Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Some people believe humans are a star race planted on earth. It would explain many things.

G

If anything, I would think that the entire possibility of life stood a chance of being 'planted' early in Earths history. Interesting idea, not sure how much that would matter though. Maybe if we make it further into space, we will be the ones to go around 'planting' life on planets.

Interesting thread so far though, never been into much of this besides the mythology behind some of it.

Indeed. Google "indigo children." Scary fething true with my kids...

Random internet article wrote:The newspapers and magazines have nicknamed them "Generation X." The television commentators have called them "hard to read, even harder to understand." These are the offspring of that incredible genetic explosion of angst and wonder, the Baby Boomers. These are also the ones who will carry us through the end of time and space.

It has been predicted (by several) that, on or near December 22, 2012, all time (as we know it) will stop. The Mayan Calendar will be complete, and something brand new will begin. Some like to believe that it will be eternity. In these next 15 years, our people and our planet will be making preparations for our Graduation Day. Of course,
*everyone* has been invited. By then, everyone will surely be here.

There are no new souls being born into this universe. However, old souls are coming in thundering hordes. Spirit speaks these ideas to us, of course, in a linear sense. In a Multiversal sense, we've always been here and we always will be. But in a past-present-future kind of way.......every one of us is involved in a sort of "historic unfoldment."

Since about 1973, there are no children anymore. There are only "little people." They are old, old souls who pretend they are young, impressionable babes. In one moment, a child may seem utterly weak and dependent, and in the next moment, he will inform his startled parents exactly what he did and where he (and they!) lived in a last life.
Often, he'll do it off-handedly, without blinking, and then scurry off to watch television.

QFT in my lifetime soooooo many times:

Random internet article wrote:I believe Adult Indigos have these characteristics:

* Are intelligent (though did not necessarily have top grades).
* Are very creative and enjoy making things. 40K, anyone?
* Always need to know WHY (especially why they are being asked to do something).
* Had disgust and perhaps loathing for the inanity of much of the required work in school, the repetition.
* Were rebellious in school, refusing to do homework, rejecting authority of teachers OR seriously wanted to rebel, but didn't DARE, usually due to parental pressure.
* May have experienced early existential depression and feelings of helplessness. These may have ranged from sadness to utter despair. Suicidal feelings while still in high school or younger are not uncommon in the Indigo Adult.
* Have difficulty in service-oriented jobs - resistance to authority and caste system of employment.
* Prefer cooperative efforts or leadership position or solo if expertise is valued.
* Have deep empathy for others, yet an intolerance of stupidity.
* Extremely emotionally sensitive including crying at the drop of a hat (no shielding) - to no expression of emotion (full shielding).
* May have trouble with RAGE.
* Have trouble with most systems (either emotionally, mentally, or physically)- political, educational, medical, law.
* Alienation from politics - feeling your voice won't count and that the outcome really doesn't matter anyway.
* Frustration with or rejection of the traditional American dream - 9-5 career, marriage, 2.5 children, house with white picket fence, etc.
* Anger at rights being taken away, fear and/or fury at "Big Brother watching you."
* They feel a need like a burning desire to do something to change and improve the world. May be stymied what to do.
* Have psychic or spiritual interest fairly young - in or before teen years.
* Had few if any Indigo role models.
* Have strong intuition.
* Random behavior pattern or mind style - (symptoms of Attention Deficit Disorder), may have trouble focusing on a task unless of OWN choosing, may jump around in conversations.
* Have had psychic experiences, such as premonitions, seeing angels or ghosts, hearing voices.
* Sexually expressive and inventive OR may reject sexuality in boredom. May explore alternate types of sexuality.
* Seek meaning to their life and understanding about the world May seek this through religion, spiritual groups and books, self-help groups or books, or individually.
* If they find balance they may become very strong, healthy, happy lightworkers.

Every item hits the nail on the head, at least for me. It is like a profile of myself. Some of the stronger traits are bold.

