cookiemonster

+1 Exactly.

I'm reluctant to quote Yoda but there's certainly a kernel of truth in the understanding: "Do, or do not. There is no try," The original post is mainly targeted at those who already understand that manifestation is real, but could do with some fleshed-out exploration of the limitations and challenges. I think @Leo Gura has also some experience with such questions. Manifesting accidentally is very easy when you cannot tell the difference between telepathy and manifestation. For example, someone might have received strong urges in 2013 to buy bitcoin, simply because they just knew that the price was going to spend the next 10 years going up. When it inevitably does exactly as predicted, one has to question whether they were receiving telepathic wisdom prior to the fact, or whether the strength of their conviction gave rise to the fact. In any event, it's precisely this kind of convictional belief that has any hope of influencing manifestation. More broadly, from my experience manifestation works best in conjunction with three forces: Love, Sovereignty and Self-Confidence. If you get those into alignment then you can expect to see better results. This is also why manifesting on behalf of the Universal Self is easier than on behalf of the finite-self, although technically both are achievable. What you might want to try is something simple at first to open up a connection. For example, try manifesting a red party balloon coming into your life at some point. Know that it will appear eventually, it's merely just a question of when. Keep an eye out for it, and when it comes, don't deny it. Embrace it and respect the connection. Then you will have an understanding from which you can build upon.

@UDT You're still missing the broader point, that this has nothing to do with LGBTQ. Media censorship and cancel culture is a problem, yes, but that's a systemic problem not a subjective one. The media could just as easily be waving the Palestinian flag, the Israeli flag, the Chinese flag or the Nazi flag. You're questioning the subject as dangerous when you should be addressing the medium. There is nothing inherently dangerous about LGBTQ.

You're focusing on the wrong issue. LGBTQ has never been dangerous.

That's a very big and uncomfortable iceberg, my friend. Some things are best left beyond the scope of comprehension.

I'm not quite sure what you mean here. What do you mean by priori in this context?

It's precisely because they're not operated by any government that makes them defacto private militaries. Despite having ideological tenets, such organizations would simply cease to exist were it not for the huge amounts of private money flowing into them. This is true not just in respect of purchasing infrastructure (e.g munitions, vehicles, uniforms) but also in respect of individual combatants themselves. Mercenaries, effectively.

You think ISIS, Boku Harem, and Al-Qaeda are not private military organisations?

There's a flipside to that. The amount of people who I've seen taking psychedelics in their teenage years without any ontological understanding of what they're doing is too many to count. No wonder people end up in asylums, jumping off bridges, converting to organized religions. If it was down to me I'd have people studying Plato's Cave, the Cartesian Evil Demon and all of the main scriptures, before they even thought of going near their first psychedelic. You need to have solid ontological foundations, else you'll never defeat the possibility that you're merely just insane.

Yes but isn't it true that God is omniscient, and so therefore knows all infinite permutations even within an infinite set? It seems to me that if God knows what can be created, then the creation already exists in potential, and therefore cannot be considered 'creation' but rather merely retrieval / access.

@The0Self Well it's interesting, because as a musician I've always associated the act of composing music as an act of creation. But this video above (referencing the aforementioned exercise in melody permutations) inspired a radical think. Technically, if the music already exists, then how can composing it be an act of creation? After all, one doesn't create prime numbers. It's merely just a rediscovered performance! But yeah, maybe it's just semantics: Creation = Discovery = Creation. Or maybe as @Leo Gura alludes to, God has a special bag of unique creative tricks? IDK.

Sure, but that wasn't really the main point. The main point was to use the example of melody permutations in parallel with finite-experience permutations as a way to demonstrate that imagination isn't so much an exercise in creation as it is an exercise in exploration. Your finite-experience, the "Leo Gura Experience" is a unique finite-experience analogous to a unique finite melody, or a unique finite prime number. Despite the fact that such an experience is a unique product of imagination, the imagination never actually 'created' such experience, but rather discovered it from a directory of never-ending permutations. Or in other words: God doesn't create. God explores.

Glad to share such discoveries with you. May all your future discoveries be brilliant and awesome. ?

+1 I'd urge caution with this thread, not because there isn't an issue worth talking about, but rather because the issue shares some common traits with toxic green, toxic protectionism, and faux-compassion. That said, the maternal instinct becomes toxic when the desire to protect derives itself exclusively from the subjective at the expense of the objective. AKA: Small fluffy animals, good. Lizards, spiders and toads, bad. As with any form of toxicity, it's the failure to transcend (or quarantine) the neurochemical instinct.

@Inliytened1 @Batman @WelcometoReality To use computer lingo, one way to visualize the difference between humans and animals might be analogous to RAM (Random Access Memory) and ROM (Read Only Memory):- Animals as 90% ROM and 10% RAM. Humans as 90% RAM and 10% ROM. For this reason animals appear to have in-built sophisticated comprehensions of reality without having much space for learning. Humans on the other hand are born pretty stupidly, but have enormous scope for learning which can be passed down orally/manually through subsequent generations. If humans happen to lose the ontological wisdom of God, then such wisdom is potentially lost quasi-permanently through all subsequent generations until a chance encounter or random re-discovery rekindles the wisdom back into our collective culture. Potentially, this isn't the case with animals, who because of their ontological instincts (codified in ROM) always are aware of the ultimate nature of God, and therefore don't take death so seriously when it happens to occur. For example, birds may spend all year building complicated nests and spend large amounts of energy bringing up their chicks. But the moment one of their chicks randomly dies, the parents simply dispose of the body as if it was meaningless. Just like a video-game. Play to win, but don't sweat it when you lose.

