Actually, I'm not scared of TS/Tim Simkin converting me! It's that now it's about impossible to discuss even a thread about him without there being religion brought into it. Who do we follow? I wanted to follow Michael. Why would Michael need a preacher to teach the world when he had to ear of the world in his hand before the hoax? More could've heard him before...why just a few now? <br />If one thinks ts is not manipulating religiously, why'd he begin with it as study, and now present it again?<br />And if people are not being gathered, how can his message be worth a hoax?
<br />[size=10pt] Yet in some of the comments you can clearly see that if it were to suddenly be revealed concretely as coming from Michael...then presto-chango...it's all good. What good is it really if you only accept the message because you like, love (or in some cases are obsessed with) the messenger? Wouldn't that mean you have totally missed the point IN the message? A healthy dose of skepticism is never a bad thing...any dose of cynicism is never good.[/size]<br />
<br /><br />Hmmm...<br /> Imagine for one second that such "charismatic messenger" happens to be no other than Charles Manson, or another psychopath/ sociopath/ serial killer....let´s say...someone despicable in the eyes of society. Would you still "accept the message and it´s messenger?<br /><br />It is VERY important to know the messenger now days.<br /><br />I put it this way. I may accept the message in general terms but not the messenger.<br /><br /><br /><br />
<br />[size=10pt] Yet in some of the comments you can clearly see that if it were to suddenly be revealed concretely as coming from Michael...then presto-chango...it's all good. What good is it really if you only accept the message because you like, love (or in some cases are obsessed with) the messenger? Wouldn't that mean you have totally missed the point IN the message? A healthy dose of skepticism is never a bad thing...any dose of cynicism is never good.[/size]<br />
<br /><br />Hmmm...<br /> Imagine for one second that such "charismatic messenger" happens to be no other than Charles Manson, or another psychopath/ sociopath/ serial killer....let´s say...someone despicable in the eyes of society. Would you still "accept the message and it´s messenger?<br /><br />It is VERY important to know the messenger now days.<br /><br />I put it this way. I may accept the message in general terms but not the messenger.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />
<br />Of course we'd all jump on if the ts bandwagon if we found him to be Michael! That's why we are here. But, there are in the know people coming and going all the time. I WANT to be 100% for sure...about anything I read...isn't that what Michael told us to do?
What I wonder about is the reactions if "the messenger" happens to be someone else (not MJ, a friend of his or related at all). A huge victimism wave will take place.<br /><br />The same "obsession" is happening in both ways then. I see big efforts from members in trying to make other members to accept a 3rd member and the 3rd member does not stand up but the "supporters" do.<br /><br />Who said divide and conquer?<br /><br /><br />I have my truth and that´s what matters to me.
<br />[size=10pt] Yet in some of the comments you can clearly see that if it were to suddenly be revealed concretely as coming from Michael...then presto-chango...it's all good. What good is it really if you only accept the message because you like, love (or in some cases are obsessed with) the messenger? Wouldn't that mean you have totally missed the point IN the message? A healthy dose of skepticism is never a bad thing...any dose of cynicism is never good.[/size]<br />
<br /><br />Hmmm...<br /> Imagine for one second that such "charismatic messenger" happens to be no other than Charles Manson, or another psychopath/ sociopath/ serial killer....let´s say...someone despicable in the eyes of society. Would you still "accept the message and it´s messenger?<br /><br />It is VERY important to know the messenger now days.<br /><br />I put it this way. I may accept the message in general terms but not the messenger.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />
<br /><br />Pretty sure the message ought to stand for itself, regardless. <br /><br />If Charles Manson preached a message of love and peace would you reject it because it was from Charles Manson? What's wrong with love and peace regardless of who it's coming from?