*edit* nevermind

Hey JEB let me clarify something here shall I, I did not say that my comments were 100% spot on, I was generalising about a subject that obviously some people can't handle. I did indicate that I could be wrong. I also know that as a brutal species we take what we want and we have had countless wars over the years. My point was though, were those wars of ancient times about which God / God's you worshipped? From what I've read I don't think they were, they appear to be about good old brutal greed and power. I was trying to be flippent and humorous about our species.

Wolfstan wrote:Hey JEB let me clarify something here shall I, I did not say that my comments were 100% spot on, I was generalising about a subject that obviously some people can't handle. I did indicate that I could be wrong. I also know that as a brutal species we take what we want and we have had countless wars over the years. My point was though, were those wars of ancient times about which God / God's you worshipped? From what I've read I don't think they were, they appear to be about good old brutal greed and power. I was trying to be flippent and humorous about our species.

Well now you know there is nothing funny about us. Ever.

This thread needs more chin beards... for srs.



Maybe a nutshot... not sure though.... Well... it'll be here when it is needed.

I am suprised you post the thing about indigo children. For a start it takes balls to post that on cynical old dakka.

But I gotta disagree with that. It seems to me to be wishful thinking. And more likely a result of this generation not being beaten senseless every time they displease their parents. Combine with new environmental influence such as TV.

Also I fit that list, but who really gets born loving repetition and doing what their told.

Wolfstan wrote:Hey JEB let me clarify something here shall I, I did not say that my comments were 100% spot on, I was generalizing about a subject that obviously some people can't handle.

And what was that? Basic history? Or is it just that you would prefer to ridicule people's faith with impunity?

Wolfstan wrote:Is there a huge amount of evidence that shows that there has always been conflict where religion is concerned? It seems to me that there wasn't, it was only when one God was introduced that this happened.

This statement is what really started my eye rolling. And of course you quickly followed it up with this gem...

Wolfstan wrote:Christianity & Islam are hell bent (excuse the pun ) on giving the rest of the planet grief over who we should believe in!

Yes, that seems like a great thing to say.... Oh, but don't worry folks. We aren't done yet.

Wolfstan wrote:Who you worshiped didn't matter to [Pagans].

Well, lets forget the Romans torturing and crucifying Christians for one. Or Aztecs and their human sacrifices, etc. Pagans are just as guilty as monotheists of causing wars and bloodshed over religion. Difference? We have better documentation concerning monotheistic religions vs. others.

Wolfstan wrote:I did indicate that I could be wrong.

No you didn't. Nowhere in your post did you say that.

Wolfstan wrote:From what I've read I don't think they were, they appear to be about good old brutal greed and power. I was trying to be flippant and humorous about our species.

I sure as hell didn't get that feeling, but I could be alone in my sentiment. I can handle people's criticism, and plenty of jokes. Hell, I agree with many people in the OT when it concerns people's attitudes, but I don't like people just making blanket attacks and statements that are just horribly wrong. I am fairly strict in how I handle any arguments related to history, as it is my personal belief that if people would just the most basic of fact checking, we could avoid a bunch of flame wars and stupid arguments, and I have a vested interest in the subject as a historian.

JEB_Stuart wrote:

Wolfstan wrote:Christianity & Islam are hell bent (excuse the pun ) on giving the rest of the planet grief over who we should believe in!

Yes, that seems like a great thing to say.... Oh, but don't worry folks. We aren't done yet.

To be fair, both religions feature explicit calls for conversion. That doesn't mean that all Christians, or Muslims agree with those notions, but they are there.

dogma wrote:To be fair, both religions feature explicit calls for conversion. That doesn't mean that all Christians, or Muslims agree with those notions, but they are there.

Agreed completely, but I don't know any Christian who advocates forcing people to believe in Christianity. Thank God for Jacobus Arminius, and his notions of free choice. While I may be a very devout Christian, and therefore believe it is the ultimate truth, in no way do I presume that everyone should be forced to believe what I do. I have no problems sharing what I believe, but I don't force it on anyone. There is a big difference between Evangelism and Conversion Through the Sword...

