purpose of our existence?

[personalreality]

lol, you fail to mention that he says that the gods were extraterrestrials, the good ol' Annunaki (those who from heaven to earth came).

i love sitchin's books.

[AmbientSound]

I'm going to give my take on this one-

I think we are all extensions of Source Intelligence and we are simply experiencing.

[Capt. Picard]

Sumerians might have been the first known civlization, but they were far from the first to have religious beliefs.

[personalreality]

what's that got to do with anything.

they are just the one's whose writings we still have. 

[Capt. Picard]

My point is those beliefs have no more merit on anything than any other religion, so bringing them up in what has nothing to do with anything.

[personalreality]

the point is that they weren't really religious writings.  they were documentation using a vocabulary that too us seems religious and mythical but to them was quite real.  it just so happens that the best way to explain extraterrestrials were to call them "gods".

doesn't mean sitchin's work is right.  just sayings it's not really about religion.

[personalreality]

that's what sitchin implies anyway

[Stookie]

Here's an alternate way to look at Sichin's work. I've always found him to be a shill, but that's just my gut, not my brains.

http://www.sitchiniswrong.com

From the creator of the website:

The work of Zecharia Sitchin was brought to my attention in 2001, shortly after I completed my book, The Facade. As a trained scholar in ancient Semitic languages with a lifelong interest in UFOs and paranormal phenomena, I was naturally enthused about Mr. Sitchin's studies, particularly since I had also heard he was a Sumerian scholar. I thought I had found a kindred spirit. Unfortunately, I was wrong. Zecharia Sitchin is not a scholar of ancient languages. What he has written in his books could neither pass peer review nor is it informed by factual data from the primary sources. I have yet to find anyone with credentials or demonstrable expertise in Sumerian, Akkadian, or any of the other ancient Semitic languages who has positively assessed Mr. Sitchin's academic work.

[personalreality]

I've read his stuff before.

I don't really put much stock into what sitchin says, but i like the books.  the story is very fun and interesting.  it's a fun interpretation.

[tenshi_R]

thanks for killing my thread

[personalreality]

Anytime

[Xanth]

thanks for killing my thread

You're free to take this thread into a new direction or to continue your discussion on the current topic. 

~Ryan

[tenshi_R]

i thought of a bit better more refined version of the original theory yesterday.


im not sure what was the cause of this and where the idea came from.
this wouldnt possibly rule out the existence of god or gods in the universe and beyond
or any other supreme beeing or other that we dont have the capacity to understand individually.

one single human life is very tiny in comparison to how long the earth been around and the unverse as well.
its not even similar to a life of a fly that is seen by us humans.

what if all of our experiences dont go unnoticed, every little experience whether good or bad is stored somewhere
all of our experiences add up to a single memory of beeing, the whole reason we have a choice to do good or evil is for a puspose of that experience and there can be no good or evil besides inaction.
since if thres no action good or bad it doesnt benefit that collective memory.


kinda like an organ in human body that doesnt really do anything but absorb nutrients to support itsself.
so humans that are simply consuming the resources without contributing to the advancement us as species would be considered parasites.( lil too harsh i know but im trying to explain it best i can and its not that easy)

in other words what if our whole exisence here on earth is a stage in development of that higher beeing.


because how do we learn?
by having experiences.
we have certain experience and we learn from it whether its good or bad.(some people dont learn some people learn slow)

but we all are a collection of experiences that we accumulate during our lifetime.

and what would be a purpose of those experiences we accumulated if they disappear at the moment of our physical death.

[sadmemories20]

Share as much as possible. What seems artificial about experiencing and sharing?

*removed link to non-astral projection related website ~Xanth

[personalreality]

bummer.  they make one post and you edit it.

they probably won't be back

[Stillwater]

I do have to agree with Stookie- it is okay to read Sitchin, if you are aware you are reading science fiction 

[personalreality]

I'm aware of the criticisms of sitchin, but it doesn't change the fact that he was one of the first people to really propose this idea of ancient aliens in our modern scientific times.  He brought back an area of research (ancient high civilization and alien visitation) that had been stomped out by orthodoxy and for that I will always admire him.  Also, the criticisms aren't that definitive, no more than sitchiens work.  Kind of a 'my word against yours' type situation if you ask me.

[johnsonkid]

i mean to be honest, all of this is speculation.
without much proof besides gospels and bedtime stories.
theres no definite proof of anything its all based on belief.

[interception]

i mean to be honest, all of this is speculation.
without much proof besides gospels and bedtime stories.
theres no definite proof of anything its all based on belief.

... which is why you need to experience it yourself and then join the appropriate club.

