I am a member of an Elite Family who you despise...ask me a question

No it has not been “amply refuted” above

I have high respect for uneducated people (any people) if they know the limits of their competence.

Such are often people of good character with qualities that would make me unworthy to wash their feet.

Are you going to be any shame or guilt when children are starving to death because the 13 families ...
Have you located all 10,000 Christed beings yet? The ones who are here to deal with the likes of you

Resorting to insults is childish and immature,

you merely create false forced reality and tell people to go back to sleep and not seek the truth.[what ?
An intelligent reader would wonder who he is talking about ?]
...
no need to pursue the other futile comments..
...

all what you did was tricking people
...
using “educated” words to keep people dizzy...
all your other posts were waffle to make people confused using idioms and pompous attitude.
...the useless shit you typed

Resorting to insults is childish and immature

...the useless shit you typed

Many have been "anointed".

For the obtuse in short:

Typos are no indicators for a lack of education, but this is:


Those would have only been typos, not examples of a systematic ignorance of correct spelling.

this thread has either been hacked or altered by an Admin,

i will post the PDF containing most of the questions and the answers Insider gave.

[link to www.4shared.com]



a timely discovery ., thank you



An observation regarding his spelling errors. Asks an astute observer (page 16/17 in the script):


Q:
"And why do you misspell simple words such as 'malicious' ? I find that very intersting"

A:
"English is not my native language"


Given the many irrelevant questions he did not answer, he seems to feel the need to maintain the myth of his being an extremely educated person (as a bloodline-member would expeted to be).

Note, however, that the kind of misspelling he keeps repeating is

untypical of non-natives of the English language

and

highly typical of English native speakers.

For instance writing

"to" when it should be "too"

"their" when it should be "there"

and so on. This is indicative of a person who has primarily internalized English acustically and not visually and accompanied by reading - as non-natives would naturally study it.

For non-natives, these words stick out as very different from each other because they learn them accompanied with meaning and their scriptural appearance in conjunction with their phonetic value, and not years and years later to it.

I myself - as non-native to English - felt I could immediately pick out that the author must indeed be a native speaker of English - in contradiction to what he says.

Moreover, regardless of whether he is native to English or not, his spelling errors would hardly be so habitually committed by one as highly trained as a bloodline-member would be.

______________

Moreover, it seems his critique of religion, as much as it also says some truths, is a demonstration of a very superficial and uneducated approach to religion. He is unaware, for instance, that being christian does not imply the veneration of a human (even if you worship Jesus), nor does it even require viewing the historical person of Jesus as the object of veneration.

Glorious counter-example:

I highly recommend these three books by the contemporary catholic mystic Bernadette Roberts:

[link to www.amazon.com]

[link to www.amazon.com]

[link to www.amazon.com]

This stuff is even better than Meister Eckhart (and that means a lot).

Roberts openly admits that she was always intimately devoted to the Christ while having not too much to do with Jesus, and this is nothing revolutionary even within catholicism.

So why does "Insider" not know such basics and suggests a type of christianity exclusively prevalent in fundamentalist protestant USA ?

Then he goes on to suggest that the real Christ was another person in history, not Jesus, thus demonstrating his ignorance that "Christ" is not even considered a historical person in orthodox christianity, but a time transcending principle. No mystical christian with any profundity would assume that "Christ" would still mean "Jesus" other that the latter being a endearing reminder for the otherwise unimaginable "Christ".

Regarding a more esoteric, gnostic interpretation of what the "Christos" means regarding each of us, namely the connection to the light of our higher being beyond the psyche and the web of interconnection in light's regions,

and regarding a more detailed version of whatever truth "Insider" was speaking esoterically, I would like to recommend a pretty unknown master of the modern gnosis Ralph DeBit "Vitvan" who died in 1964, I believe:

[link to www.sno.org]

Sources such as this one and a few others would, BTW, be completely sufficient to create an air of superior knowledge if one were to play an impostor in a thread like this one and would expect no readers with much of an education or knowledge.

Note also that "Insider" simply assumes that to gain recognition must be any celebrity's motivation to be one, such as the Dalai Lama or Mahatma Gandhi. I find that to be a highly idiotic assumption, and one that often inverts and confuses cause and effect,

regardless of all the critical remarks that must be made regarding these two persons (and I particularly know a thing or two about the Tibetan scence after having interacted with high lamas for years), but I certainly do not believe that gaining recognition for himself is the Dalai Lama's motivation at all.

____________

Generally I do not understand why "Insider" suggests that the core truth of religions is so deeply buried in them among all the garbage that we can hardly find it.

I think a decade or two of comparative study, yoga and meditation will bring anyone with any intelligence left quickly to the core of all that without fail.

It is true, however, that the childlike intuition of the simplicity of it will be regularly obscured by dogmatic religions rather than revealed. And that only through profound contemplative, practical and logical (rather than literalistic, concept-attached) study will one usually find one's way back out of dogma to that childlike clarity of what it's all about -

but then in a more humorous and mature way. Religions can then be humorously and lovingly appreciated and criticized rather than seen as deliberate deception the way "Insider" puts it.

As the example of Bernadette Robert shows, this, however, can even be achieved by never being exposed to anything else than one religion (catholicism in her case), by simply practicing its profound aspect rather than attaching to its superficial dogma.

Had "Insider" pointed out this simple truth, he would have been more convincing to me, but he probably wouldn't have caught anyone's attention since it is almost a truism.

___________

So folks: relax and forget about any riddles regarding the truth or supposed historical frauds or supposed secrets of bloodlines or supposed wrongness of religion. It is out in the open, with or without religion.

Read Bernadette Roberts or Meister Eckhart or Eckhart Tolle or Ramana Maharshi or Ajahn Chah and the Sermon on the Mount and the Gospel of Thomas or Douglas Harding ... it almost doesn't matter.

But (and here I concur with Insider) practice it yourself.

And regard Insiders and Outsiders humorously and with kindness.

So folks: relax and forget about any riddles regarding the truth or supposed historical frauds or supposed secrets of bloodlines or supposed wrongness of religion. It is out in the open, with or without religion.

Read Bernadette Roberts or Meister Eckhart or Eckhart Tolle or Ramana Maharshi or Ajahn Chah and the Sermon on the Mount and the Gospel of Thomas or Douglas Harding ... it almost doesn't matter.


For instance, consider the biography depicted in this video

[link to www.godlikeproductions.com]

If someone like "Insider" denigrates this man as a fake or considers his message as diluted or mixed with garbage in any way or as being informed and installed by bloodlines

then he can hardly be taken seriously.

If someone like "Insider" concedes that this man is an example of what "Insider" concedes possible: the Divine expressing itself in a human being far beyond the grasps of "bloodline" families, then why waste time with the cryptic allusions by people from the bloodlines ?

In either case, it should be clear how to decide wisely.

Then he goes on to suggest that the real Christ was another [one and only in his view] person in history, not Jesus

being christian does not imply the veneration of a human (even if you worship Jesus), nor does it even require viewing the historical person of Jesus as the object of veneration.

Glorious counter-example:

I highly recommend these three books by the contemporary catholic mystic Bernadette Roberts:

[link to www.amazon.com]

[link to www.amazon.com]

[link to www.amazon.com]

This stuff is even better than Meister Eckhart (and that means a lot).

Roberts openly admits that she was always intimately devoted to the Christ while having not too much to do with Jesus, and this is nothing revolutionary even within catholicism.

Thought cannot fathom that. It cannot even know what "the body" is.

Thought cannot fathom that. It cannot even know what "the body" is.

"To be" is far more inclusive than a statement of identity.