We might as well quote the whole test paragraph:<br />
<br />[size=12pt]Many are failing the test, and they didn’t even know that they were being tested. In fact, there is no better way to test people, than to do it without their knowledge; then people act natural, and don’t try to make themselves into something artificial. Does it make any difference, whether you pass or fail this test? Good question; but I won’t give the answer to that right now.[/size]
<br /><br />It's not like we just discovered this, right? At least if you have read the updates. <br /><br />A main theme in TS's updates is "Do you think for yourself?". I would understand that Michael wants to teach us to base our judgment on the evidence itself and not on the messengers because of what happened in his life, we all know how many people were quick to judge him because they run with the media lies as truth/evidence. Just think about the trial period. It must have been sooooooooo frustrating for him to see all these blatant lies out there and people believing them without questioning. That's why I think it's dear in his heart to wake people up!<br /><br />On a larger scale we know how the media manipulate and has manipulated the information/knowledge on all matters and how we easily trust them. I think the whole point is to nurture this independent thinking, to verify and analyze everything. If the world is messed up it's also because of this!<br /><br />We are not in the majority as beLIEvers, we go against the grain, so that's one adversity to go through and to me is the expression of independent free-thinking regardless of outside interferences.<br /><br />I don't think that Michael wants to teach us to believe him as the gospel. TS stated to go by the evidence many times and his identity kept subtlety concealed on purpose. Now the Hoax is still going on, so if TS is Michael or anyone involved in the Hoax, he can’t just tell us who is for a reason that I hope is obvious. Now he gave us “whispers” ... but I KNOW that we don’t all share the same views on this. <br /><br />One point concerning Tim Simkins is that he talks nothing about the Hoax in his writings, no advance knowledge is shown at all, nothing Hoax wise to be found there (compared to Back for example) yet some are readily wanting to link him to TS just because of the initials and the Bible which is not even the main part of TS’s posts. If I just go by the information itself I don’t see how Tim Simkins has anything concrete to do with the Hoax. <br />
<br />[size=10pt] Yet in some of the comments you can clearly see that if it were to suddenly be revealed concretely as coming from Michael...then presto-chango...it's all good. What good is it really if you only accept the message because you like, love (or in some cases are obsessed with) the messenger? Wouldn't that mean you have totally missed the point IN the message? A healthy dose of skepticism is never a bad thing...any dose of cynicism is never good.[/size]<br />
<br /><br />Hmmm...<br /> Imagine for one second that such "charismatic messenger" happens to be no other than Charles Manson, or another psychopath/ sociopath/ serial killer....let´s say...someone despicable in the eyes of society. Would you still "accept the message and it´s messenger?<br /><br />It is VERY important to know the messenger now days.<br /><br />I put it this way. I may accept the message in general terms but not the messenger.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />
<br /><br />Pretty sure the message ought to stand for itself, regardless. <br /><br />If Charles Manson preached a message of love and peace would you reject it because it was from Charles Manson? What's wrong with love and peace regardless of who it's coming from?<br />
<br /><br />I already answered your question in my post: <br /><br />"I put it this way. I may accept the message in general terms but not the messenger".
<br />Yeah but I think she's being a bit short sighted in regards to it all. There is an ARG aspect that I have spoken about at length. There is a fictional aspect running parallel to reality in this. Well, at least, that's my take on it, and has been clear to me for some time. TS has been pretty upfront about us not taking his words as the gospel, and that he will occasionally support false theories (fiction).<br /><br />This is why you have to rely only on yourself and your own instincts. Again, we come back to that common theme.<br />
<br /><br /><br /><br />Well, i have to say that i take the words of TS as the gospel when he said that should be completed by the level 7 before the judgment of the court, perhaps i in the personal I have much Expectation with that.<br />
I understand but then I got confused when you said:<br /> <br />
It is VERY important to know the messenger now days.
