Guest guest Posted December 30, 2004 Report Share Posted December 30, 2004 Dear Alice, Until recently, I thought I could write whatever I thought might be a subject to learn from around this fire. I am somewhat intimidated at the moment , and not at all sure that still holds....and do not want to start a rush of whatever....unpleasantness.. I guess however, my interest will overshadow my fear of being trounced. This is my thinking, and it may be circular. We believe we can influence others ....we send healing energy, prayers, love, and actually believe the energy will transfer...at least you do, and I do. So now we have a huge calamity....100,000 thought to have died all told, far away on the other side of the world. Wouldn't it be logical to conclude, that the same dynamic which emits love and healing, can also cause natural acts to take place in some way I do not understand? The collective consciousness has power and energy. The collective unconscious likewise.Have we human used that energy to bring calamity on some of us....no not consciously, I think, but just as we assume some responsibility for our health of mind and body, and we say 'there are no coincident are we not left with collective responsibility for what happens on this earth? I don't think calling this " an act of G-d " is truthful. I think all of us together, through violent, negative thinking, depression, power, whatever, bring events into being. That of course, sounds as if we are blaming the victims, which I suppose we are...along with the rest of humanity.But we are all the victims in such an event. We are all One, I maintain, so..... I cannot see my way out of this? Either I believe we influence others,( when 2 or 3 are gathered together....) or we don't. If all the energy of ours on this earth were concentrated, could we not cause a tidal wave? Again, I don't see humanity as evil and therefore conspiring to kill 100,000 people. Not at all. But unconsciously, without awareness of where that negative energy could lead, could we or couldn't we? We have free will. There is no power that will stop us from using it to destroy ourselves or others, as we see everyday.... This is an unconscious act for all of us on this earth or......what? We have no influence over the lives of others for good or ill. And then, are only positive thoughts, prayers, energy sent...that is hard for me to believe. So if there are no coincident on this earth, and I cannot see blaming the All, the One for destroying his own creation,nor some kind of 'punishment " from an angry Being.I simply do not believe that according to my faith. I am curious if anyone else has gone down this trail as we watched in horror the destruction of so much. And if we consider ourselves (humanity) guilty for the wars we create, do we not have a responsibility here? If my thinking is off somewhere, I wish someone would set me straight. This weighs on my mind. We are One, and what happens in Asia affects me in America. love, Toni Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 30, 2004 Report Share Posted December 30, 2004 In a message dated 12/30/2004 10:00:55 AM Central Standard Time, omagramps410@... writes: >I don't think calling this " an act of G-d " is truthful. I think all of us together, through >violent, negative thinking, depression, power, whatever, bring events into being. _by Sara Yoheved Rigler_ (_http://www.aish.com/search/article_search_results.asp_ (http://www.aish.com/search/article_search_results.asp) ? A spiritual response to disaster. Born in 1948, I have never experienced a catastrophe as massive and sudden as the earthquake/tsunamis that, at last count, have killed more than 60,000 people. Living in Israel during the terror war of the last few years, I have unfortunately become accustomed to crying at the funerals of children. But to read of hundreds of children together being buried in mass graves staggers my mind and batters my heart. How should/can/does one respond to a tragedy this enormous? A young Israeli traveling in Thailand when the tsunami hit reported to his family that there was no panic among the local people. They are Buddhists, he explained, and believe in the Law of Karma. They accept their fate. The Law of Karma holds that nothing that occurs to human beings is random. Rather, a meticulous law of cause and effect, action and reaction, determines that, as Americans would say, “Whatever goes around, comes around.