God is Reality

[Lauda]

This statement is just wrong. You can't call something reality without being able to prove it.

You can't say that Ironman is reality since there is no proof, and until you prove it isn't reality.
Isn't the same with God being reality? You can't say that.

[BADecker]

The ignorance grows strong in this one.
Never make a self moderated thread about such a topic. I'm not an atheist but God is not a reality, and that's the reality.

This statement is just wrong. You can't call something reality without being able to prove it.

Until proven guilty you're innocent.
You can't say that Ironman is reality since there is no proof, and until you prove it isn't reality.

Tell that to the cops who beat Rodney King, and many, many others for no reason. Google "police brutality" and see the millions upon millions of hits. Or thoroughly peruse this one simple site: http://www.copblock.org/.



EDIT: Sorry, you didn't edit fast enough.

[bl4kjaguar]

Thanks for the extra links! I like this basic stuff; it is right up the alley of the people in this thread.  

I also wanted to mention Patrick's site since it is also relevant (for more advanced students):

https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/WethePeople_Shareholders/

Also, make sure you are using the right dictionary (better to use more than one)!

https://archive.org/details/cu31924022836534

I don't want to detract from your message, so thanks again for pointing us all in the right direction!!

The way out of taxes?

Start listening to the audios. This is real basic stuff, like Judge Judy, without her interference in her own court.

[blumangroup]

If god is reality and man can't explain existence, then how come everything we've been able to explain so far has made sense and works with other explained laws?

[bl4kjaguar]

how come everything we've been able to explain so far has made sense and works with other explained laws?

Explain this:

Roberts' Seth books are all readily available for anyone to study and attempt to explain
and the Seth phenomenon and its content are in the domain of world experience -- but far
beyond explanation. I am inclined to take a cautious position approaching expansive
phenomena of this type, merely wanting to emphasize that we can and should no longer
wish them away. As with psychiatric systems, any world view may have its own limits of
relevance. Ours is now being challenged (Beahrs, 1982, p. 172).

http://www.rivier.edu/faculty/pcunningham/Research/Problem_of_Seths_Origin.pdf

[BADecker]

how come everything we've been able to explain so far has made sense and works with other explained laws?

Explain this:

Roberts' Seth books are all readily available for anyone to study and attempt to explain
and the Seth phenomenon and its content are in the domain of world experience -- but far
beyond explanation. I am inclined to take a cautious position approaching expansive
phenomena of this type, merely wanting to emphasize that we can and should no longer
wish them away. As with psychiatric systems, any world view may have its own limits of
relevance. Ours is now being challenged (Beahrs, 1982, p. 172).

http://www.rivier.edu/faculty/pcunningham/Research/Problem_of_Seths_Origin.pdf

God makes sense. If people would fill themselves up on the Bible, with the idea that they were going to prove it rather than disprove it, they would understand what God is really all about, why He made us, what His glory is, and when and how He is going to praise us.

[Lauda]

Tell that to the cops who beat Rodney King, and many, many others for no reason. Google "police brutality" and see the millions upon millions of hits. Or thoroughly peruse this one simple site: http://www.copblock.org/.



EDIT: Sorry, you didn't edit fast enough.

Yeah you got me too quickly. I edited out that nonsense when my brain kicked up a notch, sorry it was already late and I'm tired.
I've realized that 'until proven guilty you're innocent' is just written on paper, in reality it's worth nothing.

[BADecker]

Tell that to the cops who beat Rodney King, and many, many others for no reason. Google "police brutality" and see the millions upon millions of hits. Or thoroughly peruse this one simple site: http://www.copblock.org/.



EDIT: Sorry, you didn't edit fast enough.

Yeah you got me too quickly. I edited out that nonsense when my brain kicked up a notch, sorry it was already late and I'm tired.
I've realized that 'until proven guilty you're innocent' is just written on paper, in reality it's worth nothing.

I posted this elsewhere, I don't remember where. But if you want to see a bunch of investors applaud the speech of an attorney, watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jUow1DhAubA. Attorney Marc Victor is excellent, in this video, and as an attorney.

[freehugs]

I think there is very little evidence that god is "real" however there is some evidence to support this. There is also a lot of evidence to suggest that god is not the creator of the universe.

In theory god even could have created the events that scientists say "created" or "started" the universe. In reality there is no real way to know with 100% certainty if god is real or not. You must use faith to believe what you think is right and will not find out until after you die.

[BADecker]

Thanks for the extra links! I like this basic stuff; it is right up the alley of the people in this thread.  

I also wanted to mention Patrick's site since it is also relevant (for more advanced students):

https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/WethePeople_Shareholders/

Also, make sure you are using the right dictionary (better to use more than one)!

https://archive.org/details/cu31924022836534

I don't want to detract from your message, so thanks again for pointing us all in the right direction!!

The way out of taxes?

Start listening to the audios. This is real basic stuff, like Judge Judy, without her interference in her own court.

Let me say one basic thing about Karl's method. It is so basic that he essentially doesn't formally, officially use codes and court cases.