<br /><br />Sorry MissG, I am confused as to what you are trying to say. If you can accept the message in general terms, why is it important to know the messenger?<br /><br />Ps. yeah I did too, paula. Meh.<br />
<br />[size=10pt] Yet in some of the comments you can clearly see that if it were to suddenly be revealed concretely as coming from Michael...then presto-chango...it's all good. What good is it really if you only accept the message because you like, love (or in some cases are obsessed with) the messenger? Wouldn't that mean you have totally missed the point IN the message? A healthy dose of skepticism is never a bad thing...any dose of cynicism is never good.[/size]<br />
<br /><br />Hmmm...<br /> Imagine for one second that such "charismatic messenger" happens to be no other than Charles Manson, or another psychopath/ sociopath/ serial killer....let´s say...someone despicable in the eyes of society. Would you still "accept the message and it´s messenger?<br /><br />It is VERY important to know the messenger now days.<br /><br />I put it this way. I may accept the message in general terms but not the messenger.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />
<br />Of course we'd all jump on if the ts bandwagon if we found him to be Michael! That's why we are here. But, there are in the know people coming and going all the time. I WANT to be 100% for sure...about anything I read...isn't that what Michael told us to do?<br />
<br /><br />That may be the point. People are only willing to follow the message if it comes from Michael. To me, that means that you (i'm talking in general terms, not necessarily you Ford) really don't care what the message is. Rather, you just care about pleasing Michael. Thus, the importance of the message itself is lost.
<br />This is something Michael said about God. It's a huge different approach than what we've seen from TS/ Tim Simkin. To me it is a huge difference. That's what I'm trying to explain when I insist about being fed religion doctrines.<br />Michael sees God as the source of creation, not as Bible quotes and doctrines and literal Bible study.<br /><br />"It's strange that God doesn't mind expressing Himself/Herself in all the religions of the world, while people still cling to the notion that their way is the only right way. Whatever you try to say about God, someone will take offense, even if you say everyone's love of God is right for them.<br /><br />For me the form God takes is not the most important thing. What's most important is the essence. My songs and dances are outlines for Him to come in and fill. I hold out the form. She puts in the sweetness.<br /><br />I've looked up at the night sky and beheld the stars so intimately close, it was as if my grandmother had made them for me.<br />"How rich, how sumptuous," I thought. In that moment I saw God in His creation. I could as easily have seen Her in the beauty of a rainbow, the grace of a deer bounding through a meadow, the truth of a father's kiss. But for me the sweetest contact with God has no form.<br />I close my eyes, look within, and enter a deep soft silence.<br />The infinity of God's creation embraces me. We are one.<br /><br />Written By: Michael Jackson"<br />
<br /><br />As far as I can tell, this was written in 1992, so MJ's religious viewpoints could have changed in 20 years. We just don't know.<br /><br /> />
Bingo,i think this as well.I feel Michael,has experienced his spiritual awakening and has changed many of his beliefs.Imo,his main purpose for the hoax,is to save humanity.I really dont agree with the movie aspect,if he really believes in the 2012 N.W.O. theory,whats the point of the hoax,if its just about a movie and fooling the media.The hoax,is risky enough,so there has to be an important reason,and i believe its about exposing the evil,and manipulating powers that control the world.
[size=12pt]Many are failing the test, and they didn’t even know that they were being tested. In fact, there is no better way to test people, than to do it without their knowledge; then people act natural, and don’t try to make themselves into something artificial. Does it make any difference, whether you pass or fail this test? Good question; but I won’t give the answer to that right now.[/size]
<br /><br />So the testing is over now? Why put the users on guard if you'd want a natural result? <br />Someone would do this only if she/he wants to get a collection of false smiles and as many users who take your side against those who dare to criticize you.