People have been killing other people over differences of belief for thousands of years - the Abrahamic religions are not alone in this respect. To suggest that 'Pagans' didn't do the same is just ignorant, sorry Wolfstan.

Wolfstan wrote:Who you worshiped didn't matter to [Pagans].

Well, lets forget the Romans torturing and crucifying Christians for one. Or Aztecs and their human sacrifices, etc. Pagans are just as guilty as monotheists of causing wars and bloodshed over religion. Difference? We have better documentation concerning monotheistic religions vs. others.

Wolfstan wrote:Different subject, you seem to be wanting to mix the two together. They may off well tortured others and had human sacrifices, but it wasn't because their god was better than yours.

So killing people for believing a different religion doesn't qualify? That fits exactly what you said.

Wolfstan wrote:Crucifying Christians was nothing to do with religion, it was to do with power and control. Christianity was a religion that was causing people to stand up to the Romans, it was a threat, in the same way as if a conquered state who worshipped "the mighty apple" had stood up to them, it wouldn't of been allowed.

...I can't believe you wrote that. That is completely wrong...

Wolfstan wrote:As to the Aztecs, that's down to supply & demand. They weren't stupid, they believed in Gods that wanted blood and lots of it. They either wiped themselves out or found a resource from somewhere else. I can't really imagine that a prisoner converting to their religion would of escaped having their heart ripped out.

So again, killing people for your god doesn't fit your definition?

Wolfstan wrote:I would imagine that the reason why Christianity took off is that you are faced with a religion that involves volatile Gods and sacrifice or a God that doesn't really ask that much of you. Hummm, no brainer there then.

Because nobody could legitimately believe in Christianity right?

Wolfstan wrote:Europe & the Middle East from 1000 AD onwards either used their religion to motivate the war for genuine religious reasons or used it to disguise their motivation, good old, land, power and wealth.

Do you know that for a fact? No and neither do we. It is mere speculation. Besides I have already stated that it is only more noticeable in the Post-Dark Age world because of our abundance of documentation.

Wolfstan wrote:
Europe & the Middle East from 1000 AD onwards either used their religion to motivate the war for genuine religious reasons or used it to disguise their motivation, good old, land, power and wealth.

Do you know that for a fact? No and neither do we. It is mere speculation. Besides I have already stated that it is only more noticeable in the Post-Dark Age world because of our abundance of documentation.

At the end of the day most of it is going to be speculation. I myself am a non believer, but admit it would be nice if there was something there. However as far as I'm concerned no religion can be seperated by terms such as "Pagan". All believers of any faith believe for their own reasons, but none of which would stand up in a court of law if defending yourself. You can't have one faith system stand up and say "my faith is the real one" and persecute all others because they have it written down somewhere that their God is the one and only God. What about all the other religions that have it written down?

Wolfstan wrote:
I would imagine that the reason why Christianity took off is that you are faced with a religion that involves volatile Gods and sacrifice or a God that doesn't really ask that much of you. Hummm, no brainer there then.
Because nobody could legitimately believe in Christianity right?

Again this is speculation, but speculation based on how humans work. You only have to see how many non believers start believing in something when it matters to them and this is in the 21st Century. So your average peasent working in the fields, around about 200 - 400 AD gets to hear about a new religion. This religion tells you that when you die you go to this wonderful place called heaven and to do this all you need to do is cast out your old Gods. Old Gods, they point out that are unpredictable and want you to make sacrifices. All you have to do with this new "all in one God" is worship him and follow this basic rules (10 rules which in general aren't all that bad) and you get to go to this wonderful place when you die. I know what I'd go for if it had been me.

Wolfstan wrote:
As to the Aztecs, that's down to supply & demand. They weren't stupid, they believed in Gods that wanted blood and lots of it. They either wiped themselves out or found a resource from somewhere else. I can't really imagine that a prisoner converting to their religion would of escaped having their heart ripped out.
So again, killing people for your god doesn't fit your definition?

