be gleaned by
speaking to you directly through this newsgroup. At this point, I am
merely curious about your mental make-up. What would possess a person
to take these frightened and adversarial attitudes with others while
espousing the spiritual beliefs you do which ought to manifest
themselves through kindness, friendliness, kindness, helpfulness,
generosity, and love? Where does the disconnect occur?
> > > > The website subject matter,
> > > > the "Resurrection of the Dead" and the Dead Sea Scrolls are
> > > > fascinating subjects to consider.
For example, as you know, the Gnostics had a completely different
definition of "resurrection" than contemporary Christians do. I wanted
to start there. Plus, with the news today about the continuing
increasing availability of the Dead Sea Scrolls to scholars and the
public, wouldn't that have been an interesting subject to discuss as
well?
> > > > Thank you.
> > > >
> > > > JoeS (no theologian, I promise)
> > >
> > > Makes no difference.
> > >
> > > You may very well talk like one REGARDLESS.
> > >
> > > I guess we'll see.
> > >
> > > Michael Cecil (Daniel 12:1, Sura 2:98 of the Koran, Column
> > > XVII of the "Scroll of the War of the Sons of Light")
> >
> > Note to Self: Don't respond to posts by paranoid narcissists.
>
> NOW I remember you.
And I NOW know you as well, don't I? And I don't apologize for being
harshly truthful.
> > This is very important. You already knew this.
>
> And, apparently, I also knew that you thought this.
And I knew that you knew that I knew...
> > Don't forget next time. Okay?
> >
> > Self: [meekly] okay.
>
> Grow up.
All of us could benefit from such advice as that.
> Life is difficult.
Yes, it CAN be.
> Sometimes you have to "die a world of dreams" before
> you can encounter the Truth.
True. All of us do, whether they know it or not.
> There is no growth without suffering.
There is always growth, but without suffering, it just takes longer.
>
> Michael Cecil (Daniel 12:1, Sura 2:98 of the Koran, Column
> XVII of the "Scroll of the War of the Sons of Light")
JoeS
(just an old soul who still must learn patience and to suffer fools
gladly)
(28SW2) Michael Cecil
Yes.
The first problem is in the second paragraph, where you say that
you are not 'implying anything about my beliefs'.
First, the information on my web page is not about belief but
about knowledge. You are implying that all I have to tell you
is beliefs. And what difference should it make to you what I
BELIEVE? The issue is Knowledge here.
Secondly, I would not DREAM of writing to someone and asking
them to summarize their web page.
I have gotten onto perhaps dozens of web page of people claiming
that they had received Prophecies or Revelations from God only to
be disappointed time after time. But I would not THINK of bothering
them to reply to such a request.
To me this is a clear indication of arrogance.
Another problem is in that last sentence.
First of all, you say 'someone like yourself'.
I don't know who you are.
The likelihood is that you are merely curious.
An even greater likelihood is that you will ridicule what is on
my web page. I suppose I have received about 50 insults for
every compliment on what I have written over the past 7 years.
Secondly, I am telling you the Truth.
It is to your advantage to believe me, although you seem to imply
that I am in some way dependent upon satisfying your request.
It is enough that I have presented the Truth.
I am not then going to try to induce people to read it.
> and
> responded:
> "I have little time to spend spoon-feeding the Truth to someone
> who the chances are probably THOUSANDS to one that he will even
> believe what I say."
>
> The words "spoon-feeding" are an insult and a rudeness.
First of all, I echoed your statement that I have little time.
And I STILL have little time.
The term "spoon feeding" was not intended as an insult.
I am saying that I cannot give you this Truth a little at a time.
There is a summary on my web page in the very first link.
You can read THAT and determine whether you want to
continue to read.
This is what I WROTE that summary for.
You expect me to restate this summary to EVERYONE
who decides to reply to me?
This is simply unreasonable.
> I simply asked
> for a thesis statement.
Sure.
And that is to be found on my web page.
It is as if you need a PERSONAL INVITATION
to read my web page.
It is enough that the web page is even avaliable,
without having to send out personal invitations.
> > > I made every effort in my first post to you
> > > to be polite and respectful.
> >
> > Well, maybe you were unsuccessful.
> >
> > > Oh well. [heavy sigh] Why try?...
> >
> > Why TRY???
> >
> > Because maybe you will learn something that you did
> > not know before.
> >
> > I respond to people who insult me ALL the time.
