ME: guilty of "dominating the thread"

Here's where we talk about all sorts of things that do not belong anywhere else

Moderator: Jan

ME: guilty of "dominating the thread"

Postby m.standridge » 10 Mar 2013, 21:50

Want to thank all who've read and posted at my thread at Healing Forums "need loving healing", for putting up with my long-winded-ness and, above all, my overly frequent posting.
I recall, when one doesn't take sufficient time to edit one's post, and doesn't take sufficient time to add all to the original instead of repeatedly adding new posts, one after the other, that keeps others from posting to one's thread in response--which is exactly the opposite of what one wants to do! Of course!
That's called "dominating the thread" in some boards, and it's rude, it really is.
And I'm so very sorry for doing it there. I got off onto a line of thought, and, sometimes, when I do that, I end up doing that very thing.
So, I'm resolved to try to wait, think and edit before I hit "post a reply" so often. Because, there are such nice readers and posters here, and I truly want to be able to hear from you, and not be bumping your posts out of the way on the thread, as I PERENNIALLY re-post to edit or add to something I had just posted.
I promise to make a good faith effort to not post so frequently, and to put time in, editing the posts first.
Looking forward to hearing from you, as to your thoughts on the Scott Wolther research on America Unearthed (as an example) and the implications of the apparent theft of the Naraggansett Stone in Rhode Island (an item belonging to the State) potentially by persons associated with the Church--and whether this may have any bearing on the Papal resignation.
Last edited by m.standridge on 01 Jan 1970, 00:00, edited 0 times in total.
Reason: ''
Best in all,
MaxS
m.standridge
 
Posts: 737
Joined: 25 Jul 2008, 03:59
Location: Arkansas, United States

Re: ME: guilty of "dominating the thread"

Postby Aoibhegreine » 10 Mar 2013, 21:55

If I were you I'd start another thread dedicated to such topics. Then you wouldn't have to edit or think so much. I'd also say add a bit more white space to your posts to make them easier to read. I must admit I haven't been reading your posts as I don't really have the time or the focus right now. But if you made your posts slightly eaiser to read I'll definitely join in if I can. I have a lot of nonsense inside my head that just begs for an outing every now and then. My only concern is adding more rubbish to an already overloaded brain. :D

Good luck
Last edited by Aoibhegreine on 01 Jan 1970, 00:00, edited 0 times in total.
Reason: ''
Aoibhegreine
 
Posts: 2563
Joined: 16 Aug 2012, 16:59
Location: ''

Re: ME: guilty of "dominating the thread"

Postby kriss » 10 Mar 2013, 23:32

That is thoughtful of you Max.

I'm glad to see you posting that way because even though it's not my area of interest, it feels to me like you have your passion for life back and your enquiring mind is to the fore, and you are less dominated by pain, worry and fear because of the illness. So to me that's a positive :-) It worries me when you go quiet.

Kriss
Last edited by kriss on 01 Jan 1970, 00:00, edited 0 times in total.
Reason: ''
kriss
 
Posts: 1702
Joined: 31 May 2008, 16:11
Location: York, UK

Re: ME: guilty of "dominating the thread"

Postby m.standridge » 11 Mar 2013, 01:45

Thanks Kriss. And to you Abe...griene.

I don't find it particularly tasty to have to point out the issue among the early Christians, as to whether Mary had physically Ascended. This was purely a kind of academic issue, brought on by the issue of "original Sin."

Moses, Elijah and Methusaleh, were all said to have been Ascended, bodily, into heaven-- plus, I think it was, Enoch and maybe one or two more. (No NOT David or Solomon!) Some of these great men (I know, all men), were relatively pure in heart, in their later days, anyway. But it's true that they engaged in Original Sin, themselves, earlier (I guess).

Anyway, the key issue, was whether Mary was free of "original sin" and that seems to be the heart of the issue. Mary, if she had Jesus by an Immaculate Conception, and stopped there, would have remained free of Original Sin, which is what the current Church teaches.

