Mary Rodwell’s 3,000 Cases Suggest Ongoing Genetic Manipulation |423|

#61
This is a FAR CRY from ET. I believe they exist as well, on a spectrum of good versus evil. You are scaring me, Alex, in your distortion of Ithe concept of Intelligent Design.
I was trying to let you back in the tent :) there's just way too much data for non-human intelligence genetic engineering... ET seems like the most parsimonious answer.
 
#62
agreed. One of the questions I keep returning to: does ET have a life review during its nde? in other words, are we looking at two different ladders leaning against two different walls. one being "spiritual enlightenment" for lack of a better term. The other wall being materialistic / get things done pursuits.
Fair question. I'd have to say that if ET operates from the same material universe as we do then I'd expect that there are shared rules for incarnation - even if they have greater facility in getting around via non-physical means [which isn't an issue for me]. But if we mean ET which operates on a different level - non-physical - I can't say because I don't know what the rules are. But I would imagine that if there is the same pattern of incarnating from a less restricted domain into a restricted one that similar rules would apply.

By that I mean there may be layers of comparative less restricted realm of experience, so the idea of being 'born' into one realm of higher restriction than a source realm means that there is a pattern of experience that might include NDEs and Life Reviews, as well as OOBEs - as well as comparative notions of the magical etc.

I have no 'evidence' for the above other than the great Hermetic rule - as above, so below. I don't think, based on what we can observe in our lived experience, that it is productive, or useful, to imagine any other starting point for our efforts to imagine how things might be.
 
#63
Fair question. I'd have to say that if ET operates from the same material universe as we do then I'd expect that there are shared rules for incarnation - even if they have greater facility in getting around via non-physical means [which isn't an issue for me]. But if we mean ET which operates on a different level - non-physical - I can't say because I don't know what the rules are. But I would imagine that if there is the same pattern of incarnating from a less restricted domain into a restricted one that similar rules would apply.
thanks for this... I'm with you but might make a couple of distinctions.
- first off, the data we've been kicking around seems to suggest that different levels of non-physical may not be the deciding factor. i.e. we keep bumping into a lot of stuff that is non physical and yet seems to be very get-things-done materialistically oriented.
- same goes for restricted versus non-restricted domains. again, I'm not claiming to know what the rules are, but my hunch is that we're looking at a spiritual dimension that operates outside of this. world, what world? Becomes: spirit world what spirit world?



no 'evidence' for the above other than the great Hermetic rule - as above, so below.
- and "as below so above" which can be even more useful for our purposes I'm trying to understand what's going on :)
 
#64
hanks for this... I'm with you but might make a couple of distinctions.
- first off, the data we've been kicking around seems to suggest that different levels of non-physical may not be the deciding factor. i.e. we keep bumping into a lot of stuff that is non physical and yet seems to be very get-things-done materialistically oriented.
- same goes for restricted versus non-restricted domains. again, I'm not claiming to know what the rules are, but my hunch is that we're looking at a spiritual dimension that operates outside of this. world, what world? Becomes: spirit world what spirit world?
I see a movement from the 'spiritual' [for me metaphysical] to the physical as a standard thing. We imagine and then make, for example. A BMW is assembled in cyberspace before it is assembled in physical space. That's why you see that "very get-things-done materialistically oriented" element.
I avoid talking about 'spiritual' dimensions because that causes confusion. I use 'metaphysical' for preference. So we have a problem in that a 'spiritual' dimension doesn't operate 'outside' of the physical. It abuts and interpenetrates. The metaphysical is an aspect of the physical in maybe the same way effect is an aspect of cause.

The 'what world' question can be a bit cute - a teaching moment, rather than a functional one. That is that operating from a 'spiritual' dimension doesn't lead to identification with the physical world - ergo the teacher's 'what world' remark. But beyond that? I suppose teachers can become identified with who they are.
 
#65
I see a movement from the 'spiritual' [for me metaphysical] to the physical as a standard thing. We imagine and then make, for example. A BMW is assembled in cyberspace before it is assembled in physical space. That's why you see that "very get-things-done materialistically oriented" element.
I'd associate the spiritual with love and with the nature of our own existence. What you seem to be talking about is the creative power of consciousness, which is an important aspect too, but not the first connotation of 'spiritual' for me.
 
#66
I'd associate the spiritual with love and with the nature of our own existence. What you seem to be talking about is the creative power of consciousness, which is an important aspect too, but not the first connotation of 'spiritual' for me.
I am trying to draw a distinction between this physical dimension and that other dimension that is not physical and is the source of causes which play out in the physical. I prefer to reserve 'spiritual' to mean individual expressions of divine consciousness in those dimensions. We have a fundamental problem of unrefined language here. Consciousness is the ground of all being - so all dimensions are forms of consciousness - and all spirit/s are expressions of consciousness as well.

The theme of love needs an essay here. It is profoundly misunderstood and frequently misrepresented. However, in this context I largely agree with you.
 
#67
Might it ever be possible (even in theory) to reverse a previously-performed gene manipulation in a eukaryote without being physically able to touch the organism (e.g. by changing its environment or subjecting it to sound vibration, radiation or radio frequencies)?
 
#68
I was trying to let you back in the tent :) there's just way too much data for non-human intelligence genetic engineering... ET seems like the most parsimonious answer.
I am perplexed, Alex. You liked my post saying RODWELL has not given any real evidence about very early et's manipulating our species. In this reply saying you want to let me back into the tent you say there is way too much data for non human intelligence genetic engineering. Presumably you mean very eary engineering since the topic was Intelligent Design. Please please point to that data. Did you do a show on that (I do not remember one). Without this data the most pasrsimonious approach would be to posit a super human intellegence at work. Or to claim there was no genetic manipulation at all. I researched Sitchin awhile back and found that he was far from authentic. Once again, I am not denying the existenc of et's or thier interaction with our planet. I just have not seen evidence they interveneed in our evoultion. TY in advance.
 
#69
I am perplexed, Alex. You liked my post saying RODWELL has not given any real evidence about very early et's manipulating our species. In this reply saying you want to let me back into the tent you say there is way too much data for non human intelligence genetic engineering. Presumably you mean very eary engineering since the topic was Intelligent Design. Please please point to that data. Did you do a show on that (I do not remember one). Without this data the most pasrsimonious approach would be to posit a super human intellegence at work. Or to claim there was no genetic manipulation at all. I researched Sitchin awhile back and found that he was far from authentic. Once again, I am not denying the existenc of et's or thier interaction with our planet. I just have not seen evidence they interveneed in our evoultion. TY in advance.
I'm going to publish an interview with bruce fenton in a couple weeks that directly addresses this.
 
Top