Not that I'm paranoid or anything but uh.......

[Aetherous]

I just want to say to Aaron and a few others: questioning the official story and investigating the discrepancies that clearly exist, is not a disservice to the people involved in the tragedy. Insinuating that this is heartless and will hurt the families is just plain false. If a family member pointed their finger at conspiracy theorists, they'd be placing the blame on the wrong person...

 

For those who don't believe it's a conspiracy, I see your point and agree that it is quite possible. I personally don't blindly believe either way...there is not enough evidence to know.

 

What there is evidence of is: a LOT of false and contradictory reporting, strange connections to Hollywood and a mysteriously timely death of the person involved, unexplained aspects that came through on the police scanner, unexplained aspects of children's testimony from being interviewed on that day, the media using living children's facebook pictures to represent the deceased, doctored photos of family members, family members not shedding a single tear about their child who was killed and actually laughing and beaming a genuine smile, family members looking eerily (exactly) similar to people of another family name from Florida who all seem to have a connection to characters in multiple other events....this is only scratching the surface of the discrepancies here.

 

Those that don't care to hear it...fine. Go ahead - see and hear no evil. But please don't come in and insult the intelligence of those that actually have been paying attention, and who are willing to question.

[Aetherous]

I don't buy the argument that a well regulated militia = everyone bearing arms ... it what sense is 'everyone' a militia

 

Well, it's not literally everyone. There are a lot of people who can't have firearms, such as those who were in the mental health system.

 

If you want to understand how all qualified people can and should be considered a militia, watch Red Dawn (I'm thinking of the older version, haven't seen the new one).

Edited January 11, 2013 by turtle shell

[Apech]

...

 

I completely agree that it should not be unregulated. I just feel that complete bans that have been called for are not only bound to be ineffective, but also unconstitutional.

 

Thanks ... yes. This is the equivalent of what used to exist in the jolly old middle ages in England. Every man had a long bow and was obliged to train in using it. We won the battle of Agincourt and Crecy against the French on this basis. So I see the idea. This was a regulated in the sense that the expectation was that people became proficient in the use of the bow and so on.

 

And some degree of regulation is exactly what I am reading into the 2nd amendment in the case of the interpretation of 'well regulated' which according to the link provided by K above means 'trained an disciplined'.

 

I think the facts of the story should be challenged. After all if the facts are never revealed how will lessons be learned? the press sadly today are only interested in 'shock horror' and headlines that sell. Investigative reporting seems to be dead as an art. I think you are more likely to get the truth through the internet but then you get all the rubbish as well. And I agree for what its worth that digging for the facts is not disrespectful to the dead or their families ... in fact it is kind of tribute to them ... provided its not crazy or tasteless.

[SeriesOfTubes]

I'm close to several people involved that worked at the school and I can assure that you can discard any conspiracy theory that relies on either the principle, Dawn Hochsprung, Adam and Nancy Lanza as well as some of the older staff as fictitious characters. They were all very real people.

[Stosh]

Hand recognition software on all guns would address many misuses and theft of guns , let alone just the prospect of protecting ones children from shooting themselves. Its a minor inconvenience with large ramifications. Think about it.

[Flolfolil]

so am i falling into the category of not in the real world losers here? Because just for the record my point was that i don't believe anything, not even the conspiracy. What is a loser? How does one lose at life? And what is this "real world" for that matter?

 

 

ANYWAYS. Something i wouldn't like to see is armed teachers in schools, which a lot of people are talking about. i would have dropped out a lot sooner than i did if my teacher had a gun

[Vmarco]

so am i falling into the category of not in the real world losers here? Because just for the record my point was that i don't believe anything, not even the conspiracy. What is a loser? How does one lose at life? And what is this "real world" for that matter?

 

 

What is the Real World?

 

The book A Course In Miracles begins:

 

Nothing real can be threatened.

Nothing unreal exists.

Herein lies the peace of God.

Sentient beings interprete that according to their various indoctrinations,...however, reading this text cover to cover, in an open-minded way, those 3 lines above can be rewritten as this:

 

Nothing real exists in phenomena.

Nothing unreal exists in Reality.

There is no god.