You still want to read it one way don't you. The Aztecs grabbing people from other tirbes and sacrificing them is completely different to organising a Crusade and going off to conquer a foreign land. The Aztecs didn't believe who you worshipped you were a source of bodies for sacrificing. The Crusaders would either kill you for being a heathen or convert you to their religion. The Aztecs wouldn't of cared less if the people they were sacrificing believed in the same god or not.

...I can't believe you wrote that. That is completely wrong...

Jeb, if you could extrapolate on this point a little, it would be more helpful and educational to all those reading these. I'm not amazingly knowledgeable on this area of history, and it would be interesting hear why he's wrong, and what the 'right' (if that's the correct word to use) answer is, rather than just effectively writing a longer version of 'lolno'.

Wolfstan- most pagans were converted to christianity through their kings/lords being converted first then being told they were now christian. If this didn't work the christian faith adopted certain pagan rites and festivals to pull them in (which has already been mentioned). Another trick was to build a church on a site the pagans worshipped on. Fear was also a major tool used by the church, the threat of not going to the afterlife or being outcast. So as you can see it was very rarely a peasants 'choice' to become christian.

This is not meant to put down todays christian faith as it is quite different and a lot more tolerable of other faiths these days.

Mick

Yep, fair enough. However that then raises the question of why the lords & masters changed? The same principle could apply? Again it's speculation. It could be that it was just down to them being very clever and opportunistic, they could see a new power was emerging and wanted to be part of it.

The victors write history and the Pagans have been made to look bad in this re-written history. It's just me I'm afraid, I find it both arrogant & funny that the believers of one God can point the finger and say that Pagan Gods don't exist. Am I the only one to see the irony in that?

Wolfstan wrote:You still want to read it one way don't you. The Aztecs grabbing people from other tirbes and sacrificing them is completely different to organising a Crusade and going off to conquer a foreign land. The Aztecs didn't believe who you worshipped you were a source of bodies for sacrificing. The Crusaders would either kill you for being a heathen or convert you to their religion. The Aztecs wouldn't of cared less if the people they were sacrificing believed in the same god or not.

The primary goal of the crusades was to retake the Holy Land. And their behavior wasn't much worse than any other angry medieval knights.

While I don't know if the Aztecs cared abut the religion of the other tribes, they did make sure it was other tribes they were getting most of their sacrifices from. They created quasi-nations within their own empire simply as a continuous source of sacrifices (which would bite them in the ass when Spain came along). How is this better than anything the Christians did again?

If you take an overall view it is quite clear that people are divided into nice, alright or nasty whatever their religion.

There are some really nasty Christians in the modern world, and some nice pagans, Buddhists and so on. Most people are alright and can be lead to niceness or nastiness depending on the situation.

Atheists, agnostics and humanists are no better.

It's just me I'm afraid, I find it both arrogant & funny that the believers of one God can point the finger and say that Pagan Gods don't exist. Am I the only one to see the irony in that?

@Wolfstan
No - this was dealt with a couple of pages ago between me and Manchu IIRC. If that's your position, fair enough - I just thought you were stating that the Abrahamic religions were the inventors of 'holy war'? I don't think 'Pagans' have been denigrated in history any more than other religious groups. Religious groups sling mud at each other as a matter of routine. You're slinging mud at Christians, Mulsims and Jews right now.

As I have said many times, just because you raise your hand and claim to be a Christian doesn't make you one.

Matthew 7:21-23 (KJV)
21Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
22Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
23And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

GG

Wolfstan wrote:At the end of the day most of it is going to be speculation. I myself am a non believer, but admit it would be nice if there was something there. However as far as I'm concerned no religion can be separated by terms such as "Pagan". All believers of any faith believe for their own reasons, but none of which would stand up in a court of law if defending yourself. You can't have one faith system stand up and say "my faith is the real one" and persecute all others because they have it written down somewhere that their God is the one and only God. What about all the other religions that have it written down?

I don't mean to be rude, and would love to take this up over PM, but this is a bit of a tangent off the pagan discussion. To avoid Modquisition, I vote that we take this up over PM.

