« Intelligence analysts assess the evidence for God | Main | Talking about One is fun, but decidedly Two »

December 11, 2007


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Brian, there is a flaw in the RS rationalising away god-man miracles.

The fact that, although true satgurus cannot perform miracles as per the agreement with Kal, there is no stopping Kal incarnated gurus performing miracles. In actuality, you would expect there to be a plethora of lower region gurus performing miracles, deceiving and ensnaring countless souls into their trap. But there isn't even ONE.

Methinks the truth is something else.

R u sure miracles don't exist. Every Guru cult is full of them. Though anti-Gurus say there exists none. I think this blog is now moving along atheistic manner rather than an open minded quest.

I wonder if Deepak is certain that miracles DO exist? Maybe the tone of Brian's posts is atheistic, but I'm sure he would welcome hard evidence that God is alive and kicking. In fact I hear him calling out for it... Bring it on! But let's not hear the usual, "My cousin prayed for rain to save his corn crop and he got it."

I can only offer my usual non-dual, advaita-like cliche's...This is it, you're already it, nothing needs or can be done, you can go home now. But that hasn't cut it so far, understandably.

I should suggest that Brian engage in certain rituals, exercises, chanting, meditation (whoops, tried that), substances (tried that too), shamanic practices, intense pranayam, fasting, vows of silence, or solitary cave dwelling, which may bring about some degree of altered awareness or at least a good hallucination or two. He may even have some spiritual vision or insight. Perhaps a coyote will reveal secrets and become his spirit guide, or a new purpose as an evangelical or avatar will be revealed by the appearance of angels named Haramatara and Glenn.

As a result of his annointment and new-found charisma he may attract crowds that eventually number into the tens of thousands or more. He may actually believe that he has found God and is ordained to guide others to truth, light and the promised land.

Soon, followers build structures in numerous localities to accomodate the ever-increasing numbers of devotees, and lovely homes suitable for a person of his stature, are provided for his use. Due to the time constraints of his busy schedule and the inconvenience of traveling with the public, a private jet is purchased or leased. In addition to a flight crew on call, there is a staff of an attorney, accountant, secretary, two assistants, personal trainer, agent and business manager, not to mention 24/7 security including armed guards.

This would have to be proof that God exists, don't you think, Brian?

Deepak, as Tucson pointed out, miracles are in the eye of the beholder. If there was objective evidence for them, we'd call them "facts."

Why hasn't there been a miracle that is so obvious, so indisputable, that it puts to rest any doubt in the miraculous?

A second moon appears in the sky. "Believe" is written across the first moon. Graves open up and long-dead people are resurrected.

It's easy to think of countless examples of miracles that would blow the world away and make everybody into believers that something exists beyond the physical laws of nature that we know now.

But nothing like this has ever happened. All we get are teeny-tiny "miracles." Ash appearing from a guru's pocket. A disease going into remission. Tears coming down a statue's face. An image of a holy man in a shroud.

So, no, I don't believe in miracles. How could I? Like Tucson said, I'd like to. Who wouldn't?

I've been trying to manifest a Mini Cooper S convertible in my driveway for years now. If anyone could make that miracle happen (like right now), I'd become their disciple in an instant.

Dear Churchless,
A true miracle is a changed consciousness.

Albert, exactly. That's why I worship a strong cup of coffee.

Brian, you frequently talk about wanting a Mini Cooper S. Here's 15 of 'em near you. Go for it!!:

Tucson, clearly your comment is a message from God. I accept it with absolute faith. Next year I will be (ugh...) 60 years old, which seems like an eminently fine time to have a midlife car crisis.

Thanks for the Mini Cooper research. I didn't know so many used ones were available. They seem overpriced, but that's to be expected from a dealer. Mini's are so personal, I think I'd have to custom order one to be happy with the style, color, etc.

Plus, they just came out with the "extended" version, which has gotten some good reviews. For our country/dog lifestyle. more room would be handy -- and reportedly the handling doesn't suffer.