You ALWAYS have to be careful with who you are following:<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Third_Wave<br /><br />Chronology<br /><br />Jones writes that he started the first day of the experiment with simple things like proper seating, drilling the students until they were able to move from outside the classroom to their seats and take the proper seating position in less than 30 seconds without making a sound.[3] He then proceeded to enforce strict classroom discipline by emerging as an authoritarian figure and dramatically improving the efficiency of the class.<br /><br />The first day's session was closed with only a few rules, intending to be a one day experiment. Students had to be sitting at attention before the second bell, had to stand up to ask or answer questions and had to do it in three words or fewer, and were required to preface each remark with "Mr. Jones".[3]<br /><br />On the second day he managed to meld his history class into a group with a supreme sense of discipline and community.[3] Jones named the movement "The Third Wave", after the common belief that the third in a series of ocean waves is last and largest.[3] Jones made up a salute resembling that of the Nazi regime[1] and ordered class members to salute each other even outside the class. They all complied with this command.[3]<br /><br />The experiment took on a life of its own, with students from all over the school joining in: on the third day the class expanded from initial 30 students to 43 attendees. All of the students showed drastic improvement in their academic skills and tremendous motivation. All of the students were issued a member card and each of them received a special assignment (like designing a Third Wave Banner, stopping non-members from entering the class, etc.). Jones instructed the students on how to initiate new members, and by the end of the day the movement had over 200 participants.[3] Jones was surprised that some of the students started reporting to him when other members of the movement failed to abide by the rules.[3]<br /><br />On Thursday, the fourth day of the experiment, Jones decided to terminate the movement because it was slipping out of his control. The students became increasingly involved in the project and their discipline and loyalty to the project was outstanding. He announced to the participants that this movement was a part of a nationwide movement and that on the next day a presidential candidate of the movement would publicly announce existence of the movement. Jones ordered students to attend a noon rally on Friday to witness the announcement.[3]<br /><br />Instead of a televised address of their leader, the students were presented with an empty channel. After a few minutes of waiting, Jones announced that they had been a part of an experiment in fascism and that they all willingly created a sense of superiority that German citizens had in the period of Nazi Germany. He then played them a film about the Nazi regime. That was the end of the experiment.[3]
<br />[size=10pt] Yet in some of the comments you can clearly see that if it were to suddenly be revealed concretely as coming from Michael...then presto-chango...it's all good. What good is it really if you only accept the message because you like, love (or in some cases are obsessed with) the messenger? Wouldn't that mean you have totally missed the point IN the message? A healthy dose of skepticism is never a bad thing...any dose of cynicism is never good.[/size]<br />
<br /><br />Hmmm...<br /> Imagine for one second that such "charismatic messenger" happens to be no other than Charles Manson, or another psychopath/ sociopath/ serial killer....let´s say...someone despicable in the eyes of society. Would you still "accept the message and it´s messenger?<br /><br />It is VERY important to know the messenger now days.<br /><br />I put it this way. I may accept the message in general terms but not the messenger.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />
<br />Of course we'd all jump on if the ts bandwagon if we found him to be Michael! That's why we are here. But, there are in the know people coming and going all the time. I WANT to be 100% for sure...about anything I read...isn't that what Michael told us to do?<br />
<br /><br />That may be the point. People are only willing to follow the message if it comes from Michael. To me, that means that you (i'm talking in general terms, not necessarily you Ford) really don't care what the message is. Rather, you just care about pleasing Michael. Thus, the importance of the message itself is lost. <br />
<br />WOW...I'm certainly not here to please Michael. To please ANYONE. I'm here to satisfy my desire to be with others that believe Michael is alive. I'm here to find friends all over the world who love Michael and his music, dance, words and love. I'm here MAYBE, not necessarily to find out why Michael did the hoax, but if I don't whatever. I just want to know I'm not crazy like the world feels I/we are in believing Michael lives. <br />About the message, I don't even believe there is a message actually. I don't have proof that it is about religion. About saving the world. About and ARG. About a movie. About getting crocked doctors or pharmacies. About the court system. Whatever we've guessed at. And it don't matter to me. It just matters that he's alive. He'll let me/us know when it's time to do it.<br />About only believing a message if it comes from Michael...THAT IS why I'm here. For Michael. Anyone can tell me anything any place in my life, that don't mean crap. Using what was said above about if a message of love came from Manson...EXACTLY! What I feel about that is, NO. Just because anyone is claiming LOVE and that it's what Michael wants them to be saying don't mean it's true. It could be A "manson" a whoever. Right, if it's a good message, then what does it matter, right? NOT. I do care who they come from. On line we can be anyone. Just because an angel is an angel don't tell whether it's a good angel or a bad angel. Just an angel. Same with the message. Just because it's a good message, don't make it a good person giving it. OR from Michael. Wish it did...AND MAYBE IT DOES.
