Dear bgriagach, Thanks for the imput.
So are you saying that it is ordinary for a two year old who has never been taught how to read, without ever being taught the alphabet, to pick up an encyclopedia and read a page out of it simply because there were books laying around the house and his parents spoke in complete sentences to him? And how did he learn the letters and then what sound to apply to each letter and how did he learn the arrangement of the letters and the sound of the word? How did he know that the letters formed words?
I agree 100 percent that we are not giving kids credit and I don't believe in talking down to children of any age. They come in with everything the need and carry all the knowledge needed to make it through life. Usually by the age three the forget and go into a kind of sleep/slumber with their knowingness.
Love and Light, Marietta
and i have told you how that doesn't make any sense.Marietta said:I have told you how I was translating the hebrew without all the rules
as i have said about eight times, an EXAMPLE of this "physics" you claim to have found in the text. am i not saying this right?and told you that I found Physics in the text and that when I started studying Physics I already knew it. What more do you want?
did *i* bring up kabbalah and the Torah? no, *you* did. now those are subjects i *do* know something about and if you are trying to use them for support, as you are indeed trying to do, then i am afraid i have to point out how they don't actually support you.I'm here to discuss Indigo's and Keylontic Science, two topics you know nothing about.
i don't know how my son picks up the things he picks up - i certainly didn't teach him how to work the satellite TV or DVD player and he can do jigsaws that he shouldn't really be able to at this stage. nobody really knows. but in terms of exceptional abilities like the ones you're pointing out, you're basically falling into a major logical fallacy: because theory X provides an explanation for behaviour Y, it does not follow that theory X is necessarily the most appropriate explanation for this behaviour. it could be theory Z or indeed theory A - but to insist that the answer is "correct" without having examined appropriate alternatives is simply picking the first thing that suits you. have you come across occam's razor? you're not applying it. more to the point, you're not even going for something likely - you're going for a completely far-out explanation of something that doesn't seem to convince anyone else.How do you explain these kids and what they know? Where does the knowledge come from if not from cellular memory, it wasn't taught: She sees the images in her head and then paints them. The second is of a little blind girl who can play classical music after hearing only once.
there's a very good article on wikipedia that answers all these questions quite concisely, but basically it's 36 based on a Talmudic tradition: Tzadikim Nistarim - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - as for "righteousness", books have been written on what we mean by that.What is the purpose of the 36 lahmed vav niks? Why are there always 36 here, not 37, not 35? If they are merely righteous people why on 36? Define how you are using the term righteous?
no, you haven't.I’ve answered every question asked of me that I am physically able to answer.
My reply: I don’t know what special powers you are asking about?
My reply: Once again we are in agreement.
Here is the first sentence from the third post I made in this thread about the Indigo’s.
“The Indigo Children are not to be considered “superior or elite” in comparison to other humans, but rather viewed as living demonstrations of the dormant abilities that are NOW beginning to rapidly unfold among ALL HUMAN POPULATIONS.”
I think you are going by claims made by other people not Azurite Press.
My reply: That’s not how anyone in our group views it or feel about it.
My reply: What I am talking about is knowing things that you have never studied or heard of and then finding out that it is accurate. Also past life memories of places that you have never been to and can describe accurately.
My reply: I’ve answered every question asked of me that I am physically able to answer.
I’ve said that I will debate with anyone who has a working knowledge of the topic. How do you debate with someone who only wants to make promote an argument and fun of the material without knowledge of the material.
My reply: First I would suggest going back and reading the articles I posted. What kind of evidence do you want?
I can’t make you believe something you have determined you will not believe no matter what material I quote.
Unless it comes from your little corner of learning, it is not valid to you so what is the point.
I have provided the material I have, Good Morning American did a segment on the Indigo Children and so did ABC new do a segment on them but unless it comes from one of your cronies, you simply will not acknowledge the validity of the source.