I never understood what the big deal about miracles was anyway. One time an uncle of mine, who is a world-class musician, turned salt, salt I got from my cupboard and put into my hand, into sugar. That was cool.
But why have miracles have had such precedence in religion?
Probably because back in the day, when we had less scientific understanding of the universe, we thought we might be able to influence the forces of nature, and one who could do this would be considered a great person, and a great help in aiding the fulfillment of our desires. But even if someone could walk on water today, I am still stuck here in my body.
Miracles, if they do exist, are just spiritual party tricks...no thanks.

Deepak wrote: "R u sure miracles don't exist. Every Guru cult is full of them. I think this blog is now moving along atheistic manner rather than an open minded quest."

-- And I think that you are a real idiot Deepak. Where are the so-called miracles that you speak of? Just show and prove one of them. And I am not talking mere unsubstantieated stories and myths, but proven miracles. As we said to William ahile back, either put up or shut-up. Show us the proof. You can't, because there is NONE. So you are just another RS cult goon who is full of phony mystic bullshit and fantasies.

Dear Brian,

One of my friends suffering from Cancer was in the last stage. Doctors had informed that he may die any moment. His elder brother came across a so called guru who had the power to heal any disease whatsoever be on this earth by putting his right palm on head of the patient. So that Guru came and performed his healing touch. He put his right palm on the head of the patient and the patient expired at once.

I said it was a miracle. My friend was healed instantaneously. He had not to suffer any more now. Yet most people were disappointed.

Was it a miracle or a chance?

With regards,

I think all of u can get in touch with Sai Baba directly. He is the direct agent of Kal.

I enjoy the conversations you generate here.

Are you an aetheist or just someone "looking for truth"?

I agree with one of the other commenters that much like beauty, the miracle is in the eye of the beholder.

Forgive me for not being able to remember many of the pertinent details, but I remember once reading about a group of researchers who were studying some isolated group of "primitive" people who possessed very little technology. The researchers brought in a portable movie projector and wanted to observe the reactions of the natives when they were shown images of all of the marvels of the outside world. When they started this experiment with the natives, they met with an unexpected problem. The natives were awed by the movie projector, but--having no frame of reference for video photography--they were completely unable to process the fact that these pictures flashing on a screen were representations of some part of the "real world." In short, they viewed this strange device which flashed colored lights onto a screen as being a miracle, but they were totally unable to comprehend it as a technology.

I would suggest that we in the modern world have exactly the opposite scenario. It is not a case of, "now that science is here, where have all the miracles gone?"; rather it is more correct to say that the advent of science and technology destroyed our ability to comprehend miracles. We are little different then those natives. Had they spent sufficient time around a projector to learn how it works, they would have eventually learned to see the pictures and it would no longer be a miracle for them. This is what has happened to us as a global society.

The problem with scientists and those who worship the religion of science is precisely that they are skeptical. I have a friend who is a hardcore atheist and he believes that scientists are ultimately more rational people than religious believers. His reasoning goes like this--if tomorrow there came to light some conclusive way to prove that God exists, even the most staunch atheistic scientist would have to accept proof and become a religious believer. However, if tomorrow there came to light an equally conclusive way to prove that God did not exist, staunch religious believers would simply chuck their faith in science out the window and go merrily about their lives. Of course this is just conjecture, but I think he is right about the religious believers and wrong about the scientists. Science is just as intractable as any (other) religion, and most scientists would never rest until they could find a way to reinterpret the data in a way that suits their pre-established worldview. As I said before, the problem is that scientists are skeptical (implying a pre-conceived bias) rather than neutral and open to any result.