The codes are their codes. So, while Karl uses them to remind them that they need to abide by their codes (uses them in [] square brackets or in boxes, so he doesn't officially use them), that's all he uses them.

Karl's method is based on one person trespassing against another person's property. That's it. Karl doesn't use attorneys. He doesn't go against them either, or against corporations. Karl does it man to man, in the courts. Common law is basic law, and it explains how man is above the corporations, how the corporations can't harm or trespass against man.

Basically, only Canada (except Quebec), the U.S. (except Louisiana), the U.K., and whatever territories and protectorates they have, are under this kind of common law. It's powerful.

[BADecker]

I think there is very little evidence that god is "real" however there is some evidence to support this. There is also a lot of evidence to suggest that god is not the creator of the universe.

In theory god even could have created the events that scientists say "created" or "started" the universe. In reality there is no real way to know with 100% certainty if god is real or not. You must use faith to believe what you think is right and will not find out until after you die.

Scientists don't really have a clue, scientifically, about what happened on earth beyond about 4,500 years ago. Why not? The cataclysm that was Noah's Flood happened about then. It wiped out archaeological events that happened prior to that time. It changed enough of the way things work on earth that even C-14 carbon dating is probably way off. The whole energy structure on earth might be different than it was back then.

Take a look at the Bosnia Pyramids: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t5PlEJ0B5O4 and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=64150xWWhZE and many more places. We are finding out what Atlantis was before the Great Flood destroyed it. A lot of "history" will have to be rewritten.

[bl4kjaguar]

Karl's method is based on one person trespassing against another person's property. That's it.

Do you know how the orders are paid out?
I see orders for large sums but
it is hard to believe that Karl, et. al. are receiving cash (as you allude).
Any thoughts on this?

[dank]

Lauda, reality is not objectuve, it is completely subjective to our perceptions.  If you perceive it, it is real.

[BADecker]

Karl's method is based on one person trespassing against another person's property. That's it.

Do you know how the orders are paid out?
I see orders for large sums but
it is hard to believe that Karl, et. al. are receiving cash (as you allude).
Any thoughts on this?

It depends on the kind of order. Karl's big money was not payed out because the judge messed with his paperwork, and unlawfully converted it (with the help of the court clerk) into something different than what Karl had placed into the courts. In other words, they edited his paperwork, thereby taking him out of the common law side of court, and placing him into civil law.

There are a dozen ways Karl can come back on this. I don't really know what he has in mind, but I am guessing that he will come back on the judge, man to man, for harming him.

It seems that there are loads of people all over the place, who are using what Karl teaches to get various kinds of settlements. The proof that settlements like this are happening (without Karl) can be seen in Judge Judy. Or, simply look at all the court cases around the world where there is a claim filed, one person against another. Usually somebody wins, and it isn't always the one making the claim.

This is basic law stuff. The ONE MAIN DIFFERENCE is that Karl is using common law direct, the way that it should be used. It used to be this way back in the late 1700s and early 1800s. But, over time, the attorneys and judges wiggled their way into taking control, so they could make money. Karl is simply taking the attorneys out of the picture, and using the law to limit the judges to simply judging the cases based on the facts.

Probably the biggest area of success that Karl has had is, helping parents to get their kids back from CPS (Child Protective Services). The kid is whose property? Prove it! Who has a vested interest in the property (the child). Return my property to me.

Take the time. Watch the videos. Listen to the audios.

[BADecker]

Lauda, reality is not objectuve, it is completely subjective to our perceptions.  If you perceive it, it is real.

Reality changes with your perception? For example, it didn't hurt last time, so no problem. But it hurts this time, so it is now bad. (A bad drug trip)

[Nik1ab]

This statement is just wrong. You can't call something reality without being able to prove it.

You can't say that Ironman is reality since there is no proof, and until you prove it isn't reality.
Isn't the same with God being reality? You can't say that.

Religion doesn't work that way, since you can neither prove nor disprove god.

[nakazznicek]

Scientists don't really have a clue, scientifically, about what happened on earth beyond about 4,500 years ago.

Can you provide any information that supports you?
As fas as i can remember i saw, heard and read pretty much scientific news dating their findings more than 4,5k years...

[BADecker]

Scientists don't really have a clue, scientifically, about what happened on earth beyond about 4,500 years ago.

Can you provide any information that supports you?
As fas as i can remember i saw, heard and read pretty much scientific news dating their findings more than 4,5k years...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth

This Wikipedia article says two basic things.
1. The earth IS so old...
2. We base our findings on radiometric age dating.

Then when you look up "radiometric age dating," you will find out how the dating is done. It is very interesting. It leads you to believe that "they" know what they are talking about. Yet the article is full of suppositions, "if's," that show you that the whole thing is complete guesswork. For example, "... the heavy parent isotopes were produced by nucleosynthesis in supernovas... ." Now, who in the world has ever been out to a supernova to analyze that this is what happened, and that this is how it works? It's a good story. But it is entirely guesswork. There is probably some scientist who has found out that this could not work like this, but his paper on it has been "lost" by the universities that would rather control their "stories" for their own financial benefit rather then the truth, that they don't really know. There are lots of statements like this throughout the article.

