Sorry, for the confusion, it was I.

I hadn't logged in yet.

I've been doing some research for myself on the Prieure de Sion and I came across that name.

Sounds more fitting than Illuminati.

Those Merovingians seem to be an elusive bunch, or do they?
It seems that they been propagating their own "Silente Elite' and are not so silent anymore.

They (as in members?) seem to be leaking information out to the public on their own.
They want to become reckognized.
Maybe that the time of their global power shift is dawning.

Indoctrination of the masses.
How can they indoctrinate the masses if the masses do not know they exist?
By sneakily pulling the strings of the relatively placed powers that be?
The Merovingian vision of "the new world order" - intrinsically miraculous.
The Archangel Michael was Jesus?

Did you know Fludd was one of their grandmasters, as was Da Vinci?

Illuminaughty - an international cartel of creeps that pull the worlds strings from behind the scenes.

The conspiracy research scene - catapult the cerebellum to higher forms of awreness and inner revelations?

Hey Rick,

My birthday is two days before yours and it seems that I joined on your birthday.

Happy belated birthday, Trip! If I believed in astrology, I might say we Leos should stick together! (Sagitarius rising, moon in Cancer)

Welcome to the pride?

You disbelieve in your sign, "Leo, the lion. King of the jungle, hear me roar!"

or should I say, "Rick, the lion, king of the philosophic jungle, hear me roar!"

Nice beard by the way, but no mane?

My beard and mane are getting quite lenghty.

Isn't that historically equated to wisdom, along with the colour grey, as in hair.
That, as in the hair colour grey, I do not have as of yet, well only a few at least.

HRH de Vere offers that he will lead us again as they have in the past but I suspect his Dragons are not at the top of the heap.

De Vere is the Magister Templi or above - a head man in theDragons of the Merovingian Stuart Royal Complex. His offer is for leading the whole of earth.

God as the ultimate conceptual artist.

I repeat something I wrote above.

Unknown: When we consider how many respected philosophers, including theologians--representing all branches of knowledge and all kinds of doctrines--differ from, and often contradict, one another, why should any of us fear being different? Or even wrong?

IMO (in my opinion), honest doubt needs to be encouraged, not condemned. Keep in mind that even Jesus did not condemn Thomas for his honest doubt. As far as I am concerned, feel free to get your honest doubts and your questions out in the open, any time you like. Okay!
--------------------
Since I wrote the above I have come to believe that I need at least three words to express what I mean when I think of the god concept.

1) I can conceive that there is GOD (Were I free to do so, I would put a / throught the O)--that which is absolute being and beyond anything that I know to be real.
2) Also, I can conceive that there is God, one with attributes, the subject of theology--the one who is relative to space and time as studied by the sciences.
3) Thirdly, I can conceive of god as that which is personal in every human and thinking person.

If anyone can add other categories, feel free to do so. As I have indicated more than once, I do not claim that I am infallible and one who has the last word.

GØD

Like that?

Exactly!!!!The god of pantheism? Or, as I conceive of it: PAN-EN-THEISM.

Thanks, Rick!

What's the significance of the "ø"? Is this a semantic trick, like writing "G-d"? A kind of peace treaty to circumvent communicative difficulties resulting from the different ways in which people conceptualise the ultimate divine?

"Gød" is undeniably a superior word to "God", an historical relic so burdened with the weight of the errors of Biblical history as to have become a poison, albeit one that still looms terribly large, like a shadow cast on the wall by a candle, in the human psyche. The characteristics of maleness; omnipotence, omniscience, benevolence; God as the first mover, the uncaused cause; God as the ultimate moral arbiter - all those terrible mistakes, thankfully, have been identified and expelled, and the result of this exclusionary process is the term "Gød". Now our ideas of the divine are free, at least, of logical inconsistencies. This is progress: these most appalling errors - the gendered God, the phenomenally impossible God, the internally illogical God, the authoritative God - have been identified and cast out of the pantheon of possible God types.

But there is still a problem, and it is illustrated by the use of the terms G-d and Gød. Gød is conceptualised in many different ways, but there is a grave problem with this. The problem goes beyond differences between opinions; it is a problem with holding any opinion at all regarding Gød.

The problem is that the ultimate divine is beyond all concepts and all characteristics. Gød has no attributes that we can imagine - Gød is the ground of all attributes, the ground of everything. Every attribute, and no attribute, applies to Gød. Gød transcends all concepts and all ideas, and gives rise to them all, and everything.

To pre-emptively explain: Gød is also beyond 'transcending all concepts and ideas', so insofar as I discuss Gød, I am also mistaken. But the point I wish to make is not about Gød as such, but about ideas about Gød. The bottom line is that you can imagine the ultimate divine, or Gød if you like, as whatever you please, but you'll be wrong. Gød is actually not like that.

The first verse of the Tao te Ching (in one translation) is:

The Tao that can be named is not the eternal Tao.

So all talk about Gød reveals its own lack of insight. To quote a Taoist aphorism:

Those who know do not speak; those who speak do not know.

Any comments?

I'll sign off with an amusing anecdote... a friend of a friend delivered this single sentence only in a school-leaving oral exam, and got 100%.

How odd of God
to choose the Jews.

Is it the notion of the god, the spelling, the history or the idea? People are focused on trivial persuits such as the fact that the bible has been changed, well has anyone stopped to think that even the original bible would not be a perfect represtentation on the events that actually happened? And even if we had an exact picture of what went on then people would interpret the picture diffrently as well. The notion and the idea behind god is what has remained the same, it is a all knowning being who looks out for the mortals who walk the earth and all of it is created by this god. When the mortals die they go to meet their maker. What more is there really behind all these religions than the persuit to meet their maker?

YES!!!
LT Those who do not know, or speak, write.

LTNot so odd, because
the Jews chose God
Nameste. The gød in me
Is looking for the gød in thee.

What's right is right
What's wrong is wrong
Until we know
Let's sing this song
Or ... lift the lid, see underneath
There is no God, let's have some teeth

lol. Your British humor is f*****g killing me!