If tomorrow there were a laboratory-controlled example of someone walking on water, resurrecting the dead, multiplying loaves of bread or whatever, it would not change the minds of the scientists. Brian, I wager to say that it would not change your mind, despite your statements that you would like to believe. If a true miracle was/has already been caught on film, scientists would not rest until they found a way to explain it away as an anomaly, explain it within the context of what they already believe to be true about reality, cast doubt on it due to some lack of sensitivity in their instruments, etc. Generally speaking, those who are skeptical about miracles will never see them due to their very skepticism. Those who are fully open to the reality of miracles may just see them, due to their openness. To say that both perspectives cannot co-exist and be equally true strikes me as decidedly un-Taoist.

Just my two cents...

Jim, I heartily disagree with you. You have a seriously mistaken view of science. By and large, scientists are entirely willing to change their ideas when new convincing evidence comes along.

This is why science progresses, and religion doesn't. I've never worked in the "hard" sciences, but I spent two years in a Systems Science Ph.D. program and spent quite a few years doing health services research.

Often I'd want a study to prove something, and it wouldn't. I accepted that, along with my colleagues. That's how science works: reality rules; facts rule.

Scientists would love to see solid evidence of miracles. Because this would mean that "miracles" aren't miraculous. If they can be repeated, this means that a new law of nature has been discovered.

Your contention is common -- that skepticism is a belief system. Actually, it is the absence of a belief system, as I've argued before. If you tell me that a pink elephant is in my living room, and I don't see one, I'm not a believer in the non-existence of pink elephants. I'm simply someone who is skeptical that you're correct, because there's no evidence of your claim.


You stated,

"The problem with scientists and those who worship the religion of science is precisely that they are skeptical. I have a friend who is a hardcore atheist and he believes that scientists are ultimately more rational people than religious believers. His reasoning goes like this--if tomorrow there came to light some conclusive way to prove that God exists, even the most staunch atheistic scientist would have to accept proof and become a religious believer."

---Are all Scientists followers of Atheism?
---Is there a describable difference between an atheist and a hardcore atheist?
---Do you have an example of, "a conclusive way to prove?"
---Are you trying to say, that a conclusive way to prove, can convert a staunch atheist scientist into a religious believer? That is, inside every s. a. scientist is a religious believer, trying to get out?

I'm not trying to find fault with your statements, I'm trying to gain more information as to how you derived your conclusions.

Thanks for a reply,


Yes, we heartily disagree about the willingness of scientists to change their thinking. First off, every individual human who calls himself or herself a scientist is unique; I'm not willing to paint with such broad strokes as to say that each and every one of them is part of the problem. There are good and bad eggs in any group. I am willing to take you at your word that you and those with whom you have worked in the past are open minded in the face of new scientific evidence. However, I think that people like you and your colleagues are in shorter supply than those who cling dogmatically to their own idea of how reality should look and what results their experiments ought to yield.

I have never worked in the "hard sciences," nor any field of science...but the viewpoint of an outside observer is worth something as well. Let's take the science which surrounds nutrition, an area in which I have a great interest. Like everyone, I have my personal bias and that colors my perceptions, but I think it is relatively easy to show the gaping holes in the so-called science which informs the official USDA / FDA positions on human nutrition. My position on nutrition is in line with that of the Weston A. Price Foundation, a non-profit which advocates for a return to sensible nutritional protocols of the past. Without wasting too many keystrokes here trying to explain their position, I would simply invite one to pick up a copy of "Nourishing Traditions: The Diet which Challenges Politically Correct Nutrition and the Diet Dictocrats," by Sally Fallon and Mary Enig, Ph.D., or else to do some poking around on www.westonaprice.org.

Brian, you really ought to attend one of the seminars presented by Sally Fallon and take a look at the "science" behind mainstream nutrition. Take a look at their nice, neat charts and graphs showing, for example, the well-defined correlation between eating animal fats and an increase in heart disease...and then look at the same graph which becomes haphazard and meaningless when all of the original data from the study is shown. (We support the consumption of liberal quantities of animal fat as being protective against heart disease, by the way.) It is common practice for these "scientists" working on their low-fat agenda to blithely omit any data which doesn't support their position.