†Human actions create effects that, sooner or later, like the tsunami itself building up over time and distance, strike with shattering force. Certain elements of this idea are consistent with Judaism. Certainly, there is no randomness in the universe, and human conduct sets in motion spiritual forces which eventually manifest in physical effects, revolving back on human beings themselves. Judaism, however, differs from the Law of Karma in significant ways. First of all, the Law of Karma is strictly personal; an individual who steals will be stolen from, in this incarnation or the next or the next. The individual’s dishonesty will revolve back only on him/herself. It cannot cause others to suffer. Although there is a concept of group karma, here too the boomerang flies back to the hands that threw it; only the perpetrators become the victims. Judaism, on the other hand, credits human action with a much broader effect. A person stealing $100 in Tel Aviv lowers the moral fiber in Mexico City and could encourage massive embezzlement in Melbourne. Conversely, a person doing a mitzvah in Haifa may avert an auto accident in London or prevent complications during open-heart surgery in Los Angeles. The spiritual channels of effect run far below the surface, untraceable but powerful. Spiritual forces, like ocean waves, do not lose their power over distance. ABILITY TO CHANGE A second major difference is that karma is inexorable; a misdeed once committed is, as they say in India, like the tusks of an elephant. It can never be retracted. Judaism, on the contrary, teaches the concept of teshuva. Teshuva means that a person can regret and change his/her mode of conduct, and when s/he does, the past actions are spiritually erased. In fact, if one does teshuva from pure love of God, the subterranean channel, the river of fire, turns into a positive force, a river of sweet water. This is precisely what Judaism endorses as a response to disaster. The Talmud says that when one suffers, one should scrutinize one’s deeds, implying that teshuva for wrong conduct can change one’s fortune. And what if one is not directly affected, but only hears about a disaster that occurred in a distant place? The Talmud asserts that if a person even hears about a disaster such as an earthquake, one must relate to the tragedy by examining one’s own deeds. It is appropriate to respond to the present Hiroshima-scale disaster by contributing money to aid the relief effort, but physical action should not preclude a spiritual response as well. When you ask yourself, “What can I do? †here are some spiritual responses: 1. Allow yourself to mourn for the tragic loss of life. Do not emotionally distance yourself by burying your heart in the internet news. Feel the pain. 2. Recognize the fragility -- and therefore the preciousness -- of life. The people on the beaches of southeast Asia that day had no warning that this would be their final hour. Neither will we. Appreciate the preciousness of every hour. 3. Recognize the spiritual effect of every action you do -- not just on yourself but on the world. Petty lying, stealing, cheating, gossip, promiscuity, and exploitation set in motion waves of negativity. When many people engage in such actions, those waves can build up into tidal waves. 4. Change one action. Undertake to do a new mitzvah or eschew one kind of negative behavior. This is a better defensive measure than any early warning system. Maimonides asserts that one who fails to respond to suffering by doing teshuva is cruel. The implication is that we have it within our power to stop human suffering. How can we look at the pictures of bodies on the beaches -- each of whom is someone’s beloved relative -- and not be willing to undertake whatever we can to ward off the next calamity? In the wake of the catastrophe, CNN.com treated its readers to speculation by a noted seismologist that a volcano erupting in the Canary Islands could cause landslides that would send a tsunami hurtling across the Atlantic Ocean with enough force to destroy New York City. Judaism would add that such a scenario is not a matter of fate, nor of geological upheavals, nor of random forces. It is in our power, by the moral choices we make, to prevent the next disaster. Share your thoughts and feelings in the comment section below. This article can also be read at: (http://www.aish.com/societyWork/society/Reacting_to_the_Tsunami.asp) Author Biography: Sara Yoheved Rigler is a graduate of Brandeis University. Her spiritual journey took her to India and through fifteen years of teaching Vedanta philosophy and meditation. Since 1987, she has been practicing Torah Judaism. A writer, she resides in the Old City of Jerusalem with her husband and children. Her articles have appeared in: Jewish Women Speak about Jewish Matters, Chicken Soup for the Jewish Soul, and Heaven on Earth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 30, 2004 Report Share Posted December 30, 2004 Toni & All, I, too, have a very difficult time calling this tragedy an " act of G-d. " And I have also wondered if the collective negative energy (as well as positive, prayerful energy as well) of humankind might influence the natural world. (Actually, I am convinced that it does.) However, I think it is virtually impossible to place a definitive " causal factor " on a disaster of such immensity. It also weighs on me that such a disaster should befall people who already seem to have so little. But that's very " American " of me, isn't it? We have so much in material wealth yet our western culture is so impoverished in the " treasures of the heart. " ( A voice in my head keeps saying, " if this is some kind of punishment, why not US? " ) But I cannot bring myself to believe it is Divine punishment - - yet if Gaia is a living organism, she is suffering and she surely is angry and desperate for our attention. I also cannot help but think of all the apparitions of that have been occurring in the past century, and of her supposed " warnings " to humankind that great disasters will befall us if we do not turn to G-d. As you can see, my mind is a muddle as well. I do very much appreciate what Alice has said about the Transcendent Function, and I pray that her hopes for that kind of an outcome are fulfilled! We seem to be living in a time of great peril and of great possibility. For now, all I seem to be able to do is pray, do my own inner work with great fierceness, and send all the financial help that I can. (And of course, continue to struggle for some " answers. " ) Acts of God? > > Dear Alice, > > Until recently, I thought I could write whatever I thought might be a > subject to learn from around this fire. I am somewhat intimidated at the > moment , and not at all sure that still holds....and do not want to start > a rush of whatever....unpleasantness.. > > I guess however, my interest will overshadow my fear of being trounced. > > This is my thinking, and it may be circular. > > We believe we can influence others ....we send healing energy, prayers, > love, and actually believe the energy will transfer...at least you do, and > I do. > > So now we have a huge calamity....100,000 thought to have died all told, > far away on the other side of the world. > > Wouldn't it be logical to conclude, that the same dynamic which emits love > and healing, can also cause natural acts to take place in some way I do > not understand? > > The collective consciousness has power and energy. The collective > unconscious likewise.Have we human used that energy to bring calamity on > some of us....no not consciously, I think, but just as we assume some > responsibility for our health of mind and body, and we say 'there are no > coincident are we not left with collective responsibility for what happens > on this earth? > > I don't think calling this " an act of G-d " is truthful. I think all of us > together, through violent, negative thinking, depression, power, whatever, > bring events into being. > > That of course, sounds as if we are blaming the victims, which I suppose > we are...along with the rest of humanity.But we are all the victims in > such an event. We are all One, I maintain, so..... > > I cannot see my way out of this? Either I believe we influence others,( > when 2 or 3 are gathered together....) or we don't. If all the energy of > ours on this earth were concentrated, could we not cause a tidal wave? > Again, I don't see humanity as evil and therefore conspiring to kill > 100,000 people. Not at all. > > But unconsciously, without awareness of where that negative energy could > lead, could we or couldn't we? We have free will. There is no power that > will stop us from using it to destroy ourselves or others, as we see > everyday.... > This is an unconscious act for all of us on this earth or......what? We > have no influence over the lives of others for good or ill. And then, are > only positive thoughts, prayers, energy sent...that is hard for me to > believe. > > So if there are no coincident on this earth, and I cannot see blaming the > All, the One for destroying his own creation,nor some kind of 'punishment " > from an angry Being.I simply do not believe that according to my faith. > > I am curious if anyone else has gone down this trail as we watched in > horror the destruction of so much. And if we consider ourselves (humanity) > guilty for the wars we create, do we not have a responsibility here? > > If my thinking is off somewhere, I wish someone would set me straight. > This weighs on my mind. We are One, and what happens in Asia affects me in > America. > > love, > Toni > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 31, 2004 Report Share Posted December 31, 2004 , all, I am among the group that would reason with considerable rigor that the tsunami was caused by a shift in the sub-oceanic plates. The metaphoric organism 'Gaia' may be more alive than I can ascertain, but, the assumption that humankind has an influence on those plates at the scale suggested in your post, , would presumptively beg questions about those implied causal relations; especially about what their actual nature is, and, to what appropriation of scale and effect they are