Life is seemingly a paradoxical blend between the will to survive, and the understanding that death is an illusion. Animals seem to understand this instinctively. Play to win, yes, but do not take it so seriously when you lose (or lose your loved ones). Humans on the other hand seem to be missing this second part. Death to a human is seemingly a catastrophe. A malfunction even. It is as if humans are missing the ontological instinct that understands that it's all just a game. Do we humans take death far too seriously?

So true.

LOL "There must be some kind of way out of here, said the Joker to the thief. Too much confusion, I can't get no relief." - Hendrix That's true, but the skills that animals posses instinctively are extraordinary. For example, the moment Blue Tit chicks hatch, they instinctively know not to 'poop' in the nest. They quite literally wait until the mother or father returns to the nest with food, so that the poop can be removed by the parent. This happens within moments of the eggs hatching, and so isn't something that is taught. Humans on the other hand literally have to be be potty-trained else everything turns messy. If animals can have sophisticated instincts in the realm of socio-industry, can it not also be the case that they can have sophisticated instincts in the realm of philosophy and ontology? That is to say, even though animals have limited scope for learning and introspection, are they perhaps fundamentally (instinctively) connected to God in a way that for humans requires each generation to have an education and/or rediscovery?

There is simply no long-term data to support that statement and you're not in a position to do so. You use the words "simply" as if to say the objectivity can be expressed easily, and yet you haven't done so. Your personal belief that the risks are 'simply much bigger' does not equate to science through your own faith/assumption alone. A curious supposition with hues of irony. What evidence do you have of this unfounded assumption? What would I be afraid of, and how does that invalidate my words previously written. I'm not going to accuse you of projection but you need to support such statements. Otherwise it's just a weird thing to write. That's your own subjective judgement, but I'm starting to see where your mindset is now, particularly in regard to the curious injection of this 'being afraid' thing. You cannot boil down morality into a simple algorithm of "take my solution or else". It's clear you don't really know what you're talking about and seemingly lack the necessary faculties to talk about such things.

It's not a question of being faster. It's about being rushed, poorly tested, and at best ineffective, inefficient and unsafe. It's true that Pfizer and Moderna are mRNA vaccines. The others are adenoviral vectors. But this is all irrelevant, because the issues concerning vaccine malfunction in all cases don't pertain to delivery method but rather the emerging problems that relate to the spike protein. In all cases, the end-product of the COVID vaccines are the spike proteins. With that in mind, we now know that:- 1) The spike proteins are not behaving as expected. (e.g They are moving around the body randomly). 2) They are more cytotoxic than first thought. Malone, Kirsch, Weinstein et al have discussed the implications of this, with particular reference to accumulation in bone marrow, the testes and the ovaries being a significant alert signal. Yet the primary takeaway (as of now) is that no-one knows how this is all going to play out. Therefore the vaccines cannot possibly be described as 'better tech' until we know what the long-term data is. Anyone taking the vaccines right now should understand that it is experimental technology, and you have to take full responsibility for any problems that might arise in the future. Or in other words, if you develop blood cancer or are rendered permanently infertile in the future, you're just going to have to suck it up. It was your choice and you understood the risks. Same with Cyberpunk 2077. Means nothing. That's true. But it doesn't change the issue of the spike protein. According to Malone (based on data emerging from Israel) for every 3 lives that the vaccine saves, it takes 2. So as of now on net the vaccines are just about winning, but it rests on a knife-edge of gross inefficiency. For one thing that data has not been age-adjusted, so where the majority of deaths from COVID are occurring in the elderly and immuno-compromised, the burden of risk from the vaccines is shared across all age groups and all health conditions. If you factor in that the vaccine deaths/injuries are only the short-term indications and speak nothing of the longer-term indications, then the risk/reward ratio becomes more murky.

If you're familiar with video-games, the best way to think of the COVID vaccine is analogous to Cyberpunk 2077. It's a money-driven, rushed production, full of bugs with a risk of crashing your machine. This is why choosing not to take the COVID vaccine is not the same as being anti-vax. It would be like saying that being critical of Cyberpunk 2077 is equivalent to being anti-videogame. No-one has an issue with vaccinations in general. The problem is that these particular COVID vaccinations are really crappily produced.

If civil war ever does break out the Republicans don't stand a chance.

So I Just finished watching this 4-5 hour epic conversation that Curt Jaimungal had with Rupert Spira on Theories of Everything. It got me thinking whether it's only a matter of time before we see @Leo Gura speaking on this this show perhaps?

Boom!

Okay that's fair enough, but your original post was a little vague as to what you were referring to as conspiracy. There seemed to be a cross-pollination between what you referred to as 'crazy stuff' and 'vaccination', as later on in the post you referred to vaccine dangers relative to the dangers of Covid which as you have just clarified is a different topic. The issues pertaining to the vaccine are updating constantly. New information is coming in every day and the consequences are very real.