Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join Similar Worlds today »

He was speaking a profound, symbolic truth. When you look at a human life, it is basically a perceptual programming and a download from cradle to

grave. 95 percent of our life is coming from the program of life, how to live that life, that we get in the first 7 years of life. You come out of the womb and within 4 years, you've only just got here, you're sitting at a desk with an authority figure representing the states version of everything, in front of you, telling you when you have to be there, when you can leave, when you can speak, when you can go to the toilet, when you can eat, what is, what isn't, what's possible, what isn't, and the nature of everything. Every human, the first 7 years, is downloaded to hypnosis. The brain of a child under 7 is a lower frequency than consciousness, called theta. Theta is imagination. Theta is also hypnosis. Before you can become conscious, if you don't have any programs, what are you going to be conscious of? It's a download of normal. One of the greatest forms of mind control is repetition, all the way through your formative years. 95 percent of our life comes from those programs in the subconscious. Every day, only about 5 percent of your life, are you using conscious, which is creative. 7 years was the program period and 95 percent of your life after that will be whatever that program is and they feed off of your low energy to fuel their systems operations. The Jesuits said for 400 years, “Give me a child for his first seven years and l will give you the man” because they knew this.


Richard Dawkins has suggested making it illegal to expose children to religion until they’re 18 years old.
[@1223841,AmadeusInvictus] And Jesus cursed a fig tree for not bearing fruit (and yes, I'm aware that this is interpreted as symbolic of the nation of Israel). But taken literally, that would be the action of an insane person - yet you follow him anyway.

I never said Richard Dawkins should be taken as an infallible guide in every area of life. Realistically, it would be impossible to prevent parents from religiously indoctrinating their children. My point is, you have an opinion that the public school system is "indoctrinating" children, while I have the same opinion of religious schools.

By the way, pedophilia and other forms of sexual abuse when committed by religious leaders are often covered up by the churches and other institutions they are members of. So at least Dawkins is being honest, and not pretending to condemn pedophilia while secretly engaging in it.
AmadeusInvictus · 31-35, M
[@1026,LeopoldBloom] How in the world can you equate righteous judgement of inaction, idleness and disobedience to that? That's not even worth responding to.

Real Christians condemn and have always condemned the pedophilia that goes on within the Catholic Church (which is not Christian) and anywhere else it goes on.

You're really grasping at straws here.

Richard Dawkins is probably a pedophile himself, because only a pedophile would defend pedophilia.
[@1223841,AmadeusInvictus] "Real Christians" is the No True Scotsman argument. It would be more accurate to say that some Christians engage in sexual assault, while others facilitate this, and others condemn them.

You're also misrepresenting Dawkins' views. I found this quote from his Twitter feed:

[quote]Mild pedophilia is bad. Violent pedophilia is worse. If you think that's an endorsement of mild pedophilia, go away and learn how to think.[/quote]

That's like saying, stealing a purse is bad, stealing a car is worse, and someone taking that to be an endorsement of purse snatching. And it's even worse to accuse the person saying that of being a purse snatcher themselves. Doesn't your so-called "religion" have a prohibition against bearing false witness?
You must really enjoy making these rants and getting the attention you crave.
AmadeusInvictus · 31-35, M
[@1200996,BlueSkyKing] I enjoy spreading the truth and giving people the opportunity hear the other side, to hear something that is different from the same shite that we are given by the 6 corporations that own all of the television, newspapers, radio and internet content. From there, they have the free will to either accept or reject it.
[@1223841,AmadeusInvictus] You're definitely giving us the opportunity to hear the other side; the truth, not so much. But it is valuable to be aware of the danger posed by people like you, so we can more effectively resist it. It's why I occasionally listen to right-wing talk radio.
[@1223841,AmadeusInvictus] You sure picked the place with the least audience.

 
Post Comment
 
27613 people following
Uncategorized
Personal Stories, Advice, and Support
New Post
Associated Groups Category Members