 

Reading ACIM was ego shattering. The day after finishing ACIM, I had the opportunity to talk with Tara Singh, the world's foremost authority on ACIM. He said, "yes, the punch line of ACIM is that there is no god, although the book uses god as a fundamental theme." He told me that less than 2% of those who have done the class realize what I did.

 

I list ACIM as one of the 5 most significant books (including all sutras) of my life.

 

Those knowledgeable of ACIM have responded to the following 3 questions as such (which you "No Right, No Wrong" may find interesting):

 

 

1. If a God did not create the world or the body, who did? Moreover, who are we and how did we get here?

This is among the most commonly asked questions, and is certainly an understandable one. Almost all people believe that they are physical and psychological selves, living in a material universe that pre-existed their coming, and which will survive their leaving. The difficulty in understanding that this is not the case lies in the fact that we are so identified with our individual corporeal selves, that it is almost impossible to conceive of our existence on the level of the mind that is outside the world of time and space.

 

When the thought of separation seemed to occur, A Course in Miracles explains that man seemed to fall asleep and dream a dream, the contents of which are that oneness became multiplicity, and that the non-dualistic Mind of man became fragmented and separate from its Source, split into insane segments at war with themselves. As the Course explains, these fragments projected outside the mind a series of dreams or scripts that collectively constitute the history of the physical universe. On an individual level, the serial dramas our ego personalities identify as our own personal lives are also projections of our split and fragmented minds.

 

Thus we are all actors and actresses on the stage of life, as Shakespeare wrote, living out a dream that we experience as our individual reality, separate and apart from Who we really are as Real Self. Moreover, our minds have projected many different personalities in the collective dream of the fragmented little self, complicating the whole process. Therefore, the question "How did we get here?" must be understood from this perspective of the collective and individual dream. In other words, we are not truly here, but are dreaming that we are. As A Course in Miracles states: "[We] are already home, dreaming of exile" (text, 169; T-10.1.2: 1). And this is how the dream seemed to happen:

 

Into eternity, where all is one, there crept a tiny, mad idea, at which man remembered not to laugh. In his forgetting [to laugh] did the thought become a serious idea, and possible of both accomplishment and real effects (text, p. 544; T-27.VITI.6:2-3).

 

These "real effects" constitute the physical world we think is our home. The following passage is perhaps the best description in the Course of the process whereby this effect came into existence, once man took seriously the tiny, mad idea that there could be a substitute for Love. As we shall now see, this resulted in the making of the physical universe which is believed to be an opposite to our true Home:

 

The physical universe substitutes an illusion for truth; fragmentation for wholeness. It has become so splintered and subdivided and divided again, over and over, that it is now almost impossible to perceive it once was one, and still is what it was. That one error, which brought truth to illusion, infinity to time, and life to death, was all you ever made. Your whole world rests upon it. Everything you see reflects it, and every special relationship that you have ever made is part of it.

 

You may be surprised to hear how very different is reality from what you see. You do not realize the magnitude of that one error. It was so vast and so completely incredible that from it a world of total unreality had to emerge. What else could come of it? Its fragmented aspects are fearful enough, as you begin to look at them. But nothing you have seen begins to show you the enormity of the original error, which seemed to cast you out of Home, to shatter knowledge into meaningless bits of disunited perceptions, and to force you to make further substitutions.

 

That was the first projection of error outward. The world arose to bide it, and became the screen on which it was projected and drawn between you and the truth. For truth extends inward, where the idea of loss is meaningless and only increase is conceivable. Do you really think it strange that a world in which everything is backwards and upside down arose from this projection of error? It was inevitable (text, pp. 347-48; T- 1 8.1.4:1-6.-5)

 

But A Course in Miracles further states that the world was made as an attack on Reality (workbook, p. 403; W-pIl.3.2:1), and this was accomplished, again, by the collective split mind of man that believed in its hallucinatory dreaming that it had usurped First Cause. This is the beginning of the ego's unholy trinity that was mentioned above in question 4 on page 4. The guilt over his seeming sin of separation and usurpation demanded that man be punished. Consequently, the fearful man sought to flee from his own insane projection of a wrathful, vengeful Reality who wished to destroy him. Therefore man projected his illusory guilt and fragmented self out of the mind, thereby miscreating a physical world of time and space in which he could hide from the non-physical Reality he believed he had dethroned and destroyed. Within these multiple dreams, the one man appeared to split into billions of fragments, each of which became encased in a body of individual insane dreams, believing that this would render personal "protection" against the ego's image of a wrathful Reality's ultimate punishment.

