Lay Gnosis 72 Regarding different levels of attunement and why some souls are very wise

ABB talked about how a wise soul is often a soul that has had many many sojourn experiences and the reason why they are so wise is because experience is worth a great deal more than word of mouth just like with truebluehealer allowing the individual to know God directly “connection to God in 20 minutes” most people would be in stitches laughing if they heard that.  YES Adam. So that’s why we say connection to “another intelligence” or a “second intelligence” The disastrous G word is to be avoided. To that some will ask-Oh your higher self ? You just nod. The word source will work with some.
When we look at what source said in CWG about how one should seek beings of high consciousness and that the spirit is programmed to bring the human being to God automatically to create the perfect situation that will bring us home to God just like the natural gnostic young man from the Punjab that you mentioned that was brought into truebluehealer and the internal voice said to him “I told you I was God but you never listened ! Now it’s official!”. When I asked you the question about George Carlin being an atheist and how this ties in with what you mentioned about how source hangs on every word we speak. When we look at gnosis and human history it’s very obvious that people have been gnostic for a very long time the Kalahari bushmen are a perfect example of how human culture and human society has been gnostic for a very long time. I don’t know if it was Socrates or Plato that mentioned “the genius who is their guide and guardian” source is indeed a genius and the story of the genie in the lamp is a gnostic story whoever created that story was gnostic and if people pay attention they will find that there have been many many writers who were natural gnostics Aesop’s fables was definitely gnostic. 
Referring to source as a genius is correct because just like source said in cwg “before you even ask I shall have answered” When I mentioned how what we call our intellect is literally just source communicating with us I like to refer to intellect as an “internal election” source is communicating with the individual and entertaining them through their minds eye and telling them yes you should stop that terrible life practice that terrible habit you should stop it asap and source is showing them all the reasons why source reminds us all the time of what we are. 
The overwhelming majority of people do report vivid messaging dreams (Hard to know because dreams are not a subject of conversation in the west and they never get a mention at school and the phrase “vivid messaging dreams” I invented to differentiate them from normal anxiety and conventional dreams) especially children because when we are children we are very close to source it is only when we grow older that we become less and less conscious we ignore our sixth sense our sixth sense becomes much more numb and much more blurry for instance source still plays with us and entertains us through our minds eye but we ignore it and dismiss it as just our imagination. 

So true!  Laughter from many at God in 20 minutes. YES !  And “Connection to God in 20 minutes” can also horrify people into becoming enraged. Fear causes anger. I’m doing that to somebody right now. LOL. An angry man who thinks he knows everything and cant possibly learn anymore. And that’s his problem, he is learning disabled. Anger derails their brains, turning off their creative forebrains that can make novel connections and shape new concepts. My sister the gifted teacher who teaches learning disabled kids says every time a new subject is introduced they start fighting and abusing among themselves, such is their grief. Happens to many online anti religious”debaters” who really just want to fight with people smarter than themselves out of sheer frustration.

Under this video I met this angry man Vents his dislike of religion.

Mike Lloyd
The very idea of a “state religion” is utter nonsense. Religion should be a matter for the individual, should have NO part to play in public life, should not be allowed to influence people who do not share it and should not have any sort of protected status. No-one has ever been able to demonstrate the existence of any one of the thousands of “gods” invented by mankind. The only “proof” ever offered is some “holy book” or other which was written to prove the existence of the particular god(s) it is about. May as well use Ian Fleming’s work to “prove” James Bond was a real person. Religion should not have any protected status and nor should any of its followers. I am sick of hearing about this or that phobia or anti-something. I do not believe in the existence of any “god” therefore I should not have to tiptoe around those who do in case it “offends” them. Indeed, it seems perfectly OK to offend me by stupid references to what “god” wants, or thinks. The state should not endorse any religion, and it should be taught in schools only as part of history. All this “my imaginary friend is better than your imaginary friend” rubbish has held us back and is still holding us back. I am offended by forms that refer to my “Christian” name. I am not a Christian. I am tired of this obsession with a dead Jewish carpenter.

Steve Trueblue
@Mike Lloyd You forget we all carry natural religious tendencies in our DNA. How do we know this ? because there has never been an atheist society in the history of man. You cant name one. Archaeologists have never discovered one, say, in Nat Geo. Oh wouldn’t that be trumpeted ! Well its never happened. Our physical brains and nervous systems are made to do religious activities such as meditation and prayer. And the state takes advantage of our natural religious tendencies physically installed in us. Can you blame them ?