> >
> > If I did not, I would not have ANY communication on
> > these newsgroups.
> >
> > Don't be so FRAGILE, for Chrissakes.
>
> It is not I who am being fragile by taking a defensive and superior
> tone in response to EVERY SENTENCE that is written to me.
Look.
There are NO visual clues in this medium.
Your words are the ONLY thing I can use to assess your
attitude toward Truth.
> This format
> of discussion, responding point by point, becomes merely combative.
There is no intent to be combative, merely to explain in detail.
Look at my reply to Bush's address to the United Nations.
I take issue with some of what he says and agree with other
things he says.
This is a very efficient way of communicating ideas; that is all.
> > > > But sometimes two months later they return somewhat
> > > > sheepishly with a completely different tone.
> > >
> > > Fearful?
> >
> > Yes, sometimes.
> >
> > And sometimes they realize that, horrors, they were
> > WRONG about their initial impression of my words.
>
> I admit that your TONE and ATTITUDE in your posts is stunningly at
> odds with that in your website writings.
Communication on these newsgroups is something like
street fighting. This is learned through experience.
So much of what you wrote on
> your website is intriguing--and I agree with much of it as well--that
> I decided to approach you again on this newsgroup as respectfully as I
> could. But now I realize that it is too difficult to engage you in
> polite discussion on this newsgroup as you are so damned defensive.
Fair point.
But this is what 7 years and thousands upon thousands of insults
will do.
My first notes to these groups were very straightforward explanations
of my research on the Dead Sea Scrolls.
What I was met with was not logical discussion but some of the most
vile insults I had ever encountered in my life...
Accusations of lunacy and drug-taking and every IMAGINABLE thing
merely because I had demonstrated that what the Christian and Jewish
religious officials were saying about the Dead Sea Scrolls could not
survive close examination.
I conservative estimate is that I have encountered probably 100 people
on these newsgroups whose FIRST response to me is to accuse me
of being a lunatic or a kook. The most recent one was just yesterday
or today, for example.
> My
> guess is that you have little joy or humor in your life.
Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha....
I guess you might as well be COMPLETELY wrong if you are going
to be wrong at all.
> Thus, your
> style unfortunately defeats your substance.
No it does not.
Not for those who are GENUINELY concerned about Truth.
If my attitude offends you, perhaps you are not strong enough
to pursue the issue of Truth at all.
> You seem to have much to
> offer the world.
Well, then ignore my statements on these groups and focus on what
I have written on my web page.
I am even MUCH different than my web page in person.
> > > > Then they do not open their mouth AGAIN in response
> > > > to what I have written
> > >
> > > No kidding.
> >
> > Well, it simplifies my life.
>
> Don't you care to help others, or do you enjoy berating and
> intimidating them instead?
Stay in hell.
I don't care.
> Are you perhaps secretly afraid to really
> connect with people?
This is not any of your concern.
This is merely curiosity, demonstrating that you do not
really have an interest in Truth if you are distracted by
such considerations.
>
> > >
> > >
> > > > > but I'd like to
> > > > > think that my rudeness may have had some part in motivating you to
> > > > > polish up your life's work.
> > > >
> > > > Why should I allow you to justify your rudeness--to tell you the
> > > > truth, I don't even REMEMBER you (after awhile EVERY rude
> > > > person sounds like every OTHER rude person)--by thinking that
> > > > it in some way helped me.
> > > >
> > > > > If not, forgive my presumption.
> > > >
> > > > It is irrelevant whether I forgive you.
> > >
> > > Yes it is. But it's important to me that I do the right thing.
> >
> > Well, that is nice to here.
> >
> > These words occur seldom on these groups unless you
> > have not noticed that.
>
> There is kindness and generosity all over these newsgroups,
And almost none of it has EVER been directed at me.
Check out the replies I have received in the Google archives.
> but one
> must seek it out.
No.
I do not seek out kindness.
I seek out those who are capable of perceiving Truth.
If they are so capable, they will be kind to me...
Eventually.
>
>
> > > > These mechanisms are directed INWARD against
> > > > the perception of Truth.
> > >
> > > Mechanisms?
> >
> > Sure.
> >
> > The mechanism of attack that is directed against someone
> > who tells the Truth has FIRST been employed WITHIN the
> > consciousness of the person who does this.
>
> You hold a grim view of humanity if you assume this of everyone.
This is the structure of the normal consciousness.