 

It is important to note still again that we are speaking about the collective mind of the separated man as the maker of the world. Every seemingly separated fragment is but a split-off part of that original one mind that sought to replace the One Mind of Man. Thus, the individual fragment is not responsible for the world, but it is responsible for its belief in the reality of the world.

 

　

 

2. Does A Course in Miracles really mean that a God did not create the entire physical universe?

We answer this question with a resounding affirmative! Since nothing of form, matter, or substance can be of Source, then nothing of the physical universe can be real, and there is no exception to this. Workbook Lesson 43 states, in the context of perception, which is the realm of duality and separation:

 

Perception is not an attribute of Source. Perception has no function in Source, and does not exist (workbook, p. 67; W-pI.43.1:1-2; 2:1-2).

 

In the clarification of terms we find the following crystal clear statement about the illusory nature of the world of perception, which Source did not create:

 

The world you see is an illusion of a world. Source did not create it, for what Source manifests must be eternal as Itself. Yet there is nothing in the world you see that will endure forever. Some things will last in time a little while longer than others [e.g., the greater cosmos, as we shall see below in a passage from the text). But the time will come when all things visible will have an end (manual, p. 8 1; C-4. 1).

 

And finally, a similar statement in the text:

 

Source's laws do not obtain directly to a world perception rules, for such a world could not have been created by the Mind to which perception has no meaning. Yet Sources laws reflected everywhere [through the Holy Spirit]. Not that the world where this reflection is, is real at all. Only because Man believes it is, and from Man's belief He could not let Himself be separate entirely. (text, p. 487; T-25.111.2; italics ours).

 

These passages are important, because they clarify a source of misunderstanding for many students of A Course in Miracles who maintain that Jesus is teaching that God did in fact create the world. They assert that all the Course is teaching is that he did not create our misperceptions of it. Statements which contain the phrase "the world you see," as in the above passage from the manual for teachers, do not apply simply to the world we perceive through our wrong-minded lens, but rather to the fact that we see at all. Again, the entire physical universe, the world of perception and form, is illusory and outside the Mind of Reality.

 

Therefore, nothing that can be observed -- nothing that has form, physicality, moves, changes, deteriorates, and ultimately dies -- could be of Source. A Course in Miracles is unequivocal about this, which is why we speak of it as being a perfect non-dualistic thought system: It contains no exceptions. And so the seeming majesty of the cosmos and perceived glory of nature are all expressions of the ego's thought system of separation, as we see in this wonderful passage from the text:

 

What seems eternal all will have an end. The stars will disappear, and night and day will be no more. All things that come and go, the tides, the seasons and the lives of men; all things that change with time and bloom and fade will not return. Where time has set an end is not where the eternal is (text, p. 572; T-29.VI.2:7- I0).

 

To attempt to make an exception to this fact is to attempt a compromise with truth, exactly what the ego wants in order to establish its own existence. As it states in the workbook: "What is false is false, and what is true has never changed" (workbook, p.445; W-pII.10.1:1). And again in the text:

 

How simple is salvation! All it says is what was never true is not true now, and never will be. The impossible has not occurred, and can have no effects. And that is all (text, p. 600; T-31.1.1:1-4).

 

In conclusion, therefore, no aspect of the illusion can be accorded truth, which means that absolutely nothing in the material universe has come from Reality, or is even known by Reality. Reality is totally outside the world of dreams.

 

　

 

3. What about the beauty and goodness in the world?

Following the above answer, we can see that the so-called positive aspects of our world are equally as illusory as the negative ones. They are both aspects of a dualistic perceptual universe, which but reflect the dualistic split in the mind of Man. The famous statement "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder' is also applicable here, since what one deems as beauty, another may find to be aesthetically displeasing, and vice versa. Similarly, what one society judges as good, another may judge as bad and against the common good. This can be evidenced by a careful study of history, sociology, and cultural anthropology. Therefore, using the criterion for reality of eternal changelessness that is employed in the Course, we can conclude that nothing that the world deems beautiful or good is real, and so it cannot have been created by Reality.