Wolfstan wrote:Again this is speculation, but speculation based on how humans work. You only have to see how many non believers start believing in something when it matters to them and this is in the 21st Century. So your average peasant working in the fields, around about AD 200-400 gets to hear about a new religion. This religion tells you that when you die you go to this wonderful place called heaven and to do this all you need to do is cast out your old Gods. Old Gods, they point out that are unpredictable and want you to make sacrifices. All you have to do with this new "all in one God" is worship him and follow this basic rules (10 rules which in general aren't all that bad) and you get to go to this wonderful place when you die. I know what I'd go for if it had been me.

Well the idea of paradise or a heaven is by no means unique or revolutionary to the Christian faith. Things such as the Elysian Fields and the like had been major parts of Pagan religions for some time. I for one think that many of the people in the early Church did truly believe in Christianity, because the gospel literally means "good news" and because of its teaching of equality and love. Interestingly enough, Christianity was embraced by Jew, Gentile, Rich and Poor equally in the early days of the Church.

Wolfstan wrote:You still want to read it one way don't you. The Aztecs grabbing people from other tribes and sacrificing them is completely different to organizing a Crusade and going off to conquer a foreign land.

That is not what the Crusades were about. Crusades=Most misrepresented and misinterpreted event in history.

Wolfstan wrote:The Aztecs didn't believe who you worshiped you were a source of bodies for sacrificing. The Crusaders would either kill you for being a heathen or convert you to their religion. The Aztecs wouldn't of cared less if the people they were sacrificing believed in the same god or not.

Well no, the Aztecs sacrificed other nations and peoples on purpose, partially because they didn't believe in their gods, and partially because they believed their gods made them superior to others.

Ketara wrote:Jeb, if you could extrapolate on this point a little, it would be more helpful and educational to all those reading these. I'm not amazingly knowledgeable on this area of history, and it would be interesting hear why he's wrong, and what the 'right' (if that's the correct word to use) answer is, rather than just effectively writing a longer version of 'lolno'.

I would be happy to Ketara, but I will admit that I wanted to avoid a history lesson. Very well then my friends, grab a chair, a pipe and a drink and gather round the fireplace as we explore the relationship of pre-Christian Rome and the early Church. It has been stated that Rome persecuted the early Church because it was encouraging people to stand up to Rome and that it was a threat. Well that is decidedly wrong and not at all what happened. Rome was actually surprisingly tolerant of other religions in its own Empire, with the Jews and Christians being a small exception to that rule. They didn't care what you believed, as long as you hailed Caesar as Emperor and as a living god. Of course, pre-Imperial Rome, Judaism wasn't much of an issue, especially since there was no emperor. But that is another lesson. After the crucifixion of Christ, the Apostles and early believers were very successful in Evangelizing to people all over the empire, reaching as far as Hispania. Problems began to emerge during the reign of Caligula, but really came to a head during the reign of Nero. Nero openly persecuted Christians, "using them as torches to light the streets of Rome," and blamed them for the great fire that destroyed huge swaths of the city. Our most telling details of Rome's attitude towards Christians comes from the letters of Pliny the Younger to the Emperor Trajan around AD 100. To paraphrase his writings, Pliny wrote to the emperor numerous times regarding the torture and execution of Christians in his province. He declares that just as is policy throughout the Empire he is torturing and executing Christians like a good Roman governor should, but he explains that he doesn't really understand why. He states that they haven't done anything wrong other then refuse to acknowledge the emperor, ie Trajan, as a god and that they refuse to renounce their claims to Christ's divinity. Other then that though he is completely perplexed as to why they should be executed. He states several times that he finds them all to be upstanding citizens who are all devoted to Rome, just not its religious requirements. Most historians have taken this as a very telling letter that explains the common feeling towards Christians by Roman governors. In short Rome executed Christians for their faith, not for their political dissension.

Mick A wrote:Fear was also a major tool used by the church, the threat of not going to the afterlife or being outcast. So as you can see it was very rarely a peasants 'choice' to become christian.

