The Arthurian Maji Grail King Lineage

[dauer]

Then you were either misinformed or misinterpreted what was said.

-- Dauer

[Marietta]

Hi dauer, I suppose either could be the case as I am only repeating what was discussed while taking a class at a local temple. The person who initiated the conversation had just returned from Israel where the topic was being hotly debated. She told the class that the debate was over who a real Jew was and stated that the people that were debating this were of three groups. One group were Jews born and living in Israel, the second group were Jews born in Israel but were citizens of other countries and the third group were Jews who were born and living in other countries. They each claimed to be Jews but the ones born and living in Israel claimed that they were the only true Jews.
Marietta

[dauer]

Law of Return - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

More info on the law of return, for clarification. It sounds like you probably misinterpreted what was said.

[Marietta]

Dear dauer, Thanks for the clarification. I may have misunderstood.
Marietta

[Marietta]

dauer, Me again. In the class the discussion that this topic came out of had to do with people converting to Judaism as opposed to a blood line. I had made the statement that a Jew was a specific bloodline and Judaism was the teachings of this race of people that other people became interesting in and wanted to learn (thus, a convert). At this point the the previous conversation took place.
What the teacher said was that the saying that you are only a Jew if your mother was a jew and her mother and her mother's mother, was because it was always known who your mother is but not always known who the father is.

[dauer]

Marietta,

What the teacher said was that the saying that you are only a Jew if your mother was a jew and her mother and her mother's mother, was because it was always known who your mother is but not always known who the father is.

That is true. Judaism is determined matrilineally while tribal identity is determined patrilinealy.

However, Judaism isn't a race or a bloodline.

[bananabrain]

Originally Posted by Marietta

Please forgive me but I don’t care to debate or defend what I believe with you or anyone else and I also don’t care to debate your belief system.

er, in that case, what are you here for? dialogue and debate is what this site is *about*. and when you make an extraordinary, not to say unbelievable claim for your own belief system you do invite examination of these claims. personally, i think path_of_one has your number.

I believe one way and you believe another and I truly respect your right to your own way of thinking. My intent is not to challenge or change the beliefs of another.

if that's so, then why are you claiming that something i and many others believe (for example that the hebrew alphabet has 22 letters) which, more to the point, is so well established that nobody would normally seek to argue with it?

I am only here to share what I have come to understand.

ok, well, that's what the evangelists say, too. how are you different? you don't want to debate or defend your viewpoints? fine. well, the rest of us do and we're pretty happy doing so. if you don't like it, tough, i'm afraid.

If someone feels that they resonate with the freedom teachings, they will take in what I have written and do with it as they chose.

in other words, join the group. so, in fact, you are seeking new adherents.

All Beliefs are valid, even if I personally don’t agree with what another person believes, that does not negate the beliefs of another.

have you ever heard of bertrand russell's "space teacup" argument? it goes like this: if someone chooses to believe that there is a giant teacup orbiting jupiter, they are entitled to do so, but the burden of proof is not upon me to believe such an inherently unlikely belief.

What do you mean by a Torah “Authority”, what makes someone an “authority?” You use the word as if it means that if you quote someone who is in agreement with what you are saying that it makes it fact.

nope. i don't quote belief and opinion as fact. a Torah authority is someone who is agreed to understand Torah and whose opinion is a credible one according to the the amount of respect they are able to garner through their learning, teaching and writing. they are, most commonly, rabbis who have reached a degree of understanding that is acclaimed by common consensus. when i quote a Torah authority to back up one of my points, what i mean by that is that this is a known, valid and accepted point of view for a majority of jews who accept the authority of halakhah and tradition based on the shulhan 'arukh. now, that is not at all the same thing as a "fact", but it is a framework which provides context and integrity to a given point of view. it's a bit like what constitutes a scientific authority; this authority is attained by gaining the approval of one's peers.

I must ask: Why is it that when you provide a link it is supposed to validate what you say but when I proved a link, I was accused of trying to convert someone and/or sell them something?

because my links are to sites which i am not affiliated with, they are independent of me and back up what i have to say. you seem to link to one place, which is the organisation you appear to be recruiting for.