But the problem is, the Grailist Christians, often believed Mary had a twin mission in that she was to not only bear Jesus, her first child, through an Immaculate Conception, but was then to go on, with Joseph, and bear additional children so that the Jewish bloodlines of Judah and Israel would be reunited, so that a Messiah, or line of Messiahs, could be in the world, to reunite Israel into the future.

That's a spiritual mission, too, but it involved being back involved with Original Sin, so some believed Mary could not Ascend in the flesh, but only in the spirit.

So, even though I don't find this appealing, I wanted to be sure I got that to you. It could help explain how to interpret paintings, relics, architecture, etc., at times. As to what people were believing in some situations.

I'm resting too much, and not exercising much. I'll tell you what my issue is: pain, darn it.

I can walk a good bit, and do, sometimes. But, even so, the prostate area aches, still--from the biopsy. And I just have to sit down, or lie down, to relieve the pressure of gravity causing the pain. The prostate area is in the center of gravity.

So I'm trying to be patient and let my prostate heal more from the biopsy. I even hurt some when I drive for a little while, and have to get out and stand and shift for a couple of minutes.

It's an anxious feeling, afraid you've hurt something, or interrupted the healing. I get shooting pains, and then they're gone. Etc.
Last edited by m.standridge on 01 Jan 1970, 00:00, edited 0 times in total.
Reason: ''
Best in all,
MaxS
m.standridge
 
Posts: 737
Joined: 25 Jul 2008, 03:59
Location: Arkansas, United States

Re: ME: guilty of "dominating the thread"

Postby m.standridge » 11 Mar 2013, 03:17

So, I also have some kind of an inner ear condition. I've finally put this together over several years of experience. It runs in my family: mom and her older brother (who died four years ago of other causes) have it, my younger sister has it. It's similar to one called "Meniere's disease". It can cause several symptoms. One that I had when young, was temporary deafening effect when trying to be extremely active physically. Also, it produces nausea and can also affect the balance.
I hadn't experienced the balance problem until 2009, in April, at work. I raised up from a stoop, and completely lost all sense of balance, of up and down, even. I broke into a cold sweat.
Years before, as a child and teen, I sometimes was prone to develop severe ear aches.
My sister Ann has had this latter symptom a lot, too. I recall her, as a child, also having severe ear aches.
These weird things, have the effect, over time, of affecting a person's behavior and plans.
I believe "low T" has been a factor in recent years, which has affected my aggressiveness, assertiveness, and produced timidity, passivity, a prone-ness to lack of self-confidence in several areas. This, in turn, has produced my continuing in an unhappy relationship, and without issue.
So, all this, to describe, all the things that went into the person I am. Now, I have to go forward, and try to figure out if I can still salvage a life at the age of 62. IF I were to father a child in the next couple of years, I'd be in my 80s when they became adult.
Also, ;\Lynn still needs me, even if she and I can't be intimate anymore and I can't see another woman unless I know she's got someone who can on some level fill in for me with her. And, her daughter is my unofficial stepdaughter. If I am to use my frozen sperm, would I use a surrogate mother, using Shayne's egg (Lynn's daughter) and invitro? That's expensive and seems out of the question.
So, all of this, cancer therapy, affecting me in this way, is just...depressing. It's got long term side effects that I'm asking doc about in the a.m.
I'm hopeful there's a remedy for them in the longer run. But I've got to put myself together emotionally, as well as physically, and the emotional does seem to be affected by the physical, doesn't it? So...here I am, trying to make sense of all this, calling on any spiritual insight and energy I can of a positive order, to help me. And again thanks to all who've borne with me here.
Last edited by m.standridge on 01 Jan 1970, 00:00, edited 0 times in total.
Reason: ''
Best in all,
MaxS
m.standridge
 
Posts: 737
Joined: 25 Jul 2008, 03:59
Location: Arkansas, United States

Re: ME: guilty of "dominating the thread"

Postby m.standridge » 11 Mar 2013, 03:29

When you're reading this, tomorrow...Mary also had a major historical place, and it was a high spiritual mission even if her role had been that defined by the Grailist Christians, of fathering Jesus through an Immaculate Conception, and the later fathering the line of earthly Messiahs through the marriage with Joseph.

