"Are you asserting that everything we've been taught over the past 100+ years is 'the truth' and that there is actually no waking up that needs to be done? That "if X were true, we'd know it!"
I'm asserting there is a body of information that has endured for decades and not a single iota of the informatuon brought forward has ever been heard of until this moment. Sus
This is why the timing is suspicious.
This isn't information waiting to be discovered that was available at ANY time in the past. Sources? Emprical evidence? Just my thoughts on it.
I'm not invested enough to dig any deeper. But I'm not compelled to change my mind either.
not a single iota of the information brought forward has ever been heard of until this moment
You missed the most important part. "By me".
"not a single iota of the information brought forward has ever been heard of BY ME until this moment...."
Sources are all there. Its well documented. Empirical evidence? Heaps.
Ignoring information is a choice we all have, but the presumption that "I have never heard this therefor it cannot be true" is pretty much the antithesis of The Great Awakening...
The only lens to see the world is through ones own senses. When information is introduced without source, one uses discernment. So, ME not being first hand witness and no source, I'm relegated to use discernment.
Well, there is source, unless you are referring to me.
You could look at the information, see the sources cited, and then apply discernment from there. But choosing NOT to look at the information or the source(s), well, that's a free choice, but a choice nonetheless.
What I find fascinating is your dismissing out of hand even while admitting "I haven't watched any of the video, but..."
I personally applaud you being suspicious, and most assuredly working to apply discernment, but the way your describe your approach comes across more (to me) like a rationalization of why "I'm not going to even look at the content".
Which is something I have no problem with, only with the reasoning you offer as justification for your conclusion.
I mean, hey, if you don't wish to even expose yourself to the information, just say it, and own it. But your reasoning just sounds like justification for avoidance from over here.
But, we've discuses it enough. I don't resonate with or agree with your justifications or the rationale you (seem to be) presenting. But, I don't need to.
Thanks for the replies, anyway. (Not being sarcastic!)
I don't disagree with your commentary at all. I spend a lot of time keeping my ear to the ground and obviously invest myself on critical issues and issues of deep interest. I haven't invested in this particular topic deeply because what I do know about him is the science. This is what I find alluring. The other items of discussion do not detract or add to that. Thanks for the reply as well!
"Are you asserting that everything we've been taught over the past 100+ years is 'the truth' and that there is actually no waking up that needs to be done? That "if X were true, we'd know it!"
I'm asserting there is a body of information that has endured for decades and not a single iota of the informatuon brought forward has ever been heard of until this moment. Sus
This is why the timing is suspicious.
This isn't information waiting to be discovered that was available at ANY time in the past. Sources? Emprical evidence? Just my thoughts on it.
I'm not invested enough to dig any deeper. But I'm not compelled to change my mind either.
You missed the most important part. "By me".
"not a single iota of the information brought forward has ever been heard of BY ME until this moment...."
Sources are all there. Its well documented. Empirical evidence? Heaps.
Ignoring information is a choice we all have, but the presumption that "I have never heard this therefor it cannot be true" is pretty much the antithesis of The Great Awakening...
hth
The only lens to see the world is through ones own senses. When information is introduced without source, one uses discernment. So, ME not being first hand witness and no source, I'm relegated to use discernment.
Well, there is source, unless you are referring to me.
You could look at the information, see the sources cited, and then apply discernment from there. But choosing NOT to look at the information or the source(s), well, that's a free choice, but a choice nonetheless.
What I find fascinating is your dismissing out of hand even while admitting "I haven't watched any of the video, but..."
I personally applaud you being suspicious, and most assuredly working to apply discernment, but the way your describe your approach comes across more (to me) like a rationalization of why "I'm not going to even look at the content".
Which is something I have no problem with, only with the reasoning you offer as justification for your conclusion.
I mean, hey, if you don't wish to even expose yourself to the information, just say it, and own it. But your reasoning just sounds like justification for avoidance from over here.
But, we've discuses it enough. I don't resonate with or agree with your justifications or the rationale you (seem to be) presenting. But, I don't need to.
Thanks for the replies, anyway. (Not being sarcastic!)
Let's move on, shall we? Cheers.
I don't disagree with your commentary at all. I spend a lot of time keeping my ear to the ground and obviously invest myself on critical issues and issues of deep interest. I haven't invested in this particular topic deeply because what I do know about him is the science. This is what I find alluring. The other items of discussion do not detract or add to that. Thanks for the reply as well!