Mike Lloyd
14 hours ago Loudly objecting “We know very little” means himself
@Steve Trueblue I am not at all sure that this is true. We know very little about early societies and some left no written records (the Aztecs or Incas, I can never remember which) didn’t use writing anyway. We just have no knowledge of what they thought or believed. I would also point out that archaeologists are far too inclined to attribute anything they find to some possibly spurious religious use – buildings they cannot identify are “probably temples” and statues “gods” whereas the truth may be quite otherwise. Our statues are mainly to commemorate famous persons who achieved something. No-one knows if ancient statues had the same purpose; we cannot dismiss them all as religious objects without evidence. Then you have to look at religion itself. Originally it was an explanation to simple folk of natural phenomena which they had not the brains or knowledge to explain otherwise. God of the gaps argument LOL A flood was “because the gods are angry”. It was then hijacked to keep the rulers in places of power – “I am king because the gods appointed me” with no evidence at all. Even today some fools treat Liz Windsor almost as if she were some religious object. But then you have to look at what happens with each succeeding generation. They are taught some religion or other from the earliest age. When you go to school they teach you all manner of things that are demonstrably true, so when they fill your head with all this crap about god and Jesus and virgin births (and what child even knows what a virgin actually is?) the young child believes it. It is not that many centuries ago too that the law demanded everyone go to church or be fined! (Never happened) Just imagine a society in which we do not indoctrinate the young with all this garbage while they are at school, so their minds are not full of nonsense. Then when they are adults with power of reasoning, someone tells them all about god and the dead Jewish carpenter. Who in their right mind would believe a word of it? Let us not forget also the huge numbers of “gods” and religious objects in the history of the world. Their followers cannot all be right, but they can all be wrong. This is not the place to go into all the contradictions and illogical nonsense in holy books, but it is my belief not that we are somehow programmed to be religious, but rather that we are brainwashed into it from very early age. Teaching religion – any religion – in schools should not be allowed, then we would find out just how religious people really are. Indeed, even with teaching it most people don’t really believe or follow it nowadays. They may call themselves “Christian” or “C of E” on documents, etc., but almost all of them are no such thing. It just doesn’t do to be seen not to be religious for some people.

Steve Trueblue
12 hours ago (edited) Trying to get the angry person to define himself
@Mike Lloyd Nice piece there, but more knowledge is available to improve your understanding. There is physical evidence for the existence of Mr G. that repeats as long as you need it, until you are convinced. Seriously. And oddly that is NOT a religious process. And peoples brains and nervous systems are physically made to do religious activities such as meditation and prayer.And much more.So “mindless” evolution did that. If that’s your metaphor. Evolution produces mostly theistic people. Atheists are a very small minority. How very odd. Even in medieval times people complained nobody went to church. That didnt stop them being naturally religious. God of the gaps is a tired old argument that ancient people knew almost nothing, so they invented Gods with different Gods to account for the stuff they couldn’t figure out. One big defect there, is we moderns forget that all of our “intelligence” today is inherited from our ancient ancestors. And you do string together a logical proposition built on observations and impressions. So far so good. But Caution. Your logical analysis leading to a conclusion generally fails, because it includes a fatal flaw. Namely that logical deduction only works if all your assumptions at the begin are correct. And the major flaw-mistake made by most is that you don’t know what YOU are to start with. So that discolours and disqualifies and derails all of your intermediate conclusions, thus ruining your final conclusion. So don’t forget there is repeatable physical evidence of the existence of a much greater intelligence. And it has nothing to do with pointy buildings and holy books. So to verify your logic you must answer the question What are you?

Mike Lloyd
11 hours ago He responds with some praiseworthy curiosity so I got that right !
@Steve Trueblue So where exactly is this evidence that you claim? So far no-one appears to have found it. While our intelligence may be inherited from ancient ancestors, we have (obviously!) built on and developed it. Imagine cave-men faced with a computer….. What on earth do you mean by telling me that I don’t know what I am? I am fairly confident that I am a white heterosexual male human being. All the evidence to date indicates that to be the case, whereas your CLAIM that there is repeatable evidence of a “much greater intelligence” is not backed up by that evidence. In any case – greater than what? The intelligence of an Einstein, or an aboriginal hunter? You cannot claim the existence of a “god” based on the flawed proposition that I or anyone else does not know “what I am”. The only “evidence” for the existence of any god or gods is holy books written to prove the existence of god or gods. Hence you get a circular argument.