I think one could argue, that Moses ascended, at least in the scenario, due to his important role in history. He was a larger than life figure in history.

Well, by the same token, I suppose the argument could be, that Mary, though having to partake in original Sin in order to bear children subsequent to Jesus by the mortal Joseph, was still becoming a larger than life figure, too.

And this, as with Moses, could have entitled her to an Ascension.
Last edited by m.standridge on 01 Jan 1970, 00:00, edited 0 times in total.
Reason: ''
Best in all,
MaxS
m.standridge
 
Posts: 737
Joined: 25 Jul 2008, 03:59
Location: Arkansas, United States

Re: ME: guilty of "dominating the thread"

Postby susanl » 12 Mar 2013, 11:44

Aw Max you're a sweetie. I'm glad you're feeling a bit better. I don't read the pope stuff though, hope you don't mind :)
Last edited by susanl on 01 Jan 1970, 00:00, edited 0 times in total.
Reason: ''
susanl
 
Posts: 1113
Joined: 01 Jun 2008, 14:21

Re: ME: guilty of "dominating the thread"

Postby prc » 12 Mar 2013, 13:16

lol, well you just have a passion for stuff!! it's pretty cool to see that :good:
Last edited by prc on 01 Jan 1970, 00:00, edited 0 times in total.
Reason: ''
prc
 
Posts: 1021
Joined: 17 Jul 2011, 20:23
Location: ''

Re: ME: guilty of "dominating the thread"

Postby m.standridge » 12 Mar 2013, 17:38

Well, I guess there have been three different things I'm trying to post about:
1. my need for your help on the healing energy level
2. exploring what the 'holy grail" really was--and what the different belief systems, some now EXTINCT, have been about it, and how "neat" or at least interesting some of them seem to have been'
3. trying to figure out if these new findings in archaeology inspired by 2. above kind of thing, have been a factor in this moving of the Naraggansett Stone in Rhode Island by some well-equipped party who may have been disinterested in the general public knowing further about the "hooked x" and other possible aspects of that stone that might have larger implications for Catholic history--and the subsequent scandal that might evdentually set off, if its discovered the said movers were Catholic affiliated officials who had broken Rhode Island law by essentially stealing state property--and whether that, in turn, could have been yet one more straw in the Papal back to lead to resignation.

So, any posts on any of those, in my scrambled writing lately, are welcome!
Last edited by m.standridge on 01 Jan 1970, 00:00, edited 0 times in total.
Reason: ''
Best in all,
MaxS
m.standridge
 
Posts: 737
Joined: 25 Jul 2008, 03:59
Location: Arkansas, United States

Re: ME: guilty of "dominating the thread"

Postby m.standridge » 12 Mar 2013, 18:10

What I had been responding to lately, in this about the Stone and the Templars and the "real" Grailists, was a flashback to my earlier paper, "The Coronation of Charlemagne from a 'Grailist' Perspective".

In that research, in light of claims about the secret "grail' idea, bloodline, etc., I had already put together, that Charlemagne's behavior at the time of his Coronation as Emperor--and, indeed, the very existence of a Holy Roman Empire to begin with--seem to have had about as much to do with some kind of...bloodline related to Jesus, as the simple, continued existence of a Christianized Roman government.