<br />I understand but then I got confused when you said:<br /> <br />
It is VERY important to know the messenger now days.
<br /><br />Sorry MissG, I am confused as to what you are trying to say. If you can accept the message in general terms, why is it important to know the messenger?<br /><br />Ps. yeah I did too, paula. Meh.<br /><br />
<br /><br />Thanks for asking. Here the answer. Any message coming from someone we like or accept has more value at the end than a message that is accepted blindly, not knowing the messenger. Trust is crucial.<br />I am sure that many here are accepting "the message" because they believe it is coming from MJ or someone close to him, so they learn (because they think they haven´t learned before) and take it. If those who accepted the message find out that the message comes from Tom Sneddon i.e I can assure you that many will have the opposite reaction to it, even if it´s a good message. Why? because a lot of emotion and feelings are being invested here and we humans perceive the world classifying everything.<br /><br />This forum and it´s members have something in common, Michael Jackson. Not Jesus, not the Bible, not faith, love, culture and if "we" are here is because we want to know about him, not to "learn" about anything else.<br /><br />So far, such "message" everyone talk about i have not clear in which way has been presented by TS or Front or Back. <br />I go further. I have learnt more about love and tolerance from some other members here and kept "their messages" tight in my mind and heart.<br /><br />Yeah, TS knows how to put people at work but I have not "learnt" love, compassion, understanding, care...neither from Front or Back. If the message is LOVE both have failed to convince me.<br /><br /><br /><br />
[size=12pt]Many are failing the test, and they didn’t even know that they were being tested. In fact, there is no better way to test people, than to do it without their knowledge; then people act natural, and don’t try to make themselves into something artificial. Does it make any difference, whether you pass or fail this test? Good question; but I won’t give the answer to that right now.[/size]
<br /><br />So the testing is over now? Why put the users on guard if you'd want a natural result? <br />Someone would do this only if she/he wants to get a collection of false smiles and as many users who take your side against those who dare to criticize you.<br />
<br /><br />I believe the test can be seen on a wider scope/scale. The whole world witnessed Michael's "death" and that's when the test begun. When Michael comes back all those who were witnesses of this event will have to come to certain conclusions about themselves and how they relate to the media that's for sure. <br /><br />So the test may end only when Michael bams.
<br />I understand but then I got confused when you said:<br /> <br />
It is VERY important to know the messenger now days.
<br /><br />Sorry MissG, I am confused as to what you are trying to say. If you can accept the message in general terms, why is it important to know the messenger?<br /><br />Ps. yeah I did too, paula. Meh.<br /><br />
<br /><br />Thanks for asking. Here the answer. Any message coming from someone we like or accept has more value at the end than a message that is accepted blindly, not knowing the messenger. Trust is crucial.<br />I am sure that many here are accepting "the message" because they believe it is coming from MJ or someone close to him, so they learn (because they think they haven´t learned before) and take it. If those who accepted the message find out that the message comes from Tom Sneddon i.e I can assure you that many will have the opposite reaction to it, even if it´s a good message. Why? because a lot of emotion and feelings are being invested here and we humans perceive the world classifying everything.<br /><br />This forum and it´s members have something in common, Michael Jackson. Not Jesus, not the Bible, not faith, love, culture and if "we" are here is because we want to know about him, not to "learn" about anything else.<br /><br />So far, such "message" everyone talk about i have not clear in which way has been presented by TS or Front or Back. <br />I go further. I have learnt more about love and tolerance from some other members here and kept "their messages" tight in my mind and heart.<br /><br />Yeah, TS knows how to put people at work but I have not "learnt" love, compassion, understanding, care...neither from Front or Back. If the message is LOVE both have failed to convince me.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />
:? I think it’s about my time to jump ship because unfortunately it seems to be sinking fast. /cook/ I didn’t come here to debate others reigious beliefs, nor to judge anyone about who they have chosen for their spiritual guidance and/or savior. And though I am somewhat certain that spirituality plays a large part of the hoax, I don’t believe that Michael Jakson would try to pit one against the other based on how they were raised to serve their God, who ever he or she turns out to be. It is a choice, after all. All the bickering, and finger pointing and putting each other down on a personal level for how they choose to believe is in my opinion a waste of energy. It’s turned into a I am wrong and you are right, I am knowledgeable and you are stupid, a me, me, me mentality that doesn’t accomplish anything. I thought we were here to find the truth in the lies that we were being told about June 25, 2009. How did that get us here, fighting with each other about our own faith? It’s not about us. :evil: I say who ever you choose to pray to is your choice, as well it should be. I will never tell anyone that their belief is wrong. And I wouldn’t appreciate anyone telling me that mine was with such defiance. That’s why I usually never talk religion and shun it altogether. It’s dangerous. It’s called “choice” for a reason. No one else gets to vote. This is getting beyond my comfort level. I’ll come back when the discussion gets back to helping pave the way for Michael to return safely. This debate has no resolve and is frustrating to watch it unfold. Michael wants us to find our own truth not for anyone else to find it for us.