You have sited that one form of authority is inferior to another in your personal beliefs because they don’t go along with your particular form of belief in Kabbalah, that does not negate the validity of the other authority. It’s all subjective to the belief of the person doing the study and their personal background.

well, i'd expect that sort of attitude from someone who thinks they can translate biblical hebrew without knowing any. put it this way: if this were classical music we were talking about, an authority on it is going to come out of the classical music world and have certain attributes and characteristics. you could, if you wish, describe a cookbook as an orchestral score. it would be a personal belief, but it would not be a valid one except perhaps if we were talking about a highly unusual view of what constitutes classical music. it seems to me you may lack understanding of what the characteristics of traditional jewish kabbalah are.

Where did you get the idea that there aren’t mainstream Physicist studying Keylontic Science?

from you. you said it addressed the "gaps" in the "public science" remit. surely that is, by definition, what "mainstream" means.

Within our group we have many mainstream, physicist, mathematicians’, and doctors who have found our teachings to be flawless.

name one, just one, that holds a position of authority at a reputable institution and publishes in reputable journals.

New ideas have always been ridiculed by the mainstream fields of science when first mentioned.

but it doesn't therefore follow that all ideas that are ridiculed by the mainstream fields of science will therefore become the accepted wisdom later on down the line.

Our teacher has offered an open public forum free to the public, with anyone who would like to challenge these teachings.

but you've just said you're not interested in debating them or defending them. you've come on here, to this dialogue forum, to tell us about your teacher's forum - frankly, we're challenging it here, that's what we do here, we discuss.

Peer:
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French per, from per, adjective, equal, from Latin par
1: one that is of equal standing with another: one belonging to the same societal group especially based on age, grade, or status

We have had a lot of peer review.

hur hur hur. you're doing that thing again where you pick whatever definition suits you to use. what i mean - and what scientists always mean - is this: Peer review - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Just because people with different beliefs call these subtle energies by different names does not mean they do not exist. It supports the validity of their existence.

but that's what *i'm* saying. *you're* saying, effectively, that your interpretation of what this stuff is somehow more "provable" than other people's interpretations.

For those of us who can feel subtle energies, we can feel the energy signature of the energy and for us we can discern weather it is negative or not. There is a very distinct feeling to different types of energy.

i might as well say that i can tell whether someone likes me or not when i meet them. how is this in any way exceptional?

Regardless to the rules you think should be applied to the Hebrew language (even though Mishnah states that there are only ten rules that are ever to be applied to the language, the ten utterances) my crude translation was showing the physics held within the text.

they are not the rules *i* "think should be applied" - they are the rules that all the other scholars of this language apply. my understanding of this is not different from theirs - yours is. the same is true for all other languages. when i studied languages i learned the grammar, vocabulary and syntax using textbooks and interaction with those who already knew the rules. that is how it is done in my experience. as for what the mishnah says, please give the chapter and verse headings for the statements that you are referring to. as far as i am aware, the rules in the mishnah are about *interpretation*, not grammar. and i don't think anyone who is incapable of making a proper translation is able to find "physics" in a text they don't understand.

6. A BOOK CONTAINING THE PRINCIPLES OF ANY BRANCH OF SCIENCE

The book of the Law, is the laws of physics that all things were created through.

ohoho. i see what you mean now. however, i strongly dispute your contention that you are able to demonstrate anything the Torah may or may not say about physics - let's have just one example, please.

The inquisition which lasted six hundred years played a great part on breaking down the Hebrew language making it possible to add rules to the language that were not intended and also made it possible to take six latters away from the language.

you haven't answered the objections to this statement i posted previously. what about texts that predate the inquisition? and you still haven't shown me any of these letters yet, so as far as i know they don't exist.