This is the difference between the reflexes of the linear con-
sciousness and the perceptions of Reality by the "observing
consciousness".
This is, esoterically, the War of the Sons of Light and the
Sons of Darkness within the consciousness of the indi-
vidual.
> > This is the relationship between the linear consciousness
> > and the "observing consciousness".
>
> You mention this distinction on your website, and again I am curious
> to understand what you are saying. When I seek Truth, which is a
> full-time pre-occupation, something first intrigues my sense of
> curiosity.
This is the first step, yes.
> I then study the idea and put it through a thorough series
> of questions and investigations, after which I either accept it or
> reject it.
Sure.
This is the way in which the intellect approaches the question of
philosophic or scientific truth. And this is symbolized by the
rider on the black horse in the Revelation of John who holds
the scales in his hands. He is measuring the truth and falsehood
of concepts and ideas.
> Sometimes this is done consciously, sometimes less so. But
> curiosity is part of the process of seeking and discovering Truth, is
> it not?
Yes it is.
But there arises a point at which it is clearly perceived that
the intellect itself is part of the problem...
That the structures of the intellect and its tendency to
resort to conditioning and intellectual pleasure rather than
the Truth STOP the search for Truth.
People go only so far down the road toward Truth, and then
they become afraid, they return to the most pleasurable and
simplistic answer.
>
> > > > This is MUCH more of a problem for you...
> > > >
> > > > NOT that you may have offended ME.
> >
> > > > But be careful in the way that you ask me a question.
> > > >
> > > > If I consider it rude I will not be particularly motivated to
> > > > answer it.
> > >
> > > You and everyone else on the planet.
> >
> > Well, often people are QUITE rude to me.
> >
> > And then, surprisingly, they turn around and demand that
> > I explain something to them.
>
> I demand nothing of you. I attempt to engage you. You respond. I
> decide whether to continue or not based on a number of factors
> including your openness, friendliness,
Let me explain something.
Working in the medical profession, I have encountered a fair
number of doctors who are NOT friendly. And they are, at
least sometimes, PRECISELY the doctor that I would want
to help me if I were to be afflicted with a problem within their
area of expertise.
They are often not friendly because they are perfectionists,
because they are TOO knowledgeable and they are working
among people who are MUCH stupider than they are.
But I am not looking for a FRIEND. I would be looking for
a doctor who is INTELLIGENT enough to help me.
If you are looking for a friend, there are MANY other people
you can appeal to.
I have no intention of being your friend. If so, fine; but my
principal concern is that I explain to you the Truth.
> and likelihood that you have
> anything to offer me for consideration. So far you only present a
> challenge to me with no hint of personal or spiritual reward.
Reward?????????????????
Do you actually think that a person can search for Truth genuinely
if he ALSO is concerned about whether he will be REWARDED?
Kierkegaard said: "Purity of heart is to will ONE thing."
Can I promise you a reward?
OF COURSE NOT.
But if it is the Truth you desire, there are some things that I
can tell you, Insh'allah.
>
> > > > > I will have some questions for you soon, for my own curiosity and
> > > > > desire to know Truth,
> > > >
> > > > Curiosity and the desire to know the Truth are two DIFFERENT
> > > > things.
> > > >
> > > > You will have to make up your 'mind' which it is.
> > >
> > > Cryptic...
> >
> > Are you asking questions for merely curiosity sake or are you
> > genuinely concerned with the answer?
>
> If I didn't want to know, do you think I would have asked? If not,
> then you have a dark view of humanity.
People ask me for answers quite often.
But sometimes the answers are quite painful...
Not because I have any INTENT to hurt them, merely because
it is the structure of Reality to contradict the illusions that they
have been conditioned with since childhood.
>
>
> > > > > if you don't mind.
> > > >
> > > > Don't know if I will or not.
> > > >
> > > > Depends upon the way the question is asked.
> > >
> > > I think we can pretty much rule that out now, Mr. Cecil.
> >
> > Then it appears you were merely curious rather than
> > genuinely concerned with the Truth.
> >
> > Don't worry.
> >
> > Maybe you will outgrow this in the near future.
> >
> > Maybe another incident like September 11, 2001 will
> > be necessary for you to become more than just
> > curious.
>
> Nice snotty attitude, Michael.
Nice paranoid attitude, Joseph.
This is simply a statement of fact here.
People often do not pay ANY attention to their health until they
come down with a serious disease.