Call it my intransigence if you will, but I refuse to believe that this is not common practice throughout the field of science. Just like any religious dogma, the prevailing viewpoints in science take on a life, an energy, of their own. It takes a large amount of energy to shift the consensus point of view, even in the face of overwhelming evidence that the old view is incorrect.

Regarding the alleged pink elephant in your living room, suppose that I can see it? What then? Do we call in a third person off the street to break the tie? Does it come down to a democratic process of putting it to a vote? To use a less comical example, there are plenty of people in this world who claim to be able to see the human aura, yet another person may look and see nothing out of the ordinary. Who is right? And why should I trust the word of some scientific instrument to be the arbiter of the question? The most powerful, state-of-the-art tools of science can't even detect the vast majority of the universe...the vexing problems of dark matter and dark energy.

And also, Brian, I would argue that science does not progress in a way that is truly meaningful. True, it allows us to do niftier and niftier tricks with the manipulation of our physical environment (at an ever-growing cost to that environment), but it has never really progressed beyond the flawed point of view of its founders that all of reality can be measured, quantified and controlled by human beings. The numerous achievements of science are like so much theological dogma in a vast religious tome. That, in my opinion, is why it usually serves to perpetuate our sense of separateness and drive us farther and farther away from nature.


Please forgive me for being imprecise. The example I gave was simply worded as my friend always worded it. I think he is under the impression that most (if not all) scientists are atheists, but that is not my belief. My use of the word, "hardcore," was simply intended as a synonym for "staunch." Therefore, the difference between "an atheist and a hardcore atheist" is not something quantifiable...although perhaps the staunch atheists might tend to be more vocal in their criticism of the theist position. I do not have an example of a conclusive way to prove (or disprove) the existence of God, nor do I believe that such proof will ever surface. This is a purely hypothetical scenario which my friend used as a vehicle to express his belief that scientists (and atheists) are more willing than religious believers to modify their views in the face of new evidence. My intention in bringing it up had nothing to do with the issue of atheism. My only intention was to assert that scientists and religious believers are equally guilty of failing to modify their views in the face of new evidence.

Have I cleared myself up sufficiently?

Peace, Brian and Roger,

I am much in agreement with Jim (and Mary Enig, etc, etc) regarding the benefits of the olden or well trodden more simple basic traditional diet, especially with regard to animal fats, cholesterol, and the like.

The statistics and real facts clearly show, for instance and among other things, that ever since artificial Margerine (as opposed to real butter) was first introduced, the health of those who consumed it declined compared to those who ate only butter and other animal fats and fish oil.

The public has definitely been mislead and lied to about many significant dietary issues... and this has been done by so-called scientists, not by clergymen.

(but as many here already know, I am no fan of the religious types either)

So I would venture that, as Jim points out, the same or similar problem exists in other areas of the scientific cummunity and scientific endeavor.


And also, thanks to Tucson initially, I have now assembled some useful and related info resources:

PaleoDiet.com links - The Paleolithic Diet - What the Hunter/Gatherers Ate:

Brief Introduction to the Paleolithic Diet:

Neanderthin and Paleolithic diet:

The Paleo lifestyle:

Paleolithic Nutrition - Your Future Is In Your Dietary Past:

Paleolithic Nutrition:

The Naive Vegetarian:

Paleolithic Nutrition:

Beyond Vegetarianism:

The Paleolithic Eating Support Recipe Collection:

Weston Price Foundation:


Thanks for your reply,

You stated,

"Therefore, the difference between "an atheist and a hardcore atheist" is not something quantifiable...although perhaps the staunch atheists might tend to be more vocal in their criticism of the theist position."

---Jim, could you sight an example of a stauch atheists "more vocal" criticism of a theist position? Hopefully, your example would be free of any reference to social or political issues.