The Hebrew language was forbidden to be spoken and all Hebrew literature was banned. Hebrew is the only language in the history of the world that became extinct as a spoken language and was then revived (in 1947) when Israel became a nation again. During this time the Torah teachings were hand down word of mouth. Anyone caught teaching, reading or speaking Hebrew, was killed and their literature was burned.

you seem to be unaware that jewish culture existed in more places than the inquisition did. for more than 1,000 years, the leadership of the jewish world was not within the control of the inquisition - it was in iraq. and besides, the inquisition wasn't established until the high middle ages and the council of nicaea was in the C4th, wasn't it? what happened in between? even after the inquisition was established, its writ didn't run in the ottoman empire, or along the silk road, or in persia or india, or even amsterdam - all places where jews lived, studied and produced texts, the inquisition simply didn't have the power to affect what people did in these places, so, basically, you are talking complete nonsense.

At this time rules were applied to the language, that were not intend and letters removed.

again, please give an example of one of these rules that you speak of.

Read the first chapter of Ezekiel for more on the chariot transportation or the book of Enoch in the Pseudepigrapha.

i've already told you enoch isn't a canonical text for us, so it makes no difference what it says. as for the first chapter of ezekiel, go and read it yourself - it doesn't say what you think it says.

I didn’t imply that the Torah or Zohar tell the history in the same manner that Keylontic Science does, I merely stated that if you can follow/understand the teachings of Kabbalah, it would not be that far of a leap to “Understand” (not adopt as a belief) the Freedom Teachings.

don't patronise me. i understand more about kabbalah than you do and i can tell you that the stuff you are talking about bears absolutely no relation to what kabbalah is concerned with.

I personally don’t believe the Torah is intact and have chosen a path more conducive to what I believe.

fine, you're free to do so, but if you want to talk about it here, expect to be challenged.

I have very specific cellular memory of most of what is taught in the Freedom teachings.

you mean "it sounds like something you'd like to be true".

Which branch of Judaism are you trying to align Kabbalah with Ultra-Orthodox Judaism, Orthodox, Conservative, Reform, Reconstructionist, Humanistic, Flexidox or what? It sounds like you are saying that anything that does not agree with your particular path is wrong, even within Judaism.

there are lots of different jewish takes on kabbalah, many different jewish schools within kabbalah, however i take the position that kabbalah has at its core certain things and that those things are Torah, G!D, the jewish people and the universe - but that it is the fourth level of interpretation and not divorceable from the other three, which include the plain meaning of the text as well as its hints, allusions and allegorical meanings. certainly i am coming at it from the point of view of somebody who is concerned with the validity of jewish law and the integrity of judaism, of which kabbalah is a part. you can call that what you like.

The Jews of Israel would say that unless you were born in Israel to a Jewish mother who was born in Israel, who’s mother was also a Jew who had been born in Israel, you are not a Jew.

like dauer points out, i don't think you understand what this sentence means - not that that surprises me particularly at this stage given your apparent propensity to spectacularly grasp the wrong end of the stick.

b'shalom

bananabrain

[Marietta]

Dear bananabrain,
You wrote: er, in that case, what are you here for? dialogue and debate is what this site is *about*. and when you make an extraordinary, not to say unbelievable claim for your own belief system you do invite examination of these claims. personally, i think path_of_one has your number.

There is a difference in true discussion and someone simply trying to belittle what they don’t understand. My purpose is to have a dialogue with someone who is truly interested in the phenomena of Indigo Children with some working knowledge to share. My purpose is not to engage in a dialogue with someone who only wants to belittle what they don’t know or understand. If you have knowledge about the Indigo’s that differs with mine that is ok. Put it on the table and we will discuss it.

It is one thing for a person who looks into this and finds err with it to put the errors on the table for discussion but all that is taking place here is ridicule, not true debate. You have no interest in determining the validity of these teachings, you are merely belittling my beliefs. If I were to enter the Jewish section, making anti Semitic statements and undermining what you are sharing in that section I would be asked to leave.