[size=12pt]Many are failing the test, and they didn’t even know that they were being tested. In fact, there is no better way to test people, than to do it without their knowledge; then people act natural, and don’t try to make themselves into something artificial. Does it make any difference, whether you pass or fail this test? Good question; but I won’t give the answer to that right now.[/size]
<br /><br />So the testing is over now? Why put the users on guard if you'd want a natural result? <br />Someone would do this only if she/he wants to get a collection of false smiles and as many users who take your side against those who dare to criticize you.<br />
<br /><br />I believe the test can be seen on a wider scope/scale. The whole world witnessed Michael's "death" and that's when the test begun. When Michael comes back all those who were witnesses of this event will have to come to certain conclusions about themselves and how they relate to the media that's for sure. <br /><br />So the test may end only when Michael bams. <br />
<br />Thank you for your answer, Sarahli!<br />If TS is talking about a test for the people outside the forum - let's say for those who are leading MJ's Estate, among others -, would he put this question "Does it make any difference, whether you pass or fail this test? Good question; but I won’t give the answer to that right now" ?! <br />Obviously if they fail the result would matter very much!
<br />I understand but then I got confused when you said:<br /> <br />
It is VERY important to know the messenger now days.
<br /><br />Sorry MissG, I am confused as to what you are trying to say. If you can accept the message in general terms, why is it important to know the messenger?<br /><br />Ps. yeah I did too, paula. Meh.<br /><br />
<br /><br />Thanks for asking. Here the answer. Any message coming from someone we like or accept has more value at the end than a message that is accepted blindly, not knowing the messenger. Trust is crucial.<br />I am sure that many here are accepting "the message" because they believe it is coming from MJ or someone close to him, so they learn (because they think they haven´t learned before) and take it. If those who accepted the message find out that the message comes from Tom Sneddon i.e I can assure you that many will have the opposite reaction to it, even if it´s a good message. Why? because a lot of emotion and feelings are being invested here and we humans perceive the world classifying everything.<br /><br />This forum and it´s members have something in common, Michael Jackson. Not Jesus, not the Bible, not faith, love, culture and if "we" are here is because we want to know about him, not to "learn" about anything else.<br /><br />So far, such "message" everyone talk about i have not clear in which way has been presented by TS or Front or Back. <br />I go further. I have learnt more about love and tolerance from some other members here and kept "their messages" tight in my mind and heart.<br /><br />Yeah, TS knows how to put people at work but I have not "learnt" love, compassion, understanding, care...neither from Front or Back. If the message is LOVE both have failed to convince me.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />
<br /><br />Yes we all do that. That's conventional wisdom in most societies for sure. I think there is an argument to be made, though, that this practice of attaching more credibility to a trusted source is part of the problem that MJ has spoken about for years, and part of the issue that the concept of thinking for one's self addresses.<br /><br />If your very best and trusted friend, relays to you information and so you receive it second hand, is it necessarily wise to simply adopt your friend's word as truth? Or is there always something to be said for looking into it further? Your friend can be victim to believing bullshit and though the intent is there to relay truth, their truth is only as good as their perception.<br /><br />TS has made comments in the past about letting information stand on it's own merit, not dependent on source; and not to dismiss solid evidence when it presents itself. IOW, truth may come from a very unexpected place.<br /><br />But you're right, of course, and we do tend to place more credibility on information gleaned from trusted sources. The media does this as well ad therein lies their weakness. Instead of checking out a lead for themselves, journalists will print a story directly if it comes from a source they trust.<br /><br />We feel that if a person has been truthful and accurate in the past, they are likely to remain truthful and accurate in the future. You'd like to be able to rely on people's past performances as an indication of their future behavior, it makes us feel more secure in our relationships.<br /><br />Again, I speculate, it comes back to self reliance and self confidence. Evaluate for yourself, think for yourself.