oriented by and to. But, you're not alone. http://www.godhatesfags.com/fliers/dec2004/Tsunami_12-29-2004.pdf Westboro Baptist Church http://www.godhatesfags.com/main/faq.html *** It is long standing in the belief system that holds God to be directly involved in all planetary events, and, that also, short of the kind of involvement to which a specific 'material' (or anthropomorphic,) God might implement, that humankind is the vice regent of said God, and is, then, consciously and unconsciously capable of magnificent causal agency at every scale. This said, in supposing a concretization of actual agency at the level of God, (requiring a real " chain of being " about which our psyche imagines its 'echo',) we do have the response in analytic psychology, found both in the particulars of Dr. Jung and elsewhere, and, especially in Von Franz's and Esther Harding's writing about the psychological concepts, respectively, of " magical thinking, " and " hypostasis " . This thought form is versioned and is paramount in the conceptual structure, also, of traditionalism, where it takes the epochal, aeonic, turn, (in the work, for example, of Guenon,) and does so with resonation to some of the questions left unanswered in analytic psychology. Highly conceptualized in this version of esotericism, this form also expresses an ancient, archaic mythologem, obviously crucial in the old testament, in the vedanta, and generally expressive of the pattern that destruction is required for their to be any evolution of creation at all. Thus: this is among the oldest, if not the oldest, mythological form. *** I would note the questions begged are non-trivial. If, in this mode, catastrophic events are not punishments, then what are they about? Even if the answer is provisional, one would expect that the ramification of the answer extends itself through other human affairs. But, if so, to what 'end'? To my mind the implication that spirituality is the conscious response to some form of wrath is very old school, very simple, (simple enough!) and, if it isn't true, is very much, then, the form a human enough complex is disposed to adhere to. regards, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 31, 2004 Report Share Posted December 31, 2004 all, The forwarded piece by Sara states, >Certainly, there >is no randomness in the universe If there is no randomness there can be no non-randomness. When I read illogical one-sidedness, I hope to later learn of some redeeming sophisticated kernal. Perhaps due to my own incapacity I don't find any in the piece. Yet, the author has taught Vedanta! This is hardly surprising to me for students flock to teachers. And, if the goal is to purge one's self of all ability to think and feel for one's self, Ms. Rigler may well be a superb 'pedagogue'. regards, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 31, 2004 Report Share Posted December 31, 2004 It's time to look deeper. There's something fishy going on... Rosemary .................. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en & ie=ISO-8859-1 & q=underwater+nuclear+tests Web Results 1 - 10 of about 147,000 for underwater nuclear tests. (0.24 seconds) DOE/NV - Nuclear Weapons Test Film Description (0800043) .... The second part of the video shows an antisubmarine rocket (ASROC) underwater nuclear weapons-effects test, described as another proof test of a Navy nuclear .... www.nv.doe.gov/news & pubs/ photos & films/0800043/default.htm - 9k - Cached - Similar pages Nat'l Academies Press, Technical Issues Related to the ... .... Monitoring Underwater Nuclear Explosions. Underwater nuclear tests can be monitored by hydroacoustic, seismic, and radionuclide signals. ... www.nap.edu/openbook/0309085063/html/51.html - 27k - Dec 27, 2004 - Cached - Similar pages Radiation Basics - Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty .... How can nuclear tests be detected ... a variety of methods to detect evidence of nuclear testing. ... are employed to monitor the underground, underwater and atmosphere ... www.arpansa.gov.au/basics/ctbt.htm - 21k - Cached - Similar pages US Nuclear Testing Program in the Marshall Islands .... US NUCLEAR DETONATIONS IN THE MARSHALL ISLANDS. (Unless indicated otherwise, stated purpose of all tests was " Weapons ... 2, 7/24/46, Baker, Bikini, Underwater (-90 ... www.nuclearclaimstribunal.com/testing.htm - 49k - Cached - Similar pages Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty .... The treaty banned nuclear-weapons tests in the atmosphere, in outer space, and underwater but permitted underground testing and required no control posts, no on ... www.search.eb.com/elections/micro/431/76.html - 5k - Cached - Similar pages Nuclear testing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia .... Nuclear weapons tests are generally classified as being either " atmospheric " (in or above the atmosphere), " underground, " or " underwater. " Of these ... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_testing - 47k - Dec 27, 2004 - Cached - Similar pages BBC News | Sci/Tech | US nuclear test secrets brought to light .... to nuclear fallout during these tests and people ... the deployment of a lightweight nuclear device designed ... navy diver who would detonate it underwater and then ... news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/ sci/tech/newsid_42000/42212.stm - 21k - Cached - Similar pages Banning Nuclear Tests: Ike (Yes), JFK (Yes), Bush II (No) .... underwater and in the atmosphere. The Limited Test Ban Treaty came on the heels of the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 and years of frequent nuclear testing. .... www.lamberspublications.com/testban.htm - 19k - Cached - Similar pages Arms Control Association: Arms Control Today .... delayed, the more likely that nuclear testing will resume ... seabed to pick out underwater explosions vast ... is used to distinguish between nuclear tests and natural ... www.armscontrol.org/act/2004_10/CTBT.asp - 30k - Cached - Similar pages Declassification of Yields of Nuclear Tests .... 173 atmospheric plus 5 underwater nuclear tests have been ... interested in oversight of nuclear weapons testing ... additional information regarding yields of tests. ... www.osti.gov/html/osti/opennet/document/press/pc27.html - 9k - Cached - Similar pages Result Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next .......... http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/123004W.shtml Tsunamis and Nuclear Power Plants By D. Hoffman t r u t h o u t | Perspective Tuesday 28 December 2004 More than 60,000 people are dead. Bodies wash ashore in a dozen countries. A train, loaded with a thousand passengers and their luggage, is swept away, engine, tracks, and all. Cars, trucks, buses, and boats are pushed more than a mile inland by the rushing water. Some of the waves were reported to be 40 feet high. The ocean in San Diego, 1/2 a world away, rose 10 inches. It IS a small world, after all. The " sea wall " at San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station ( " SONGS " ) in Southern California is 35 feet tall, and about 35 years old. It could not have withstood Sunday's worst. San Onofre's twin reactors were theoretically designed to withstand an earthquake up to 7.0, which is 100 times smaller than a 9.0 earthquake. Although a 9.0 earthquake is considered " unlikely " near San Onofre, it is hardly impossible. In addition, the size of the earthquake doesn't necessarily relate to the size of the ensuing tsunami. Landslides triggered by earthquakes, asteroid impacts, and volcanic eruptions can generate waves hundreds of feet tall. Why did we build nuclear power plants near the ocean, anyway, where they are susceptible to underwater and surface attacks by terrorists and other belligerents? Because nuclear power plants need enormous quantities of water for their cooling systems, and water - especially in the western United States - is usually difficult to find except along the shoreline. The outflow from a nuclear power plant is always slightly contaminated with radioactive particles, and sometimes severely so; people don't want to drink that. So they put the plants near the oceans whenever possible. Don't worry about tsunamis, they said - we've built you this puny little wall. Don't worry about asteroid impacts - they hardly ever happen. Don't worry about tornados or hurricanes. Don't worry about human error. So, society agreed to these poisonous cauldrons of bubbling radioactivity - these behemoths of death-rays ready to burst - these sitting ducks on our shorelines. Don't worry about tsunamis, they said - we've built you this puny little wall. Don't worry about asteroid impacts - they hardly ever happen. Don't worry about tornados or hurricanes. Don't worry about human error. So, society agreed to these poisonous cauldrons of bubbling radioactivity - these behemoths of death-rays ready to burst - these sitting ducks on our shorelines. These tsunami waves would have had little or no effect on floating off-shore ocean wind energy farms (unless they were particularly close to shore), nor would they effect OTEC (Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion) power plants, or any other deep-sea energy solutions, because the tsunami waves are harmless in deep water. Even a 7.2 or a 7.3 earthquake - perfectly reasonable to expect in the area around San Onofre, and possible anywhere - would be more powerful than San Onofre is officially designed to withstand. Experience from the Northridge quake (17 January 1994) and others shows that structures sometimes fail to withstand earthquakes of magnitudes far less than their designed tolerances. The domes at San Onofre might not be able to withstand an earthquake or tsunami (or even a