As you know I have debated in the Christian Forum but that is because I have a very thorough background in the Theology of the Christian Faith. I would not venture into a belief system that I didn’t know anything about and start making rude comments about another person’s beliefs without a working background in the topic being discussed. If I simply didn’t believe in the topic I would stay clear of the topic all together. On the other hand, if I have a working knowledge of a topic and find things being said: “that from my understanding” don’t line up I might make comment explaining why I don’t believe what is being said along with how I view it. The only comments you have made are rude unintelligible mumbo jumbo trying to indicate that because you are unfamiliar with the words being used that they are nonsense. If you have a valid point, than make it and we can have a meaningful exchange.

You’re a moderator so you should know the rules of this web site. Here is a direct quote:

. We aim to uphold a good standard of conduct in the forums.

Please respect other members and avoid making posts that may be seen as personally offensive. We don’t allow flame wars here.

My response to the last comment is that this person (possibly you using a different name) is only in here as back up for you. This person has not added anything of benefit as far as discussion to this thread, so what is his/her agenda? Why is it that this thread has laid dormant for months and all of a sudden when someone shows interest, you and your gang are in here bashing this thread?

Love and Light, Marietta

[dauer]

I don't know if by "this person" you mean me, but adding to a thread is in the eye of the beholder. You stated something that is untrue and I corrected you. That is imo adding to the forum. If you are suggesting that BB and I are the same person, I think you're using flawed logic. I've not presented the same agenda that he has. I've no interest in challenging your mythology. I disagree with anyone who takes mythology literally -- including BB -- and have no special reason to pick at your views. Merely, I came to correct something you said that was clearly not true, and you learned from it so I'd say it was worthwhile.

-- Dauer

[Marietta]

dauer, I was not refering to you..

[dauer]

Who were you referring to?

[bananabrain]

i think she's probably talking to me, mate.

Originally Posted by Marietta

There is a difference in true discussion and someone simply trying to belittle what they don’t understand.

and that's not what i'm doing. i've pointed out some things about hebrew that you clearly don't understand. i've pointed out some things about kabbalah that you clearly don't understand. i've identified several objections to your version of historical events, none of which you have answered - again.

My purpose is to have a dialogue with someone who is truly interested in the phenomena of Indigo Children with some working knowledge to share.

but in the course of this you've made some claims that are absolutely extraordinary, such as this thing about the hebrew language, letters and the inquisition. other people are pulling you up on the scientific terminology you are using around "extra DNA" and telling you you're talking nonsense on this - and you're ignoring all of these challenges. my point is that we're not "belittling" something we don't "know or understand". we understand these things only too well, rather better than you it would appear. and we don't accept your way of interpretation, your methodology or your way of pulling it together. the word we are looking at here is "specious". i do not accept the kabbalistic or historical validity of your conclusions as they affect these fields and it seems abundantly clear that others who are better equipped than i to understand the relevant points do not accept the validity of your scientific conclusions. i think what we are probably saying is "back up what you're saying, or admit you've got nothing other than your own feeling that this is all true".

If I were to enter the Jewish section, making anti Semitic statements and undermining what you are sharing in that section I would be asked to leave.

that's not what you're doing. you are making highly questionable statements (nobody's calling anyone anti-semitic) and then complaining when people are asking you to substantiate them.

If you have a valid point, than make it and we can have a meaningful exchange.

we've already asked you plenty of times:

1. what are these 6 letters you are talking about?
2. what are these rules of the hebrew language you are talking about?
3. how did the inquisition "change" texts which pre-date the council of nicea, or affect the language, behaviour and practice of jews outside the christian world?
4. has your group's "scientific" work been peer-reviewed in research publications and journals?
5. do you understand the difference between physics and metaphysics?
6. who are the "mainstream" scientists who support your beliefs and which institutions do they work for?
7. where in the mishnah does it talk about the rules for interpreting hebrew grammar as opposed to interpreting terminology for the purposes of halakhah?
8. where are the examples of physics in your "crude translation"?

even one of these points would be a fairly major objection. putting them all together, i would venture to suggest that your case simply doesn't stack up. if you can't address them then you are simply wasting everyone's time. and if you find that "offensive", then i apologise for bursting your bubble, but the moderators are well aware of this thread and there's nothing going on here that is being considered as in breach of the CoC. a decent belief system needs to be able to stand up to a challenge and i am afraid that yours appears to be about as robust as wet tissue paper. perhaps you should go and ask your teacher these very same questions.

b'shalom

bananabrain

[dauer]

BB,

she suggested that someone is your alt.