Because, different people were BROUGHT IN to become Emperors. And there were interesting...accoutrements that they wore, used or were associated with. For example, the rather beautiful story, or tradition, about the old French symbol known as the Fleur di lis. It is strongly associated with certain provinces in France, but also with the ruling of part of France and part of Belgium and part of what is now Germany...and depictions of most HREmperors show them holding the fleur de lis and the ball with the cross, symbolic of Roman Catholic Church approval.
Well the story of the fleur de lis, is that it was the Robe of Christ, and that, when He ascended into heaven, there was a cloth, or burial cloth, or the robe He wore, and that, when He got to Heaven, He no longer needed ordinary clothes. (I feel a "right"? wanting to say here). So, the angels brought His last clothing item--the one He'd had on when He Ascended--back to Earth. And, one tradition, has it that this was actually the Shroud of Turin. But in the tradition about it, it was endowed with this fleur de lis symbol. And, that was why, it was with this group of rulers from then on. Because it was something...they were given, got somehow, from the angels.

There was also the whole mystery of that Shroud of Turin, although that wasn't for centuries yet when the HRE was first set up, so not sure it was a factor at least at first. So, because that seemed to come later, although that isn't really clear that it came later actually, it's thought the Shroud was not the item the angels blessed with the Fleur de lis. But if it wasn't, then the Turin Shroud is not the same cloth as that spoken of as having been imprinted upon in heaven. With the fleur de lis symbolizing what was imprinted.

So...the Shroud is still in Europe, so IT isn't part of any hidden Grail item.

Anyway, so Charlemagne, in taking power at the time of his own coronation as emperor by the Pope, literally seized the crown from the pope, and engaged, as I've described earlier at the other thread, in these...borderline disrespectful behaviors toward/about the Pope. I've just tried to speculate as to why.

He'd displaced the earlier Merovingian line, who seem to have had the strongest claim, of some kind--according to many current Grail researchers--to being descendants of some kind of relatives of Jesus. Yet, it's clear, at least to me in light of all this data, that he also, in his own way, thought he had some kind of claim of his own, not just on a material level, but also on a spiritual level.

Now, Charlemagne's background and bloodline, came to be known as the Carolingians. There's a whole thing with that, but we needn't get bogged down too much with that. But the bottom line, is a line of monks known as Cistercians, developed during all that time, and Charlemagne began to engage in a whole campaign--at good thing in itself--of valuing schools, education--and bathing. Bathing and baths. And, we are seeing evidence, here in N. Amer., that someone built a lot of those. And, the traditions of the Templars, seem to have been started under the Carolingians, if not by Charlemagne himself. So, anyone affiliated with Charlemagne--such as the mysterious people who seemed to have left lead crosses and other artifacts in what is now the sw US--were ancestors of the Templars.

So, there is a lot of a historical lineage that's argued for, but these bloodlines had already gotten to be pretty watered-down by the time of Charlemagne, even. Laws of Phylogeny in genetics. Etc.
But the question still must be, what else could have been out there, to motivate these various leaders, to feel they had successive rights to claim
what was "san greal"--blood royal? Were they descended from Joseph's kids from his marriage previous to Mary the mother of Jesus? Or were they the kids and great grands of the cousins of Mary--the children of Mary's sister Anna? Or, were they the offspring of Jesus and Mary Magdalene--more or less what the Jews believed? Or, were they...something else? The descendants of the kids of Mary and Joseph? The OTHER kids of Mary and Joseph?
These people were very powerful, almost OVER the Church, for awhile in Europe, and engaged in...antics almost...that somewhat embarassed or humiliated popes. So, there may have been...a kind of built up anger on the part of the Papacy, and it may have gradually manifest, and added to the impetus for, the final "extermination" of the Knights Templar in 1307 by King Phillip of France and the Pope, who was allegedly almost his hostage. The Pope may have partly gone along with this, because the Knights were by then known to feel about the Pope and King, similar to how Charlemagne had. And, that old resentment added to his Holiness's willingness to let them fry.
Last edited by m.standridge on 01 Jan 1970, 00:00, edited 0 times in total.
Reason: ''
Best in all,
MaxS
m.standridge
 
Posts: 737
Joined: 25 Jul 2008, 03:59
Location: Arkansas, United States

Next

Return to General Chatter



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests

cron