 

Therefore, given that both beauty and goodness are relative concepts and thus are illusory, we should follow the injunction to always ask ourselves: "What is the meaning of what I behold?" (text, p. 619; T-3I.VII.13:5). In other words, even though something beautiful is illusory, it remains neutral, like everything else in the world. Given to the ego, it serves its unholy purpose of reinforcing separation, specialness, and guilt. Given to the Holy Spirit, on the other hand, it serves the holy purpose of leading us to an experience of truth that lies beyond perception. For example, a sunset can reinforce the belief that I can find peace and well-being only while in its presence, or it can help remind me that the true beauty of Man is my Identity, and that this beauty is internal, within my mind and independent of anything outside it.

 

　

 

　

 

　

 

　

 

　

 

　

 

　

 

　

[joeblast]

I'm close to several people involved that worked at the school and I can assure that you can discard any conspiracy theory that relies on either the principal, Dawn Hochsprung, Adam and Nancy Lanza as well as some of the older staff as fictitious characters. They were all very real people.

I havent heard a single theory that posited these people never existed and were complete fabrications.

[Birch]

so am i falling into the category of not in the real world losers here? Because just for the record my point was that i don't believe anything, not even the conspiracy. What is a loser? How does one lose at life? And what is this "real world" for that matter?

 

 

ANYWAYS. Something i wouldn't like to see is armed teachers in schools, which a lot of people are talking about. i would have dropped out a lot sooner than i did if my teacher had a gun

 

No, that's a 'drive by insult' in my book:-) It's one that needs you to 'buy it' to work. Although I do agree the person doing the questioning musn't be afraid of taking insults or insinuations of diminished intelligence, sanity or humanity on the nose IME/IMO.

 

Turtle Shell and Apech responded very well to that IMO.

[Aetherous]

I'm close to several people involved that worked at the school and I can assure that you can discard any conspiracy theory that relies on either the principle, Dawn Hochsprung, Adam and Nancy Lanza as well as some of the older staff as fictitious characters. They were all very real people.

 

One discrepancy that came up about Nancy Lanza, is whether she was a kindergarten teacher/substitute or not. The school nurse apparently clearly said she was...but then the more official reports that came out said she never taught there.

 

Do you know?

 

Also, sorry if you were personally affected at all...hope the community is healing.

[OnPhourCoughee]

Ok, the constitution says bear ARMS. Guns, knives, rpg, B52 any and all.

Next the news will report a loose goose just to be first, not right.

Also, the push has more to do with the fact that 'that guy' isn't runing for re-election.

[ralis]

This is one f*&*ed up thread. Children died, parent's are mourning, and you're making up conspiracy theories. Anyone with a tenth of working brain can see that none of this conspiracy crap is even worth considering, unless you're already predisposed towards hating the government and creating said conspiracy.

 

Nothing is more cruel and calous than trivializing the deaths of these innocent children. Grow up. Get out of the f-ing house and stop believing that everything is a conspiracy.

 

Aaron

 

One would think that some so called cultivators, meditators and spiritual practitioners would have developed the awareness to not be caught up in irrational emotions. Conspiracy theories are created by weak minded fools that have too much time on their hands.

Edited January 11, 2013 by ralis

[Aetherous]

I'll be reporting people for personal insults starting with ralis' post.

[ralis]

I'll be reporting people for personal insults starting with ralis' post.

 

 

 

Name one person I insulted. I said 'some' without naming names. This thread should never be allowed on here and it just shows the irrationality of some people to believe such things. Further, the OP did not start this ridiculous nonsense since it was started on the internet weeks ago.

 

Why are you always so sensitive?

Edited January 11, 2013 by ralis

[Aetherous]

"So called" cultivators? Weak minded fools that have too much time on their hands? And now calling people irrational?

 

I won't discuss whether you're being insulting...you are.

[Aetherous]

Oh now you're calling me "sensitive'? I'll report that as well.

[ralis]

"So called" cultivators? Weak minded fools that have too much time on their hands? And now calling people irrational?

 

I won't discuss whether you're being insulting...you are.

 

I wasn't referring to you. The weak minded fools that started this nonsense linked by the OP are irrational. I read the link for about 30 sec. and stopped. This business of seeing conspiracy around every corner is absurd. That is being irrational and not thinking critically.