What I can tell you is that I can see the indigo blue auric field around these people which is where the term Indigo children came from, but can I tell you who has what DNA activated providing doctors reports, no I cannot.
Does this mean that testing has not been don’t, NO it doesn’t. It simply means that I am no privy to these reports other than second hand.
If you have specific questions about the Indigo children I will do my best to provide an answer but if you are wanting me to convince you, I don’t have the power or desire to do this.
See, the problem I have with your organization is that it claims to have what is known as "uncommon knowledge". And that this is knowledge "which have been hidden, forbidden or suppressed". So the immediate implication is that this "Azurite Press Melchizedek Cloister Emerald Order" has exculsive access to this knowledge that no other organization in the whole of history has obtained. But in order to prove its exclusiveness, it must make the case that everyone else has had it all wrong. So one of the tactics is to cast an unfavorable light to current conditions with statements like:Excerpts from The Freedom Teachings: A Brief Primer said:The greatest benefit that the FT's offer you is the gift of uncommon knowledge, through which some of the mysterious aspects of reality can be understood ... and, through this, the majesty of personal experience can be re-discovered.
Understanding these things is what will set you free, not 'assumptions' or paradigms that teach you nothing about your true power, abilities or potentials. In the brief sampling of summary materials which follow this introduction you can begin to discover a pretty detailed review of critical historical events which span billions of years; the presence, role and purpose of certain earth inhabitants known as the “Angelic Humans” and “Indigo Children” (as well as many other non-human species); the content and context, the processes and mechanics of Multi-dimensional reality, as well as the essential and corresponding aspects of your own personal Multi-dimensional anatomy. These components are some of the many which have been hidden, forbidden or suppressed. It is through such an apparently dramatic discovery as this that a greater personal discovery can be made: that a bridge is now available between genuine, passionate, but under informed spiritual aspiration and the meaningful actualization of potent spiritual participation. A specific result of such a major paradigm-shift is that your understanding of, access to, and integration of your “higher self”, as a direct expansion of conscious awareness and potential expression, can be more certainly, safely and thoroughly developed.
Contemporary reality demonstrates that the idea that individuals can significantly alter the conditions of their personal experience, contribute to improved collective well-being, growth, harmony and creative expression has grown ever less attainable as our world has become more "civilised". What contemporary humans have learned, by default, is the lesson of powerlessness and victimhood. But, these all too prevalent circumstances are simply a reflection of what is taught or imposed, what is believed or accepted, and what is otherwise 'necessarily' assumed in the absence of adequate prescriptive facts. The apparent futility of life has, for many people, either elevated "God", “Masters”, Angels, or "ET's" as the only viable means of human “liberation” or has otherwise supported their respective denigration; either way, promoting hope and trust in all manner of alternate forms of external authority, at the expense of nurturing the remaining vestiges of spiritual potency, loving self-expression and personal sovereignty.
Marietta said:Do you realize that when telephones were first introduced, the a lot of people, Christians being a large contributer of the thought that this were Mystic and of the devil, along with a whole array of other inventions and new scientific thought.
A large portion of the population stills debates the Big Bang, making claims that some big mean, jealous, low self asteme Male God up in the sky somewhere (that they call heaven, but at the same time dispute higher dimensions) said poof and it all appeared out of no where.
Now there are many educated, scientist within the Christian community and they have written peer articles claiming to prove creationism.
I would call it cellular memory.
One well know example that everybody knows it Albert Einstein's theory of relativity, when he came up with his theory it was rejected, by peer review, however that did not mean he didn't have a valid concept.
How is this different from any other belief system on this planet. Most religions make claims about their version of History and the raced lines and where they came from, so why do the Freedom Teachings intimidate you so badly?
Keylontic Science can be validated but it takes interested Scientists doing their peer review for it to be established by mainstream Science. Thus far your peers have not don't so. It would give me great pleasure if you would do a peer review on Keylontic Science and write about in your journal. Please do so and send me the article, because at present I am unaware of such a review.