large jet crashing into them). The spent fuel pools, control room, emergency diesel generators, and dry storage casks are all outside the domes. Sitting ducks indeed. Maybe " unlikely " is good enough for some locations, who will bury their thousands of dead and rebuild after a natural disaster, but where nukes are located, " unlikely " is not good enough. Whatever damage a tsunami might cause to renewable energy systems would be minor - even if it wiped them out and they had to be rebuilt completely - compared to the devastation that would result from breaching the reactor vessel, emptying the spent fuel pool (or throwing heavy debris into it), or crushing the dry casks. Why are we risking such deadly disasters, when renewable energy is available for the taking? It's time to make the switch to renewable energy solutions. It's time to close San Onofre Nuclear WASTE Generating Station, Diablo Canyon, and all the other nuclear power plants. The author, a computer programmer, has written extensively about nuclear power. His essays have been translated into several different languages and published in more than a dozen countries. ...................................................... > > Toni & All, > > I, too, have a very difficult time calling this tragedy an " act of G-d. " > And I have also wondered if the collective negative energy (as well as > positive, prayerful energy as well) of humankind might influence the natural > world. (Actually, I am convinced that it does.) However, I think it is > virtually impossible to place a definitive " causal factor " on a disaster of > such immensity. It also weighs on me that such a disaster should befall > people who already seem to have so little. But that's very " American " of > me, isn't it? We have so much in material wealth yet our western culture is > so impoverished in the " treasures of the heart. " ( A voice in my head keeps > saying, " if this is some kind of punishment, why not US? " ) But I cannot > bring myself to believe it is Divine punishment - - yet if Gaia is a living > organism, she is suffering and she surely is angry and desperate for our > attention. I also cannot help but think of all the apparitions of that > have been occurring in the past century, and of her supposed " warnings " to > humankind that great disasters will befall us if we do not turn to G-d. As > you can see, my mind is a muddle as well. I do very much appreciate what > Alice has said about the Transcendent Function, and I pray that her hopes > for that kind of an outcome are fulfilled! We seem to be living in a time > of great peril and of great possibility. > For now, all I seem to be able to do is pray, do my own inner work with > great fierceness, and send all the financial help that I can. (And of > course, continue to struggle for some " answers. " ) > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 31, 2004 Report Share Posted December 31, 2004 Rosemary, all, Oh my. >It's time to look deeper. There's something fishy going on... In the wash of google you've seemingly suggested that underwater oceanic nuclear testing might have have some relation to the movement of a massive wave of water in the Indian Ocean, itself the transduced product of a fifty foot or more subduction (in this instance,) along some portion of a 600 mile border between tectonic plates. Maybe this isn't your implication. Anyway... Fortunately this speculation is posed entirely within the realm of physical science inasmuch as, were it not, any ol' grand idea might accomplish the same. The general physics involved are not complicated. (Visualize pushing a shovel of wet snow through unshoveled snow; so: mass, velocity/acceleration, displacement area, temperature, 'strain'/energy...coming to a release of energy in a resolution of stress.) For a nuclear explosion to be pertinent to an explanation of the cause of this subduction, it would have to achieve the requisite energies capable of inducing the cata-climactic event. There is a heckuva lot of hard science on the energies involved. It would seem to me much more sensible and parsimonious to rule extraordinary potential causes 'in' based upon known physical constraints. One would find in having in hand those constraints, that earthquakes share certain ranges in the magnitudes and combinations of their (relatively,) *few* variables. More importantly, their causative and released energies are well known. Even though atomic bombs can shake the ground to a completely measurable seismographic degree, (<7.0 ML), their potential for causing large earthquakes (>6.0 ML) is -at bottom- a matter of the achievement of energies and, crucially, conditions, that can induce *specific* forms of climactic resolutions of stress concomitant with the aforementioned necessary magnitude of variables. (This is completely different than the fact of their being commensurate release