Reptoids leaving soon? (Page 3 of 8)

And on the 2-3rd of may or close to it a old former train station or something burned down in the middle of helsinki causing smog and such to spread all over city. People described it as a "mini-apocalypse" So we have been having an interesting may atleast

Could it be that there will be a lot of prophesies of good and bad events that won't happen, so that we will ignore the prophesy for the real big event, when it gets prophesied?

Just a thought.

WizardT

So now, its the 13th and the closest pass of that comet *looks around* nothing on fire yet. And it was supposed to happen before the comet gets here so i'd wait around 2-3 days before saying anything. The wind is certainly very very warm all things considered but nothing near to the "atmosphere being on fire" anyway.

*Grabs a pack of popcorn*

A great book to read on this subject is "Catastrophobia" by Barbara Hand Clow

The probabilities can only be raised by a belief in a non-cataclysmic transition on a personal level...it just seems to me that many people have already made up their minds (I'll grant you, it's not hard to see why!). Again I repeat - We do not know what is actually going to happen so surely our beliefs can still influence the nature of the transition...:)

Oh definetly, you are more than correct in that. I personally believe that i have no bleeping clue as to how this will be played out, as i do have a tad bit of manic depressivness (can also be called being alive) i do have a fair amount of variance in my opinion.

The way i see it, i can make a guess but i would wager that it has maybe 5% chance of being accurate

I can only say a few things with a very high accuracy.

1. People will die when this change happens

2. People will be in pain (sudden change and through that, sudden realisations of own illusions will be painful)

That is as far as i know. And even the death and pain can be something that prove to be something that dosnt happen.

Peaceful is a relative concept in that how much peace is peaceful and how much war is warful ?

Right now, we have around 20-30 land wars going on over the world.

Yet by far the world is in agreeance that we are in peace

During WW2, for the most part, antarctic and such were in peace. So it is relative to the viewpoint of where you look at it.

But for the bulk of humanity, any change will bring a vast array of emotions and situations. And i would wager that for atleast a minority of humanity, the situation, or a change to a golden age will bring. Pain. Similarily, to a minority, but i hope a majority, the change will bring, pleasure.

What 50.00000001% of humanity gets will be the majority and by extension, the definition of what happens, pain or pleasure.

Absolute pain or absolute pleasure will almost certainly not happen. In that every single person in humanity will go through pain.

So what i focus on, is not to get the transition to go through completely peacefully in a fashion in which noone will die. But to go through it in a fashion that i will achive the best situation for myself when the change is over with the minimum possible amount of harm to others.

So i have to set a relative amount of which is higher than something else. If i have to cause harm to something to live, what is an accetable level of harm for me to achive life and what is beyond accetable. Do i for example, eat meat. If yes then how much killing is vain. If i prefer to eat good meat do i then kill more cows so i can get more good meat or do i "sit tight" and eat the bad meat as well. Or in the same metaphor, do i turn to be a vegetarian knowing that my actions ALSO kill something that is alive. With only a relative adjustement in consciousness of the prey. Or do i then, sit in the sun and accept energy from the sun, but then i block out the sand that is under me and through that, deny them sunlight.

But the whole species of cow as it exists now, would not be alive had humans not started eating and thus farming them. Tis strange that most cultures that are actually in tune with nature accept that killing cattle is accetable if you then make sure minimum amount of harm is done to the cows and that the cows get to live a happy life and protected life. Most cows, contrary to public opinion, would have an easy time escaping, atleast in organic farming which i prefer. Yet they stay behind, so they must accept as a form, that they would rather live calmly and enjoy life than to run away and risk dying even quicker in a very nasty enviroment with wolfs and such.

So as long as i pay homage to the animal and accept the fact that i am alive because the animal lets me be alive. And the animal accepts that it wa born because its parnts have been farmed to create more cattle. So the horribleness of the killing is not actually in the killing. But in the life that they lead before dying. We all die that much is for certain. If i had to choose between a life of constant risk of dying and spending 50% of the time being afraid of dying at any point. OR knowing that i will die when i reach a certain age to feed those who farm me, and then live in a comfortable situation given the chance to live life free of risk of sudden death. Immersed in philosophical thinking and so forth. It might be a hard decicion to make.

This was a longer post than i expected to make but Yes i agree with you Novice, that our beliefs effect our lifes and we can still choose the completely peaceful transition to a golden age, if we wish to. Knowing human personality i seriously doubt that the whole of humanity, unless forced, will wish for it so i do not count on it.

Edit: Heheheh, montalk, you posted the exact same thing as i did at almost exactly the same time. Cool

Is this just me or is there alot of weird time things on right now

02:03:01?