I find your assertion interesting. I don't necessarily agree with all of it, especially the fear part being used by the Church (mostly because it just didn't have that kind of power), but I definitely can find common ground with most of what you say.

Wolfstan wrote:Yep, fair enough. However that then raises the question of why the lords & masters changed? The same principle could apply? Again it's speculation. It could be that it was just down to them being very clever and opportunistic, they could see a new power was emerging and wanted to be part of it.

Again, they could also have actually believed it, I know its hard to understand, but entirely possible, and IMHO likely.

Wolfstan wrote:The victors write history and the Pagans have been made to look bad in this re-written history. It's just me I'm afraid, I find it both arrogant & funny that the believers of one God can point the finger and say that Pagan gods don't exist. Am I the only one to see the irony in that?

Well considering Christians, other monotheists, etc. don't believe that God lives on top of Mt. Olympus, or in the center of the Earth, in our physical, etc., I don't find it that ironic. But again, that is my personal take...

@generalgrog: Your point being? So people can claim to be Christians, but they're not. That's called lying. Or at least false worship. It's nothing new.

I'm pretty sure, as far as the Crusades went, Christians far and wide participated in it. Not all would have been piously motivated, but most were. What evidence do you have that the Pope and the Crusaders were not Christians?

While wolfstan's statement about Christianity motivating people to "stand up" to the Romans has an erroneous connotation of political rebellion, it's not completely wrong. Neither the Christians of antiquity nor the Romans who governed them needed to wait around for Tolstoy or Gandhi to teach them about civil disobedience and its tremendous implications. Witness (no pun intended) the life and martyrdom of Justin or any of the martyrs for that matter. It wasn't too far a step from the Christians being eaten by the lions to Ambrose excommunicating Theodosius. JEB's facts are right but he fails to explain why, in answer to Pliny's question (which was the same as Justin's) Christians needed to be executed for not acknowledging the divinity of Caeser. It wasn't because the Romans were mean or stupid. It was because they were quite sharp--these Christians, whose beliefs they did indeed understand--were not convinced that the coercive temporal power of the state was the final authority, even in some earthly matters. What might such a people eventually do? Take over the entire Empire perhaps? Yep.

Wait, Ceaser was considered divine? With the amount of times these guys were murdered you wouldn't think so.

Politics was the essence of Roman religion.

Emperors Faithful wrote:Wait, Ceaser was considered divine? With the amount of times these guys were murdered you wouldn't think so.

The mantra of the Emperor's divinity was this, "In the East they can worship living emperors as gods, but in Rome they are only worshiped as such after they die." That all changed with Caligula who deified himself, and was then promptly assassinated.

@Manchu: I disagree with your sentiments, but I am to lazy to write another book

JEB_Stuart wrote:@Manchu: I disagree with your sentiments, but I am to lazy to write another book

Yeah, I know what you mean. S'why I left the rest of your post alone.

Emperors Faithful wrote:@generalgrog: Your point being? So people can claim to be Christians, but they're not. That's called lying. Or at least false worship. It's nothing new.

Yes.... lying is a way of putting it, but to be more precise Hypocrites. Intellectual assent does not a Christian make. You can know that Christ is Lord, and not do his will. The demons know he is Lord, and they tremble.

Emperors Faithful wrote:
I'm pretty sure, as far as the Crusades went, Christians far and wide participated in it. Not all would have been piously motivated, but most were. What evidence do you have that the Pope and the Crusaders were not Christians?

Sorry..but mass slaughter in the name of Christ is not Christian behavior. Most of those people participating in crusades were doing it out of greed, or as a way to buy their salvation through papal dispensation. And yes many of the popes, indeed much of the Roman Catholic heirarchy, during that time were hardly Christian, just look at the Borgia. That is why the reformation happened.

But the quote I gave goes way beyond just the dark and middle age Church, many people in the Church(no matter the denomination) today, could be classified as hypocrite.

Sorry this has nothing to do with paganism..if you want to continue discussion in pm shoot me one.

GG