Well he fell into the trap LOL

Steve Trueblue
11 hours ago
@Mike Lloyd You are wrong on nearly every count there, though, its not your fault. I’ll just point out your phrase, that reveals you have no idea what you are. This is wonderfully funny, you may very well laugh with me.. Meaning of the phrase “Human being” Its NOT a biological classification at the top of the evolutionary tree. Have you ever noticed when its spoken out loud, its often said in a noticeably hushed tone ? A tone of reverence. Wonder why ? Well, Hu is an ancient name for God. The phrase “Hu-man being” was coined in about 1000BC by a Greek-speaking Egyptian priest Hermes Trismegistus. It acknowledges that we all contain a divine spark. Every man is a God man. A Gnostic man. I’m sure you know the words theist atheist agnostic (meaning don’t know) but disappointingly most people don’t know the obvious 4th word Gnostic. A person who knows by personal experience. One can obtain physical evidence of this quite quickly. In about 20 minutes. Now, Mike do you still wanna be “hu-man” now you know, what it means ? Or would you rather reclassify yourself to stay safe ?

HU was widely known as the creator in ancient times. Its all over google

Mike Lloyd finds this hard to get his head around

Steve Trueblue What a lot of unconvincing semantics – “hu is an ancient name for god” then you lose the plot by referring to an Egyptian. The Egyptians had a whole pantheon of gods including their rulers and invented creatures which never existed. I personally have never noticed that the phrase “human being” is spoken in a hushed tone – indeed, frequently quite the opposite. ( So its a contemptuous term to him he says being an angry contrarian) Fascinating that an ancient Egyptian managed to combine an invented name for a god with “man” a word from Old English with a derivation that is Germanic. What a clever chap he was – or was he? In any event, what on earth is a “God man”? I know what I am, and I know there is no evidence for the existence of any god or gods; if there had been, it would have been presented to us by now – why not? With TBH I was doing just that and he pointedly pretended to not notice. So he is dishonest and NOT an evidence based thinker — learning-disabled, a pseudoskeptic, terrified of personal experience. Pskeps always are. I made 200 videos about his kind.

And “Hu” survives to this very day in the phrase Hu-man being. Which nobody knows the meaning of but often speak of it, in a hushed reverent tone, I have noticed. The phrase “human being” often functions as a circuit breaker resetting the conversation. And of course today we have Human Rights which attract reverence. So Mike may not reply anymore that’s the most likely outcome. He pointedly went silent on the physical proof in TBH that I put to him because he doesnt want to know. Which is his prerogative. And he fixated on his own Oxford dictionary defining the word Human as Germanic in origin. But Oxford D online says its LATIN the ancient Roman language and the Romans occupied Egypt for 600 yrs. So they may have had occasional conversations.

To his belligerent question In any event, what on earth is a “God man”? I discovered, in a little breakthrough even this angry man could be convinced via semantics.

In the US bible belt online there are three well worn terms so ingrained via overwhelming group-think that NON understanding of connected words is a serious defect. In this paired series of opposites, the first well known terms are Atheist Theist and Agnostic. The 3rd word simply means Not Knowing. Don’t know. Don’t have an opinion. The fourth neglected word in that series is Gnostic. Simply meaning the opposite. Someone who knows. Yet 99 % of people present a blank face to that word. They also type that blank face online. Wassat ? What de hell is that ? They are either nonplussed or angry.
The fourth neglected word in the series after Atheist Theist Agnostic is Gnostic the opposite. Intensive Group-think non-plusses most everybody. Blanking millions of minds The small caveat is Gnosis is achieved via personal experience and augments the lives of both secular and religious people alike. Proving its completely natural. A bonus for Holy Book readers is that their misunderstandings will be corrected.

Amazingly this religion hating angry pseudoskeptic Mike immediately said that he had no problem with understanding that word at all. A useful discovery for advancing Lay Gnosis Yabadabbabdooooo. The semantic explanation WOW

About the Author

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may also like these

Social Media Auto Publish Powered By :