<br />[size=10pt] Yet in some of the comments you can clearly see that if it were to suddenly be revealed concretely as coming from Michael...then presto-chango...it's all good. What good is it really if you only accept the message because you like, love (or in some cases are obsessed with) the messenger? Wouldn't that mean you have totally missed the point IN the message? A healthy dose of skepticism is never a bad thing...any dose of cynicism is never good.[/size]<br />
<br /><br />Hmmm...<br /> Imagine for one second that such "charismatic messenger" happens to be no other than Charles Manson, or another psychopath/ sociopath/ serial killer....let´s say...someone despicable in the eyes of society. Would you still "accept the message and it´s messenger?<br /><br />It is VERY important to know the messenger now days.<br /><br />I put it this way. I may accept the message in general terms but not the messenger.<br /><br /><br />
<br />Of course we'd all jump on if the ts bandwagon if we found him to be Michael! That's why we are here. But, there are in the know people coming and going all the time. I WANT to be 100% for sure...about anything I read...isn't that what Michael told us to do?<br />
<br /><br />[size=10pt]Miss G...I totally understand your comment about a Manson-type individual but it's not like anybody is meeting anybody in person...in private...where your analogy would be GREAT cause for concern. We're talking about printed words on a computer screen in this case...not risking a run-in with Serial Killer X. The information/message/clue is the same no matter whose fingers type it and it should always be evaluated on it's merit alone. Does it make the information less credible if Joe Blow types it than if Michael or his designate does? I'm sure that's what TS was alluding to with the comment in his post about being tested. It seems that the desired outcome is for all of this information to be studied and given its own weight regardless of the delivery person. Be cautious of course...but receive the information and process it accordingly to see if it's worthy of the trash can or worthy of your continued interest and faith. No one can be controlled or manipulated by a printed group of words unless they allow themselves to be...the same as all the media BS that was believed by people who wanted to believe it or were too lazy or distracted to be bothered with digging for the truth. It's not as though anything typed by our "informers" is capable of turning us into a bunch of Thriller Zombies strolling through the streets of our respective cities causing mayhem. In the same manner...it's not as though merely words will will turn someone closer to or away from God unless there is already a desire consciously or otherwise within them to begin with.<br /><br />As fordtocarr mentioned...most would be thrilled to jump on the bandwagon if these messages were deemed to have come directly from Michael...or per his instructions...but maybe along with the cynics that's part of the problem..."bandwagoners" If Michael is responsible directly or indirectly for our "whispers"...maybe he's trying to find out who is genuinely interested in all that's been discussed without the aura of his celebrity swaying the opinion. This seems totally logical to me given what I've watched, read or heard about the man. His lifetime it seems has been spent with the entire world clamoring for him and professing their undying devotion...but in reality it's obvious that most of that adoring public and even some from his "camp" were purely "drunk on celebrity" and in love with Michael the Entertainer and all the fluff that goes with it. If this is to be the biggest feat of his life to this point...I can completely understand the culling of the herd to make certain that the one's who claim to be his soldiers are fighting for the right reasons and not merely trying to get up close and personal. If I'm right...it's pretty sad that he'd have to deal with that even now...but I sure can't blame him for protecting himself...especially now. And before anyone says..."but he LOVES his fans"...I truly believe he does...but in this adventure...with some of the seriousness that's been implied...he also shouldn't risk them being his undoing IMO. <br /><br />Just my thoughts and I see during pre-post preview that it seems some are of the same notion while of course others are still clearly not...LOL! To each his own as they say...that's the beautiful thing about free will. I'm sure the chips will fall just as they are destined to. 8-) [/size]