I have often given people advice on nutrition, herbs, different
techniques of de-toxification, etc. etc. only to be told by my
clients that they would NOT be willing to make those changes
in their life style.
My answer to them is quite simple.
When you have suffered ENOUGH from your present disease,
come back and talk to me and we can plan how to approach
health from an integrative medicine perspective.
One woman experiencing quite significant pain became
OUTRAGED when I suggested that what she needed was
detoxification by means of a colonic (this was very CLEARLY
demonstrated by the pictures I had taken of her irises.)
I simply told her that she might change her mind when her
disease became more than she was willing to tolerate.
It is simply a matter of fact that there is an increasing
likelihood that people will begin to pay attention to what
I am saying the greater is the bloodshed.
I have noticed since September 11 that there has been
a quite RADICAL change in the way people have responded
to my notes on these groups.
And this has not happened in 7 YEARS.
> There ain't no Truth to be gleaned by
> speaking to you directly through this newsgroup.
Well, then you have surely cut off a source of some information.
Fine.
Then read my web page.
> At this point, I am
> merely curious about your mental make-up.
Thus, demonstrating a severe shift in your attention
AWAY from the consideration of Truth.
This is quite typical and something that I anticipated
from our first interaction.
Maybe you can recover from this; maybe not.
> What would possess a person
> to take these frightened and adversarial attitudes with others while
> espousing the spiritual beliefs you do which ought to manifest
> themselves through kindness, friendliness, kindness, helpfulness,
> generosity, and love? Where does the disconnect occur?
Oh wow.
Not very tuned in with what is going on in the world are you?
More importantly, you are shifting your attention to something
that you have no control over.
The issue here is Truth, not whether I am kind to you.
OTHER people can be kind to you.
My job is not to be kind but to speak the Truth.
>
>
> > > > > The website subject matter,
> > > > > the "Resurrection of the Dead" and the Dead Sea Scrolls are
> > > > > fascinating subjects to consider.
>
> For example, as you know, the Gnostics had a completely different
> definition of "resurrection" than contemporary Christians do. I wanted
> to start there.
Then start.
> Plus, with the news today about the continuing
> increasing availability of the Dead Sea Scrolls to scholars and the
> public, wouldn't that have been an interesting subject to discuss as
> well?
The Dead Sea Scrolls have long been available.
It is their INTERPRETATION that cannot be publicized.
>
>
> > > > > Thank you.
> > > > >
> > > > > JoeS (no theologian, I promise)
> > > >
> > > > Makes no difference.
> > > >
> > > > You may very well talk like one REGARDLESS.
> > > >
> > > > I guess we'll see.
> > > >
> > > > Michael Cecil (Daniel 12:1, Sura 2:98 of the Koran, Column
> > > > XVII of the "Scroll of the War of the Sons of Light")
> > >
> > > Note to Self: Don't respond to posts by paranoid narcissists.
> >
> > NOW I remember you.
>
> And I NOW know you as well, don't I? And I don't apologize for being
> harshly truthful.
Did not expect you to.
You were being harshly arrogant rather than truthful.
>
>
> > > This is very important. You already knew this.
> >
> > And, apparently, I also knew that you thought this.
>
> And I knew that you knew that I knew...
>
> > > Don't forget next time. Okay?
> > >
> > > Self: [meekly] okay.
> >
> > Grow up.
>
> All of us could benefit from such advice as that.
>
> > Life is difficult.
>
> Yes, it CAN be.
>
> > Sometimes you have to "die a world of dreams" before
> > you can encounter the Truth.
>
> True. All of us do, whether they know it or not.
>
> > There is no growth without suffering.
>
> There is always growth, but without suffering, it just takes longer.
You don't have the experience of the stoppage of time, do you?
> > Michael Cecil (Daniel 12:1, Sura 2:98 of the Koran, Column
> > XVII of the "Scroll of the War of the Sons of Light")
>
> JoeS
> (just an old soul who still must learn patience and to suffer fools
> gladly)
Join the CROWD.
I have been suffering fools for longer than I have been alive...
This has happened life after life after life.
And you do not know precisely what I mean when I use the
word "suffering", either.
Michael Cecil
Glenn (Christian Mystic)
You get lost a LOT don't you ?
Clue
If your map is upside up, north is at the top, east is to your right,
south is at the bottom, and west is on your left. Now get out a
compass to orient yourself...