Edited January 12, 2013 by ralis

[Aetherous]

I wasn't referring to you. The weak minded fools that started this nonsense linked by the OP are irrational. I read the link for about 30 sec. and stopped. This business of seeing conspiracy around every corner is absurd. That is being irrational and not thinking critically.

 

Bullshit. Myself and a few others here are very open minded to this "irrational" "absurd" "nonsense". Apparently we are not thinking critically like you are.

 

I hope you are suspended for a bit, so that actual discussions can continue unhindered, without a bunch of little outbursts and insults flying around.

[Taomeow]

Now as to the purposes of false flags as a general phenomenon observed many hundreds of thousands of times throughout history.

 

People usually only believe that an event is a false flag when they can arrive at a simple formula to explain the motives of its perpetrators: "doing A for the purpose of gaining B." And they are always wrong in this assumption. If you look at history you will discover that most false flags are multi-purpose affairs. What was the purpose of the nazis burning the Reichstag and framing the communists? Winning elections against communists? Nooooooo. That would have been "doing A for the purpose of gaining B," end of story. They never intended the story to end there. The story was "doing A for the purpose of gaining B, C, D, E, F and then using the gained BCDEF to be able to do G, H, I, J, K, and then using BCDEFGHIJK in order to..." and so on.

 

You don't believe that people who do evil are visionaries who are after much more evil? -- not just one random act of evil toward one random purpose? -- look at fucking history. Oh no, I forget. No one except for the despicable "conspiracy theorists" has learned any. What they learned and can impressively rattle off on any random cue is the kind of story they were dispensed by those who dispense it -- the ones who make it and then decide which part you are going to be dispensed, and in what wrapper, and which part will be kept under wraps.

 

There's no other way a cowardly conformist can find an outlet for his righteous indignation than to attack those who challenge his cowardly conformism -- he's been sicked on them once and for all, he will never challenge anyone or anything that supports and maintains his cowardly conformism, but at the same time he will be able to always think of himself as a courageous fighter for truth (truth, of course, being whatever maintains his cowardly conformism, what else can it be?..) Hopeless...

[SeriesOfTubes]

Yes, my understanding is she was a volunteer teachers assistant, hence the confusion.

 

Thanks, I don't really want to post the details but yes my family was as directly affected as one could be without losing a child, thankfully.

 

One discrepancy that came up about Nancy Lanza, is whether she was a kindergarten teacher/substitute or not. The school nurse apparently clearly said she was...but then the more official reports that came out said she never taught there.

 

Do you know?

 

Also, sorry if you were personally affected at all...hope the community is healing.

[Flolfolil]

One would think that some so called cultivators, meditators and spiritual practitioners would have developed the awareness to not be caught up in irrational emotions. Conspiracy theories are created by weak minded fools that have too much time on their hands.

 

i don't cultivate blind belief in anything, i search for experiential truth.

[ralis]

i don't cultivate blind belief in anything, i search for experiential truth.

 

That is a very excellent attitude and one that will serve you well. In general, many accept blind belief without question and without substantive evidence as in this particular conspiracy theory. Many believe that if it is on the internet, then it must be true.

[ralis]

 

There's no other way a cowardly conformist can find an outlet for his righteous indignation than to attack those who challenge his cowardly conformism -- he's been sicked on them once and for all, he will never challenge anyone or anything that supports and maintains his cowardly conformism, but at the same time he will be able to always think of himself as a courageous fighter for truth (truth, of course, being whatever maintains his cowardly conformism, what else can it be?..) Hopeless...

 

How does that fit in with this particular topic? Are the conspiracy theorist's the cowards or the one who challenges the theory in question?

[Flolfolil]

i heard about this news on the internet, and i heard about the conspiracy on the internet.

 

People have shown me evidence for the conspiracy, such as websites with dates that don't match up

 

and then i have seen some pictures of people crying and some people that are connected to it/say they know people

 

At this point i am completely 50/50 on the fence

[Birch]

"the conspiracy theorist's"

I reckon I said this already, but calling the people asking questions about stuff 'conspiracy theorists' isn't IMO a helpful approach. It's like saying 'Why are you asking questions, you crazy person?' Is your message that questioning things is crazy? Or that looking at alternatives to the mainstream reporting is crazy? Something else?