---Jim, sorry to put you to so much work, however, could you give your definition of,

-Evidence (any explanation as to how evidence points in a particular direction)
-a Fact
-a Proof
-a truth

That is, how does information convert into a fact, a truth, a proof or a piece of evidence? How do I know that a piece of evidence, that has been presented, is actually evidence?

Please reply, in your own words, not your friends.

Best wishes,


Perhaps this is not free of reference to social or political issues, but when I think of vocal atheists then the late, great George Carlin comes to my mind. Carlin built a good chunk of his career on belittling the theist position, among numerous other things.

When I first made my posting, I did not have one atheist in mind. It has simply been the case for me personally that most of the atheists I have known have been very much like religious fundamentalists in their own way--extremely interested in trying to convert everyone around them to a godless point of view.

As to evidence, facts, proofs and truths, I am largely going to plead ignorance. I struggle with the definitions of these things as they apply to me subjectively...I wouldn't venture to define them for anyone else. My personal point of view with all of these things evolves over time, day by day, even. I suspect it is this way for many (if not most) people. Sorry I can't give a more definitive answer...I wish I had one.





tAo, no, I'm not informed of "spam" (some of which, like your comment, isn't really spam). I have to remember to look at the list of comments after logging into TypePad, which often I don't do.

I'll make a better effort to put this on my morning Internet to-do list. Just marked the comment as "not spam." Supposedly TypePad learns over time the difference between spam and not-spam. Hopefully that is happening.

tAo has presented some excellent resources above in this thread for those who wish to learn more about the principles of the paleo-diet, aka evolutionary diet.

Anyone who still fears meat, eggs and animal fats because they think these things cause cancer and heart attacks might want to get informed...don't fear the meat, fear the wheat!

One thing is certain. We are going to die no matter what we eat, so one could just say 'fuck it' and eat whatever they feel like. However, for those who want to enjoy a higher level of health and vitality for as long as possible, the paleo-diet is worth a look.

Purists on the diet eat only:
*meat (any kind of edible creature)
*fruit and berries
*nuts and seeds

They avoid:
*dairy products

Why? Study and find out.

My vegetarian self can't resist sharing this news item: "New Evidence Linking Meat to Cancer." I keep wondering, if meat is so good for people, why is it so bad for them? See:

OK, two can play the game. If vegetarianism is so good for you, why is it so bad for you?


I've got plenty more. I just grabbed the last link real quick-like.

Regarding the misleading notion that consumption of meat is linked to cancer, the following is excerpted from a very informative article at http://www.westonaprice.org/mythstruths/mtbeef.html ---

"Actually, we know one of the mechanisms whereby colon cancer is initiated, and it does not involve meat per se. Colon cancer occurs when high levels of dietary vegetable oils and hydrogenated fats, along with certain carcinogens, are acted on by certain enzymes in the cells lining the colon, leading to tumor formation.14 This explains the fact that in industrialized countries, where there are many carcinogens in the diet and where consumption of vegetable oils and carcinogens is high, some studies have correlated meat-eating with colon cancer; but in traditional societies, where vegetable oils are absent and the food is free of additives, meat-eating is not associated with cancer.

"Riding piggy back on the alleged association of beef with colon cancer are supposed links with other cancers, such as breast cancer. Here the evidence shows a similarly inconsistent pattern. Cancer is a disease of rich countries where numerous factors can be fingered—-altered fats, fabricated foods, low levels of protective nutrients, high levels of carcinogens—-and rich countries consume lots of beef. But association is not the same as cause. Countries where there are more telephones have more cancer, but that does not mean that telephones cause cancer."


To support Jim's comment:


Just a note on the topic of Atheism.

I personally have nothing for or against Atheism. However, I did find some information on the internet:

Defining Atheism:

To define Atheism, you must first look at it's root word, theism. Theism is simply the belief of a god(s). Theism by itself is not a religion, it is just simply a belief, nothing more. Theists can be either polytheists or monotheists, depending on how many gods they choose to believe in. After this we go into specific religions, like islam, judaism, & christianity.

