Go Back   Old Project Avalon Forum (ARCHIVE) > Project Avalon Forum > Project Avalon > Spirituality

Notices

 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
Old 09-25-2008, 02:14 AM   #26
TranceAm
Avalon Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: South Carolina USA
Posts: 368
Unhappy Re: Question for Star Kids on Avalon

Are you a person?

Simple question.

Everyone who responded to this should also respond with a simple yes or no.

------------------------

We can tap dance also if you define the beat...

And there is no simple yes or no... Only when one has reached the bottom level reality that contains ALL other realities and dimensions, and we can "oversee" all THEN one/we can answer that one truthfully.

So Yes, in this 4 dimensional box where we have no way of looking over our event horizon of our own being (in Either direction.), we 'could' be persons fitting your physical description of a person.

Now tell me, the little observer behind your eyes.
In what dimension(s) does it exist? Does it have Time? Length? Width? Hight?

You do agree that a <real> person at least should have such a little observer who only knows the present.. and relies for the other dimensions we know of, on the senses of the body. In that case, then the answer becomes "NO" We are not persons, we are obviously MORE then persons.

Now you have 2 answers... Did you get any wiser?

You can park the high horse somewhere in the corner...

btw,
I had a friend tell me that he lived in the "present",
I asked how do you do that?
Because If you base the present on what you hear with your ears, then the things you hear approach you with the speed of sound.. So that ain't the present. You are listening to the past.

If you base the present on what you see, well the the things you see, approach you with the speed of light.. So that ain't the present either.. You are seeing the past.

If you base the present on what you sense, then the things you sense travel through your body with the speed of electricity.. (Again time passes, and you react tot he past.)

He had to rethink his 'living in the present'.
I guess, his definition of a fool proof definition of the present, was either not fool proof. Or his proof didn't fool me.


Last edited by TranceAm; 09-25-2008 at 02:18 AM.
TranceAm is offline   Reply With Quote
 


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 02:34 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Project Avalon