Greetings to all.

   I have had some revelations through meditation recently that I would like to share. It all concerns the matter of the nature of our planet. Most people believe that the Earth is solid and we are the only inhabitants that dwell on the surface.

   Some of you may have heard of the stories about Agartha the inner earth with a central sun. There is much more to this that has been discovered more recently building the case for a hollow center.

Sorry I can't think right now to post other sources of info. I'll reply another time when I find them.

The earth is solid, however, the further down you get the hotter it becomes. I know this because I worked for over 8 years on the South African Gold Mines


To suggest that our solid earth is hollow is as stupid as saying it is a a soft boiled egg

That's interesting Ralph.
Here is a brief overview of the general subject. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollow_Earth

I expect great subterranean caverns do exist in certain places. Probably many caverns. And perhaps they have been accessed and utilised before. Time may tell.

I doubt the secret diary version sometimes attributed to Admiral Byrd though. But who knows?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tzWHqooAJtM

From a certain angle, above the physical plane and above the astral planes that surround the Earth, it is apparent that the physical Earth as we know it is down in the depths of the overall planet, for the physical planet is surrounded by countless astral planes. So in a sense we do live in the centre of the Earth.

Even the Sun and its light as we know it which is visible on the physical plane is not visible on most astral planes, which cast their own light directly from their matter, like stars do, as opposed to planets which reflect light from stars. Hence the astral planes are called astral, after their astral matter, meaning star like, or casting its own light. Anyway, even the physical Sun can be seen as belonging to the central Earth physical plane and as part of the concave physical sphere that is the physical solar system as we know it. Its all in the place and angle of view, and I am describing a very objective view indeed.
   
Oh, and by the way. Gravity is a funny thing indeed, and not yet well understood, though we are getting there, as those who follow such developments will know.

But those who are reasonably proficient at consciously leaving the body can gain a good view of gravity, what it is and how it works. One of the interesting things about it is that at the depths of every centre of gravity, ie at the centre of every planet, galaxy, universe... is a point that penetrates into another dimension, or more accurately is drawn into another dimension. So the gravity we feel is actually secondary gravity, or the effect of the draw or gravity of the dimension upon which our dimension adheres. Anyway, my point is that when out of the body, we can certainly go to the depth of any centre of gravity and emerge into another dimension. And in a sense, that makes things like planets and galaxies hollow or funnel-like.

       

1796 wrote on Mar 15^th, 2016 at 11:29pm:


How do you know all the above as fact, when in my opinion it is just fabricated wild fiction??

Quote:


I thought you've been preaching sin and damnation. Maybe you can explain to me how the Bible works without the sin in the garden?

Alan McDougall wrote on Mar 16^th, 2016 at 1:22pm:


I may know it to be fact, but no one else can know it to be fact until they do too. So I put it out there for consideration by those who might wish to consider it.

I don't want to be believed about such things. If someone where to respond saying they believed me about such things then I would make a comment to throw them back upon their self, upon their own conscience, their own intellect, their own judgement, considerations, and heart. The last thing I want is for anyone to blindly believe me. I really dislike that, and I regularly discourage it and frequently push people back upon themselves.     

Anything that is heard or read, whether it be true or false or a mixture of both, is only information to the recipient, not knowledge. Information at best can only serve as a guide towards knowledge of truth, and at worst can serve to persuade one away from truth, towards falsity. That is the nature of life as humans. We must find life's answers for our self.

So whether I know it to be factual or not is irrelevant to the recipient of the information, or should be, for he must discover truth himself, or herself.

There is only one truth though, for in its fullness there is only one way things are, not two or more in contradiction. What most psychologists teach about there being multiple individual truths being all true, about there being "no such thing as truth, only individual perception", about something being true for one person and another thing being true for another person, and that, "if you feel it then its true for you", is just a debating and manipulating tactic used for power and control over others. Truth is how things are.

I often state things as if they are fact, particularly when I know them to be fact. But that is my knowledge, not anyone else's until they have it too. I state things as fact because I credit people with their own freewill. And freewill includes free intellect, free choice, freedom to consider, freedom to wonder, to ponder, to contemplate and to think for themselves. I credit them with that, even when they don't credit themselves with it.

Some people get offended by me stating things as if they are fact, as if I know them to be true. They bleat that I am taking away their freewill or free determination. If I give instructions on how to do something, they confuse them for orders, and then complain that they are being told what to do. They even claim I am doing this to them across an internet forum and through their computer screen. Such people have what is termed an "external locus of control". Although they talk about having freewill they actually have little concept of their own freewill and responsibility. Freewill is just a vague notion to them. And their own individual accountability is something they shy from. As freewill goes together with their own responsibility and accountability, and as they reject the latter, they cannot understand or properly accept the former.

If they did comprehend their own freewill and responsibility then they would not exhibit an external locus of control and would not so easily feel "offended", "bullied" and "oppressed" by what other people say. For our freewill applies not only to what we do and what comes from us, but also to how we let external things effect us.   

I am frequently told by such people that I should introduce what they call "my truth" by saying, "In my opinion...", or, "It seems to me that...". Such people love to tell others how to talk, for their external locus of control means they can only control their own feelings by controlling other people. They have developed little emotional independence. They usually consider their unpleasant feelings to be someone else's fault.

If something is my opinion or if it seems a certain way to me, then I may introduce it as such. But if I know it, then I may just state it, and let others consider it by their own means. I credit people with more freewill than they usually credit themselves.

I refuse to reinforce people's insecurities and to encourage their self imposed limitations by introducing my statements with, "In my opinion/It seems to me..." etc, just so they don't feel offended, controlled or oppressed by what I say. That would just be reinforcing their lack of development, and I don't wish to do that. I would rather speak to them as if they have the independent freedom of thought that I know they have, at least potentially.   

Besides, such people are mostly not as nice and considerate as they pretend to be. They are quite happy to use their often feigned offendedness to limit and control what others can say, to encourage others to join them in being offended, and to do harm or see harm done to those who do not comply with their demands on how to speak and be. Many of them actually have a dislike of other people's freewill, and are continually trying to restrict and limit it to their own liking. That is a love of power and control over others. I don't comply with such people. Certainly not when I don't have to.   

So consider or don't consider whatever I say. Reject it, or wonder about it, and perhaps let it stretch the mind a little, and maybe the heart too. Dismiss it as false, accept it as "perhaps", or leave it as unknown. Explore it or don't. I am just as happy whatever is done with it. But don't blindly believe me -- that is all I really don't want.        

   

Quote:


Why is it an allegory? And how do you know then that the rest of the Bible, including the parts of the wrathful judging God who sends people to burn in inexpressible torture for ever and ever, isn't an allegory? Or just myths? And don't give me your subjective experience - it means nothing to me.

I don't believe in a wrathful God that I've never seen.

I've seen some wrath here on earth, and that ain't God.