Atheism is simply the opposite of theism. The prefix A means "without" or "not", so Atheism is simply a lack of belief in god(s). It is not a religion, just like theism is not a religion, but there are specific philosophies of Atheism that can be defined as religion, thought since they all lack a belief in a god or the supernatural, they are not true religions, for example Humanism.

Atheism also has branches off the basic dis-belief. There are "strong Atheists" and "weak Atheists." Strong Atheism, usually is a total deniale of the existance of god(s); it usually is aimed at one or two specific gods for various reasons. Most Atheists who think this way, see a belief in a particular religion's god to be totally irrational and see no possibility for the existance of their god.

Weak Atheism, is what most Atheists would be; simply without belief in any god(s). Weak Atheists do not believe in god(s) for the simple reason, that it is irrational and no evidence for the god has been brought to their attention. Most weak Atheists are quite ready to believe in a god as soon as there is some sort of evidence in its favor. Weak atheists, will not choose a particular god to deny, they look at all gods equally.

----If there is some absolute evidence for the existance of God, then why would One then start to believe in God? Hopefully, this absolute evidence would allow One to now absolutely Know God. Surely, absolutely Knowing God is the true goal.

If One is an absolute knower of God, then what is the name of this category of person?

A Knowist?

Contrary to your skepticism of RSSB miracles, RSSB masters have performed many miracles, in fact as of recent, Gurinder Singh performed a miracle in front of angry Sikhs. I can go on and on, but the gist of my argument is that RSSB masters are not prohibited from performing miracles,but they are prohibited to performing Sai Baba style miracles.
The problem with science is that if the scientists don't find out the mechanisms of the miracle they condemn the miracle like wise, they condemn herbs that are more effective than conventional medicines (I'll talk about this later)
They need to learn that there are some things in this world that science will never be able to work out.
There are some cogent herbs that can fight many conditions better than conventional medicines which have been developed by scientists. Yet when scientists test these herbs they can't find anything effective in the herbs, Science cannot measure everything.

G, ur talking nonsense.

Sorry Peaceseeker, if you want proof of the RSSB miracles all you have to do is do a Google search, it's funny how there is positive news about RSSB on Google but Brian doesn't incorporate it on here.
But when there is false news about RSSB he's quick along with the other bloggers to incorporate it here.

G, please share the proof of RSSB miracles. Gosh, if there was demonstrable proof of ANY miracles in the world -- Christian, Buddhist, RSSB, whatever -- you'd think this would be front page news.

But this hasn't happened. So let us know about this proof, which somehow has gone unnoticed by everybody but you. Enlighten us.

Remember what I noted in last night's post: anecdotal evidence isn't persuasive proof. People can say anything about anything. Doesn't mean it is true.

The human brain is capable of massive feats of self-deception. That's why objective evidence is needed: to protect against self-delusion, tricks of the mind.

I agree with Blogger B (at least when it comes to religious beliefs which includes RS, but man do we disagree on fiscal politics! But that's another story).

G wrote:

"Contrary to your skepticism of RSSB miracles, RSSB masters have performed many miracles, in fact as of recent, Gurinder Singh performed a miracle in front of angry Sikhs."

--Please provide proof of any miracle attributed to any master as Blogger B requested. What if I said I once left the body and shot across the universe at super warp speed. I saw and conprehended millions of galaxies containing trilions of stars in an instant. Do you believe me? I would expect that you would at least be skeptical, but if you are not, why are you not?

"I can go on and on, but the gist of my argument is that RSSB masters are not prohibited from performing miracles,but they are prohibited to performing Sai Baba style miracles."

--Who prohibits them from doing this? Where is this "Who" and how do you know this "Who" exists? Or, what if this "Who" is wrong about prohibiting such miracles? How do you know any of this? Really, HOW do you know?