My response to the last comment is that this person (possibly you using a different name) is only in here as back up for you. This person has not added anything of benefit as far as discussion to this thread, so what is his/her agenda? Why is it that this thread has laid dormant for months and all of a sudden when someone shows interest, you and your gang are in here bashing this thread?

[bananabrain]

sheesh, like i don't have enough to do without creating another alternate identity...

b'shalom

bananabrain

[path_of_one]

Maybe she means me. Which makes me have a good chuckle, if that is who she is referring to.

If you are referring to me, if you look at my other posts, you will find that I in no way could possibly be BB's alter-ego. We have completely different religions, genders, and locations. I can't really even imagine myself as a man and a Jew, but I suppose it's an interesting thought experiment!

Now, in terms of my posts-

You have never responded to my original questions about scientific assertions without scientific evidence. You have never responded about how people can have extra strands of DNA without serious biological problems (if you know anything about human genetics, which I do, you'll know how serious an assertion this is). In short, I read over the websites but found absolutely nothing compelling as a scientist, but rather a whole lot of stuff pulled from various religious and mystery traditions and slapped together.

Please understand- we've discussed Indigo children before on this forum and you can see many people's views on the matter in that thread. I, myself, would be considered an Indigo based on most "tests" out there. What most of the people who write those tests and so forth seem to lack is any understanding of human diversity, brain function, and biology. People have exhibited "Indigo" traits well, for all of human history. It's nothing new. I can discuss at more length if you would like.

Now, if Indigo children or anyone, for that matter, want to believe they are alien souls, wolf souls, elf souls, or what have you somehow born here in a human body- OK. Might be a fantastic claim to many, but everyone is entitled to their own belief system and most belief systems are a little nutty when you really ponder them from the standpoint of logic.

However, if someone claims scientific basis for non-human or mutated human beings living biologically on earth... I want to see proof. Otherwise, it is a misuse of science and a dangerous belief, since nearly all times that people believed some others were non-human, it resulted in human rights violations.

Furthermore, one serious flaw in all this is internal inconsistency among Indigo children (and those that test as Indigos) themselves. Some obviously go with this complex and pseudo-scientific framework. Some think it's all hogwash. Some think they are reincarnated other-worldly souls (i.e., if you never have, check out the otherkin forums online). Much of the literature says this is some sort of recent phenomena of people being born with these types of personalities. But the data does not support that- there have always been shamanic/mystic personalities that would test positively as Indigos, going back to pre-historic times. We just don't have a job description and solid place for those folks in modern Western society. And furthermore, many otherkin have noted they are classified as Indigos, and find it an entirely useless category (beyond equating it with otherkin) to describe the plethora of places and times that they say they came from (and claim to remember in detail). Some elf groups, for example, claim they've been incarnating on earth in human bodies for at least 500 years- so how to reconcile this with other Indigos claiming it's only happening since the 1970s?

In short, it's all in the realm of belief, and so you're going to have these inconsistencies. If it was really scientific, then (1) something like DNA mutations on that scale would be all over the peer-reviewed journals and (2) there would be agreement of some sort.

I have posted on-topic, relevant posts. We do not post here on CR just to have people agree with us. I'm challenging because I think there are relevant points here- there are serious issues with abusing science in this way. I am willing to bet few people in the group have studied human physiology, genetics, and so forth at any higher level, and this contributes to assumptions of extremely illogical and unsupported claims. What I want to know is where the information is coming from. If it isn't from actual scientific evidence, science should not be claimed as the root. If someone is channeling whoever to get the information, that should be clear. Science and religion follow different modes of inquiry...