What it is, is, a science fiction story that has been built up over a long time, and does seem to have some good evidence behind it.

The most solid dating goes back to where the most ancient city ruins are the ones that are sitting on the base sub-strata, where there is nothing below them. These cities have pottery in them that can be shown by comparisons with pottery in later cities, right up to the present, that the age of the oldest cities is right around 4,500 years old.

This is a whole field of endeavor, with much competition between researchers. It is very interesting, but it is also a many-years study. It includes a form of forensics that separates the "if" people from the "fact" finders.

I read science fiction, too, once in awhile. But I don't cross the fiction with what is know as fact if I can help it.

[nakazznicek]

Scientists don't really have a clue, scientifically, about what happened on earth beyond about 4,500 years ago.

Can you provide any information that supports you?
As fas as i can remember i saw, heard and read pretty much scientific news dating their findings more than 4,5k years...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth

This Wikipedia article says two basic things.
1. The earth IS so old...
2. We base our findings on radiometric age dating.

Then when you look up "radiometric age dating," you will find out how the dating is done. It is very interesting. It leads you to believe that "they" know what they are talking about. Yet the article is full of suppositions, "if's," that show you that the whole thing is complete guesswork. For example, "... the heavy parent isotopes were produced by nucleosynthesis in supernovas... ." Now, who in the world has ever been out to a supernova to analyze that this is what happened, and that this is how it works? It's a good story. But it is entirely guesswork. There is probably some scientist who has found out that this could not work like this, but his paper on it has been "lost" by the universities that would rather control their "stories" for their own financial benefit rather then the truth, that they don't really know. There are lots of statements like this throughout the article.

What it is, is, a science fiction story that has been built up over a long time, and does seem to have some good evidence behind it.

The most solid dating goes back to where the most ancient city ruins are the ones that are sitting on the base sub-strata, where there is nothing below them. These cities have pottery in them that can be shown by comparisons with pottery in later cities, right up to the present, that the age of the oldest cities is right around 4,500 years old.

This is a whole field of endeavor, with much competition between researchers. It is very interesting, but it is also a many-years study. It includes a form of forensics that separates the "if" people from the "fact" finders.

I read science fiction, too, once in awhile. But I don't cross the fiction with what is know as fact if I can help it.

So you are directing me where it says Earth is old 4.5 billion years, there are pyramids older than yours 4.5k years, and many heritage is older than 4.5 thousand years. I don't get your point there. And if you don't understand how are supernovas and other stars studied in the long distance, parsecs would fit the best, and then you state "who in the world has ever been out to a supernova to analyze that this is what happened, and that this is how it works" I simply have no choice than let you be useful and do some research how it's made, pretty interesting stuf.

Also: Stonehenge, Gobekli Tepe

[BADecker]

Scientists don't really have a clue, scientifically, about what happened on earth beyond about 4,500 years ago.

Can you provide any information that supports you?
As fas as i can remember i saw, heard and read pretty much scientific news dating their findings more than 4,5k years...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth

This Wikipedia article says two basic things.
1. The earth IS so old...
2. We base our findings on radiometric age dating.

Then when you look up "radiometric age dating," you will find out how the dating is done. It is very interesting. It leads you to believe that "they" know what they are talking about. Yet the article is full of suppositions, "if's," that show you that the whole thing is complete guesswork. For example, "... the heavy parent isotopes were produced by nucleosynthesis in supernovas... ." Now, who in the world has ever been out to a supernova to analyze that this is what happened, and that this is how it works? It's a good story. But it is entirely guesswork. There is probably some scientist who has found out that this could not work like this, but his paper on it has been "lost" by the universities that would rather control their "stories" for their own financial benefit rather then the truth, that they don't really know. There are lots of statements like this throughout the article.

What it is, is, a science fiction story that has been built up over a long time, and does seem to have some good evidence behind it.

The most solid dating goes back to where the most ancient city ruins are the ones that are sitting on the base sub-strata, where there is nothing below them. These cities have pottery in them that can be shown by comparisons with pottery in later cities, right up to the present, that the age of the oldest cities is right around 4,500 years old.

This is a whole field of endeavor, with much competition between researchers. It is very interesting, but it is also a many-years study. It includes a form of forensics that separates the "if" people from the "fact" finders.

I read science fiction, too, once in awhile. But I don't cross the fiction with what is know as fact if I can help it.

So you are directing me where it says Earth is old 4.5 billion years, there are pyramids older than yours 4.5k years, and many heritage is older than 4.5 thousand years. I don't get your point there. And if you don't understand how are supernovas and other stars studied in the long distance, parsecs would fit the best, and then you state "who in the world has ever been out to a supernova to analyze that this is what happened, and that this is how it works" I simply have no choice than let you be useful and do some research how it's made, pretty interesting stuf.

Also: Stonehenge, Gobekli Tepe

Sorry for being unclear. The point that I was trying to make is that ALL dating beyond 4,500 years ago, or so, is base on "if" one way or another. "If" isn't fact. "If" is guesswork.