<br />This is something Michael said about God. It's a huge different approach than what we've seen from TS/ Tim Simkin. To me it is a huge difference. That's what I'm trying to explain when I insist about being fed religion doctrines.<br />Michael sees God as the source of creation, not as Bible quotes and doctrines and literal Bible study.<br /><br />"It's strange that God doesn't mind expressing Himself/Herself in all the religions of the world, while people still cling to the notion that their way is the only right way. Whatever you try to say about God, someone will take offense, even if you say everyone's love of God is right for them.<br /><br />For me the form God takes is not the most important thing. What's most important is the essence. My songs and dances are outlines for Him to come in and fill. I hold out the form. She puts in the sweetness.<br /><br />I've looked up at the night sky and beheld the stars so intimately close, it was as if my grandmother had made them for me.<br />"How rich, how sumptuous," I thought. In that moment I saw God in His creation. I could as easily have seen Her in the beauty of a rainbow, the grace of a deer bounding through a meadow, the truth of a father's kiss. But for me the sweetest contact with God has no form.<br />I close my eyes, look within, and enter a deep soft silence.<br />The infinity of God's creation embraces me. We are one.<br /><br />Written By: Michael Jackson"<br />
<br /><br />As far as I can tell, this was written in 1992, so MJ's religious viewpoints could have changed in 20 years. We just don't know.<br /><br /> />
Bingo,i think this as well.I feel Michael,has experienced his spiritual awakening and has changed many of his beliefs. Imo,his main purpose for the hoax,is to save humanity.I really dont agree with the movie aspect,if he really believes in the 2012 N.W.O. theory,whats the point of the hoax,if its just about a movie and fooling the media.The hoax,is risky enough,so there has to be an important reason,and i believe its about exposing the evil,and manipulating powers that control the world.
<br />Me too, after I read his "Dancing the dream" I've perceive him as a free man in spirit, freed from the typical constraints of a religion. <br />Religion is good in the early stage, it's like learning ABC in spirituality, but from a certain point it doesn't allow you to grow any more, but keeps you in patterns and rules, and fear.<br /><br />About saving the world... How he would do that by hoaxing his death? Don't we expect too much from him? He's only a human like us...
Bec, that´s why we tend to ask for second opinions in every life situation. Also ask straight to the source hoping to get an honest answer or asking both parties and deciding after which version to believe. <br /><br />When one asks straight and receives cryptic answers something is being avoided and clarity is not in the interest of the person being asked for whatever reason.<br />It´s like watching a soap, want gets intrigued and wants to know more, more...but at the end of it, all was just a play. The sad fact is that I see many people living it to the core and getting affected by it. There are times when compassion and common sense need to take place, even if one is not responsible for other´s options in life, one should not ignore the fact that people are getting hurt.<br /><br />So my "mission" is to tell those who are in pain: <br />That there are 2 doors here, and tell them what is behind each one and what to expect. After that, is then their responsibility to decide which door to choose and my responsibility has been informing them about both options, with no lies.<br /><br />Leaving open a 3rd door of "may be I am MJ", I don´t tell you, just guess" it´s pretty manipulative and a reason to run away as Forrest Gun.<br /><br />
Comments