It's a beautiful system. Nobody on earth can cheat the system. Well... not really. ;P

[CFTraveler]

I'm aware of the criticisms of sitchin, but it doesn't change the fact that he was one of the first people to really propose this idea of ancient aliens in our modern scientific times.  He brought back an area of research (ancient high civilization and alien visitation) that had been stomped out by orthodoxy and for that I will always admire him.  Also, the criticisms aren't that definitive, no more than sitchiens work.  Kind of a 'my word against yours' type situation if you ask me.

I think Von Daniken (badly spelled) was first.  Sitchin just took VD's ideas, added a little Velikowsky and repackaged them with the Sumerian angle.  Just sayin'.

[Wi11iam]

I think that this question has merit and even a common answer.

Certainly Consciousness + Intelligence = Purpose/Reason.

I suspect that F4 is the 'gathering place for the purposeful' and that the purpose is shared/agreed and worked on - 'brainstormed'

I suspect that F1 is where that shared purpose is most beneficial to the other areas as a whole.

I suspect that F2 and F4 are intimately linked as are F1 and F3 - I understand that they are aspects of one consciousness but these aspects appear to be linked a certain way.

        F4
F1             F3

        F2

        or

        F1


        F4


F2           F3

                       ....Still it is a good question...

[Summerlander]

Interesting perspective. But if there is such a thing as F4, it is beyond human comprehension. It wouldn't be anything that we can relate to directly. Even purpose there is only a concept. There could be purposeless 'ideas' brainstormed too. These could be created due to the laws of infinity (but even this is probably a human concept). F4 has probably a lot more in common with quantum logic rather than human logic (there's a massive difference between the two). Now...there is only purpose if we (whoever we are) make one up. A lot of the things that surrounds us, which we consider to have purpose, depend on many other separate elements in order to sustain this sense of purpose in our minds.

Say a vehicle is built with the objective of carrying passengers and taking them to designated locations. In this example, let it be a school bus. It is essential within the system that we abide by because: it takes children to school; it's used as a 'tool' by someone who's job is to drive the children to school (paid qualified driver); it uses up fuel which is paid for at a petrol station (contributes to that business making a profit).

The school bus, as we can see, has many reasons to be or to exist. We made it for those reasons. Now take away the schools from existence. We'd have to find another use for the bus. It no longer is a "school bus". It's just a bus. Another use could be to take passengers on a joyful ride to the countryside. Take away the petrol stations from existence and we will find that its new purpose will be short-lived. Take away the driver and it's no longer used for that purpose. It might as well be a stationary vehicle susceptible to vandalism. It may have a use for hoodlums. Take away our civilisation, fast-forward in time to a new one where vehicles are non-existent. The new people look at the vehicle and wonder: "what is it?"..."why was it made?"..."What good is it now?" - suddenly someone comes along and finds a new purpose for it. "It's a pre-historic relic!" - someone says. Let's put it in a museum and any one who wants to see this wonder will have to pay. That way we make a profit.

You see where I'm going with this? Everything is defined by everything else. So what's the purpose of our existence? I have an idea, a postulation. Our purpose is to give meaning to the existential data. This data is like a matrix of many zeros and ones inside a computer. We sort out the combinations and decide what they represent according to whatever system of living we have devised. The data is very REAL. The concepts are ILLUSIONS which are made real in our minds because we make them matter. Just like Frank Kepple devised his focus model to make sense of the data he was receiving. From this, we can infer that even Focus 4 oC is merely a concept in his mind. The human mind tends to categorise everything. It feels the need to do this due to its simplistic nature compared to the whole.

What do you think, Wi11iam?

[Xanth]

I don't see how any of that really matters.

You're, literally, wasting your time trying to figure out someone else's interpretation of something 100% subjective.

You might as well tell what colour 'square' is... or the shape of blue...

I highly suggest you spend your time journeying to the non-physical yourself and *DIRECTLY* find your own answers.
Here's a hint:  Your answers won't come from the mind of someone else.

[Wi11iam]

Your answers won't come from the mind of someone else


Essentially - there IS no 'someone else' and that is part of what Frank speaks of realizing.
Sure, you don't have to agree - it is not an expectation, but perhaps you could use your own experiences to 'ask the guides' or some such other thing - investigate.
I am not saying that they will know any different or would be able to enlighten you further, for they may not realize themselves the full extent and may be distracted/preoccupied with whatever it is they are doing which keeps them that way...

I highly suggest you spend your time journeying to the non-physical yourself and *DIRECTLY* find your own answers.

I will - but tell me if you can...with your 'answers' and my 'answers', and everyone's 'answers' what will be the final answer?  That there is no answer because there is no question because there is no purpose?  Hey I will get back to you about what it is I think summerlander....later

[Summerlander]

Ok, Wi11iam. By the way, Xanth has a good point and may I add...OOBEs usually bring more questions than answers.