"The problem with science is that if the scientists don't find out the mechanisms of the miracle they condemn the miracle like wise, they condemn herbs that are more effective than conventional medicines (I'll talk about this later)"

--It seems more reasonable to question that which cannot be demonstrated than to believe it.(By the way, many MD's do recognise the effectiveness of certain herbs.)

"They need to learn that there are some things in this world that science will never be able to work out."

--Is that a good reason to believe in something without questioning it? A so-called master tells you that you must jump out of an airplane and that you will then fly straight to a planet with an environment more conducive for spiritual advancement, but in order to do that you must first avoid rennet in cheese for eight months. Do you think you would jump out of the plane after the requisite time spent avoiding rennet? Is that any more far-fetched than the dogma of RSSB?

"There are some cogent herbs that can fight many conditions better than conventional medicines which have been developed by scientists. Yet when scientists test these herbs they can't find anything effective in the herbs, Science cannot measure everything."

--Actually, scientists are able to identify the active components in many herbs. Where have you been?

I use herbs on a daily basis.

I also have had metaphysical experiences, but that doesn't answer the questions I posed above for YOU.

Faith is fine. Sometimes we must have faith, otherwise we would never ride in a car or airplane or eat food served to us in a restaurant. Just be honest with yourself.

Agree with you on fiscal politics.

USA is bankrupt. Obama (and Romney)
are New World servants.

Until the Federal Reserve Bank is abolished
nothing will change.

The fiat currencies will collaspe.

The world will collaspe via debt in about
5 to 8 years.

(I am an accountant). USA is filled
with sheeple whom have no clue.

Absolutely no clue we have been taken
over by the bankers (NWO).

Goldman Sachs, J P Morgan, Rothschilds
(BIS), City of London rehypothecation
and derivatives.

Yet, we talk about religion and if
duality, or non duality is fact.

A great crises faces the world.

The globalists have won. It appears too
late to recover.

Hitler could only marvel at the stupidity
of the USA and free world.

I think Mike is right. Yes, the USA is bankrupt. It can't even pay the interest on its debt without creating more debt and derivatives and playing the QE game via the Fed.

It is amazing that this is not front page news and seen as a national crisis, a debacle, the potential magnitude of which makes the debt crisis of 2006 look like chump change.

It's like there is a monster in the room but people looks away in the hope that the monster will vanish. Few will face it because what needs to be done is political suicide.

Yet Ob*ma does not address it with urgency. He could, but he doesn't. He's not dumb. He's very smart. Why is he ignoring the obvious?

Because he is in on the plan.

The plan is one world government with the US diminished in its power and scope via destruction of the current economic system.

I think the words of Hazur Maharaj Charan Singh in his book The Master Answers are very clear about the miracles by these kind and soft hearted masters.

----Saints can do whatever they like. There is absolutely no restriction on them.

----Saints are not jugglers, who come to make miracles in this world, they do not try to perform miracles, but they are capable of performing all miracles, because they are so tender hearted and so much in love with the humanity and with the Lord that THEY SOMETIMES DO INTERFERE WITH OUR KARMAS. THEN THEY TAKE THE BURDEN ON THEMSELVES, AND WE CALL THESE THINGS MIRACLES. THEY WANT TO TAKE US BACK TO THE LORD. THAT IS THEIR MAIN MIRACLE, which we try to confuse with these outside physical miracles, which is not their purpose at all.

----We should try to seek their teachings in their books, and not give so much importance to where they were born; what were their MIRACLES; what they did; who were their parents; whether they had a teacher or not. We should not get ourselves confused in history, in these matters; that is not the purpose of our lives.

Juan, do you understand the difference between words in a book and actual reality? There's a big difference. Holy books and holy teachers say all kinds of stuff, much of it contradictory.

Each of us has to decide whether we want to revere thoughts, concepts, and other emanations of the mind, or reality. Since "God" is considered to be what is most real, we come closer to God when we come closer to reality.