energies.) *** I leave it to those interested in nuclear explosive causes to rule them in or out simply as a matter of doing the math^. Ummm...there is a correct answer+. regards, ^incidentally, there was a famous controversy in 1970 between Peru and France on the matter of bomb tests and earthquakes + hint: Bruce A. Bolt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 31, 2004 Report Share Posted December 31, 2004 Dear Rosemary, Thanks for your nudge. I would love it to have been something we can put our finger on, and then know whom to blame. It doesn't sound far fetched to me at all, but what do I know, I am no scientist. Horrorfied doesn't cover it My G-d, if this were really so.......I pray it isn't, we cannot have been so stupid and blind! Thanks for the heads up. Toni Re: Acts of God? It's time to look deeper. There's something fishy going on... Rosemary ................. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en & ie=ISO-8859-1 & q=underwater+nuclear+tests Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 1, 2005 Report Share Posted January 1, 2005 Dear Toni, This morning I put on the news at CNN and they were comparing the devastation to an atomic blast!!! I wonder if radiation levels have been gathered in the areas affected? Whoever is out to convert the world of Islam to Christianity, couldn't have picked a better location than Southeast Asia, to force their global power agendas by initiating a massive disaster of " Biblical Proportions, " the day after Christmas. I've heard from reliable sources that Christian missionaries are gearing up to invade S.E. Asia in swarms! Since 2000, there have been far too many synchronicities, including the emergency number 9/11, for me to not perceive the possibility of new millennium fanaticisms on both sides of the equation seeking world domination, as a programmed and insidious display of armed genocides, whether using jet airplanes or in final retaliation, nuclear devices set off underwater to crush the so-called " enemy, " which is seen as Islam by the western powers that be. It's all reached a point, perhaps, of no return to any semblance of a civilized world. Scientists are of little, if any, use in parsing these probabilities. I've tried for years to tweak their idees-fix, to little or no avail. They, like most collective groups, can't see the forest for the trees. I wish it were as simple as placing blame on perpetrators, who may be covertly operating way beyond any national or governmental lines. And yes, Toni, they do expect us to be " stupid and blind, " which of course, we must resist with every fiber of our Individual Being. Rosemary ............... > Dear Rosemary, > > Thanks for your nudge. I would love it to have been something we can put our finger on, and then know whom to blame. > > It doesn't sound far fetched to me at all, but what do I know, I am no scientist. > > Horrorfied doesn't cover it My G-d, if this were really so.......I pray it isn't, we cannot have been so stupid and blind! > > Thanks for the heads up. > Toni > Re: Acts of God? > > It's time to look deeper. There's something fishy going on... > > Rosemary > ................. > http://www.google.com/search?hl=en & ie=ISO-8859-1 & q=underwater+nuclear+ tests Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 2, 2005 Report Share Posted January 2, 2005 >>Why are we risking such deadly disasters, when renewable energy is available for the taking? >> Indeed, indeed. A great head's up. Alternatives are there. They're here, in fact. NOW. We just have to take them up, turn away from what's easy and do it better. We just have to start now. We don't have to be liberals, progressives, belong to any identity, church or party. We just have to seek solutions. Our leaders won't do it. They're aren't doing it. Why mess up a sweet deal -- one delivered on a silver platter? And so the world is ruled by a great mafia, carving up their territories, using us: our blood, our labor. And we sit for it. We do like our trinkets. The carrots a government might use to nudge us towards better solutions are presently non existent. What is our nation's energy plan? We're not even allowed to see it. And this goes back, this way of subverting, controlling. Reagan came in, the energy plans went out. It's a long tradition, and he didn't start it. And so it goes. And yet, our grand experiment limps along, one by one by one. But that's the way it's always been. Onward and upward. Let no one smother the soul. The thinking that these terrible mistakes and catastrophes are caused by human will, as a punishment for our evil, our blackened souls -- please. Step back from that. Jung would ask you to do that. This making of demons and angels. They only exist when we create them. Our energy, physical and psychical, is limited. Use it well, your gift. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.