Talk:Asket's Explanations - Part 8 - Revision history

Jamesm: Comment provided by Jamesm - via ArticleComments extension

2010-12-31T15:20:04Z

Comment provided by Jamesm - via ArticleComments extension

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:20, 31 December 2010
Line 49:		Line 49:

	--[[User:Jamesm\|Jamesm]] 15:15, 31 December 2010 (UTC)		--[[User:Jamesm\|Jamesm]] 15:15, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
			</div>
			== Jamesm said ... ==

			<div class='commentBlock'>
			Kkeschoi, you have a good point however I suppose that the Plejaren could have done many other things to convince everyone of everything but there are important reasons for not doing so. Irrefutable evidence could be interpreted as interference in the evolution of an underdeveloped world which is supposed to be against one of the laws of Creation. We could call it the law of non-interference I suppose. Telepathic impulses are more subtle and can be rejected easily by the recipients if they so desired.

			--[[User:Jamesm\|Jamesm]] 15:20, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
	</div>		</div>

Jamesm: Comment provided by Jamesm - via ArticleComments extension

2010-12-31T15:15:14Z

Comment provided by Jamesm - via ArticleComments extension

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:15, 31 December 2010
Line 42:		Line 42:

	--[[User:Milind Bokil\|Milind Bokil]] 12:41, 31 December 2010 (UTC)		--[[User:Milind Bokil\|Milind Bokil]] 12:41, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
			</div>
			== Jamesm said ... ==

			<div class='commentBlock'>
			Milind thanks for your thoughts. I appreciate them. I wish I could provide deeper insights myself but I'm truly a beginner in the learning about the spirit teaching according to Meier.

			--[[User:Jamesm\|Jamesm]] 15:15, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
	</div>		</div>

Milind Bokil: Comment provided by Milind Bokil - via ArticleComments extension

2010-12-31T12:41:03Z

Comment provided by Milind Bokil - via ArticleComments extension

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:41, 31 December 2010
Line 28:		Line 28:

	--[[User:Jamesm\|Jamesm]] 19:19, 30 December 2010 (UTC)		--[[User:Jamesm\|Jamesm]] 19:19, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
			</div>
			== Milind Bokil said ... ==

			<div class='commentBlock'>
			Hi James no offence….

			Ideally, I believe that we can’t name HIM as he is inconceivable to a normal human being. What I meant was that both the “spoon” and the “Fork” are made of same essence. You name them differently based on your different perceptions of it. But the “essence” is beyond the definition of “spoon” and “Fork”. It is just that “All IS”.

			Further the link God, also sates the following “One thing led to another and soon the original meaning of the word "God" was forgotten” so you see that the word “GOD” was never meant to be a title to human being.

			I believe that the highest conceivable “TRUTH” by a highly (spiritually) evolved being may be close to understanding GOD.


			--[[User:Milind Bokil\|Milind Bokil]] 12:41, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
	</div>		</div>

Jamesm: /* Jamesm said ... */

2010-12-30T19:20:14Z

Jamesm said ...

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:20, 30 December 2010
Line 25:		Line 25:
	Hi Milind,		Hi Milind,

	Well no because the term "God" is supposed to be a very old term that has a completely different meaning. Its a title for a human being. See [[God]]. If you call Creation "God" instead of "Creation" then you might as well call spoon a fork too~~. If~~ you get my meaning.		Well no because the term "God" is supposed to be a very old term that has a completely different meaning. Its a title for a human being. See the page [[God]]. If you call Creation "God" instead of "Creation" then you might as well call a "spoon" a "fork" too, if you get my meaning.

	--[[User:Jamesm\|Jamesm]] 19:19, 30 December 2010 (UTC)		--[[User:Jamesm\|Jamesm]] 19:19, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
	</div>		</div>

Jamesm: Comment provided by Jamesm - via ArticleComments extension

2010-12-30T19:19:00Z

Comment provided by Jamesm - via ArticleComments extension

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:19, 30 December 2010
Line 19:		Line 19:

	--[[User:Milind Bokil\|Milind Bokil]] 07:23, 30 December 2010 (UTC)		--[[User:Milind Bokil\|Milind Bokil]] 07:23, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
			</div>
			== Jamesm said ... ==

			<div class='commentBlock'>
			Hi Milind,

			Well no because the term "God" is supposed to be a very old term that has a completely different meaning. Its a title for a human being. See [[God]]. If you call Creation "God" instead of "Creation" then you might as well call spoon a fork too. If you get my meaning.

			--[[User:Jamesm\|Jamesm]] 19:19, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
	</div>		</div>

Milind Bokil: Comment provided by Milind Bokil - via ArticleComments extension

2010-12-30T07:23:58Z

Comment provided by Milind Bokil - via ArticleComments extension

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:23, 30 December 2010
Line 6:		Line 6:

	--[[User:Kkeschoi\|Kkeschoi]] 14:14, 16 November 2010 (UTC)		--[[User:Kkeschoi\|Kkeschoi]] 14:14, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
			</div>
			== Milind Bokil said ... ==

			<div class='commentBlock'>
			221. God was never put on a level with Creation by me, because God is a creature of Creation as are you and I and every other human.

			My question

			Can we not name creation as "God" ? Isn’t “creation” conscious about itself?



			--[[User:Milind Bokil\|Milind Bokil]] 07:23, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
	</div>		</div>

Kkeschoi: Comment provided by Kkeschoi - via ArticleComments extension

2010-11-16T14:14:45Z

Comment provided by Kkeschoi - via ArticleComments extension

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:14, 16 November 2010
Line 1:		Line 1:
	--[[User:Sanjin\|Sanjin]] 19:47, 31 October 2009 (UTC)A word about relegeon, it seems to me like the ending syllable "eon" points to the meaning of "An indefinitely long period of time", or evolution toward infinity. Is this where this word comes from?		--[[User:Sanjin\|Sanjin]] 19:47, 31 October 2009 (UTC)A word about relegeon, it seems to me like the ending syllable "eon" points to the meaning of "An indefinitely long period of time", or evolution toward infinity. Is this where this word comes from?
			== Kkeschoi said ... ==

			<div class='commentBlock'>
			why didn't Billy leave something writen about billy's life and hide it in the ground somewhere and then in the year 32, and then re-discover it our time, that would be amazing proof that can't be debunk, and he could do that when ever the ET take him back in time, which is very easy to do for them.

			--[[User:Kkeschoi\|Kkeschoi]] 14:14, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
			</div>

Sanjin: Created page with '--~~~~A word about relegeon, it seems to me like the ending syllable "eon" points to the meaning of "An indefinitely long period of time", or evolution toward infinity. Is this w...'

2009-10-31T19:47:06Z

Created page with '--~~~~A word about relegeon, it seems to me like the ending syllable "eon" points to the meaning of "An indefinitely long period of time", or evolution toward infinity. Is this w...'

New page

--[[User:Sanjin|Sanjin]] 19:47, 31 October 2009 (UTC)A word about relegeon, it seems to me like the ending syllable "eon" points to the meaning of "An indefinitely long period of time", or evolution toward infinity. Is this where this word comes from?