You seem to be content with thoughts rather than God/reality. This is how the mind tricks us. We mistake our own thinking for what is truly real.

Consider what is said in my most recent posts about miracles and the need for evidence. Consider whether you are committed to knowing what actually IS, or whether you are content with what your mind hopes could be.




What you are doing is no different than an evangelist citing biblical scriptures as proof of the truth of what he is saying. Except, your scriptures are RSSB books.

The evangelist believes the Bible.

You believe RSSB books.

Who should we believe...you, the evangelist, both, neither?

Hi tucson,
People wonder where is this Positive Power
I talk about all the time.

As it cares not for religion.

Here is the Positive Power in all
its glory.


Wonder where the Positive Power is in the
form of a man ?

A man greater then God and all the gurus
and saviours that ever lived.


These men exist in every area of life,
but you are hypnotised.

Even the enlightened are hypnotised.

Trash philosphy and deal with reality.

Exsatsangis, WAKE UP.

You are still asleep.

Wow, Farage is great. We needed a voice like his opposing Ob*ma in the election instead of Romney who soft-peddaled it into oblivion. Farage is not afraid to tell it like it is. They laugh, but they know instinctively he's right. He is the positive power of democracy and freedom opposing the powers of negativity currently in the hands of globalist elitists.

Hi tucson,

True religion has nothing to do with
religion. True religion is far off topic.

The Positive Power has tremendous passion.

The Power does not do flanking movements,
it attacks the center head on.

One does not get in front of a freight train, one jumps on board.

Jiddo Krishnamurti had this Power along
with Ramana Maharshi.

But, JFK had it. Galileo had it. Nigel
Farage has it.

They are not holy people.

They spread the truth. They change
the world.

The truth seems very strange to people,
because they have never heard it before.

We have been hynotised since birth.


Mike, with due respect this positive power u speak of doesnt seem very productive in achieving its goal. Especially considering all this new word order , domination conspiracy your speak. The impression given is that the "negative" power/force has won!!!! Is the positive power less poweful?

Hi Peacemaker,

The negative power has billions of people
whom have submitted to it.

The Positive Force has few.

There is a reason why. How many people want
to be crucified for the good of mankind ?

People can die for saints, religion and even money. But,
to knowingly and willfully
dir for the betterment of mankind and animals requires someone with
compassion that goes beyond description.

The New World Order has won. They dominate
every facet of our lives and give us the illusion of free vote (amoungst their
chosen candidates).

All the financial experts I know agree
we are finished and doomed.

The NWO wants one world currency and
one world government. They even announce
this and it is not a secret.

They control and dominate banking and
politics with their donations (payoffs).

We have no free will. We are sheeple.
We are all dreaming the same dream.
We will all go off the cliff together.

The Positive Power is far beyond God.
It can do what it wills. But, humans must
be of the same will.

To help the world.

Hi Peacekeeper, cont. from above post.
You stated
" that the "negative" power/force has won!!!!"

Yes, indeed(at least so far).

Remember, I mentioned John F Kennedy
as one of the people whom the Positive
Power used, as unsaintly as he was.

None of us would be alive today if he had
not stopped the atomic war with Russia.
It came within minutes of happenning.

It was a miracle he stopped it. Key
word being MIRACLE.

The Positive Force is often seen as being knocked out ONLY TO COME FROM BEHIND.


Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)


  • Welcome to the Church of the Churchless. If this is your first visit, click on "About this site--start here" in the Categories section below.
  • HinesSight
    Visit my other weblog, HinesSight, for a broader view of what's happening in the world of your Church unpastor, his wife, and dog.
  • BrianHines.com
    Take a look at my web site, which contains information about a subject of great interest to me: me.
  • Twitter with me
    Join Twitter and follow my tweets about whatever.
  • I Hate Church of the Churchless
    Can't stand this blog? Believe the guy behind it is an idiot? Rant away on our anti-site.