The thing about it though, all of it is that here Pat is giving us what he rationalises as a cure for man's ills, a system based upon the spirtual belife of the Oneness of God, but who's logic is scientific. He presents it as a viable system for the betterment of man, and yet a part of it says that what will be will be, and we have no control over that.
So why present it at all, what are his hopes? It is clear to me that the uptake of this idea may not ever happen, at least on the scale that Pat says is must. Who's mind is he trying to change and why, in the light of his revelation that none of us have a choice in the matter. If instead then he wants us all to become more aware of the truth of the matter, then agian how are we to do this, if we cannot will it so? This idea denies us any sort of control over our Selfs or our destiny's, so really what is the point of mooting such an idea to us, if we cannot control wheater or not we belive it? In short what are Pat's motives for posting this? If Pat has motives then I'm afraid I am witnessing the evidance of Pat's own will here, which invalidtates his claim that he has none, does it not? On 27 Aug, 13:06, Molly Brogan <[email protected]> wrote: > What I like most about your work, Pat, is that it takes us through > monism into a new paradigm, into completion with the inclusion of > modern science, allowing clarity of the rational in the trans > rational. I have been tossing around your no free will concept, and > suspect that reticence to it may be a matter of semantics. I have the > same trouble when people talk about the world being "illusion", or the > world of duality an illusion. In our lives, there is duality, but > there is also more, there is non duality. And we can choose our > viewpoint, giving us the feeling of free will. We are at the pool of > Bethesda and our own self image prevents our entry into the waters. > Only our own higher ontology can stir the water for us, and in this > awareness, we are the first in. But, as you say, we reach the point > where we understand that what we are choosing is to be aware of our > own divine nature in a different way. So when you say that it always > is, but our awareness of all that is changes, not being but awareness > of being changes- be still and know that I AM, this I can understand. > > On Aug 27, 5:16 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Over the past few days, as I’ve returned to this forum and responded > > to various statements from my own viewpoint, it seems that I’ve caused > > a bit of a stir. That’s fine, but I think many have found my > > statements confusing in certain ways, particularly in the area of > > morality, which seems to be a popular topic on the forum based on the > > recent posting titled ‘More morality’. In particular, Lee’s reticence > > to accept that a decent morality can be derived from my viewpoint, > > especially in light of the proposed loss of free will. So, I feel > > compelled to reveal a few of the cards I’ve been holding in this > > regard. The following is an excerpt from my book from the chapter > > called ‘Sin and Damnation’. This part comes AFTER I’ve described my > > theoretical monistic model of which only some of the older members > > here are reasonably aware (Essentially, it uses string theory to > > describe the universe as a function of one entity of stringy energy > > and explains that this one entity, the only entity that really exists > > is, in fact, God.). Note: I don’t go into the ‘damnation’ topic in > > this excerpt; I’ll retain that card for a moment. > > Now, of course, I don’t expect everyone will agree with my > > theory, as no one, yet, has come up with a theory to which everyone > > subscribes. But I expect that the following excerpt will allay some > > fears people have when they realise that the NEW morality that is > > derivable from my theory is the old morality. The difference being > > that, now, rather than relying solely on faith, we can practice it in > > the knowledge that it is based on logic and a scientific view of > > reality (given that I work from a premiss that my theory is > > correct). > > So, to paraphrase The Who, “Meet the new morality. Same as the > > old morality.” As always, let me know what you think!! ;-) > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > What is sin if there is only one actor in the system? Wise > > King Solomon had the answer to that when he told us, in the book of > > Ecclesiastes, of the woes begotten of vanity: “Vanity of vanities; all > > is vanity.” (Eccl. 1:2) > > When a soul thinks “I”, he separates himself from the one that > > is. Vanity is when we think “I”. This fundamental grasping of our own > > identity is completely counter to the concept of the oneness (rather > > than ‘unity’, ‘oneness’ describes God as One without unity) of God. > > In Ecclesiastes 1:9, Solomon says, “The thing that hath been, it is > > that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be > > done; and there is no new thing under the sun.” The first clause of > > Eccl. 1:9 is another declaration of the oneness of God, saying that > > God (the thing that hath been) is the only thing that exists and is, > > thus, that which shall be. The second clause pertains to the argument > > of fate vs. free will. In our space-time continuum, all events are > > extant in the whole of space-time. The future is just as much “there > > and then” as is the past. That which is (to be) done is that which > > shall be done. The concept of obligation inherent in the concept > > “shall” is also relevant because God is obliged by His very nature to > > perform every act at the right time and at the right place everywhere > > always. The third clause is saying that there is no new thing under > > the sun (a metaphor for God) because there can be nothing other than > > the one thing, which IS God. It is also a metaphor for understanding > > that energy is neither created nor destroyed, only transformed from > > one form to another; because ‘that which exists’ is energy that has > > always existed and always will, there can be nothing ‘new’. > > In the Torah, eight of the Ten Commandments are negative > > commandments, i.e., those that prohibit behaviours. The first > > negative commandment is, “I AM the Lord thy God…thou shalt have no > > other gods before me”. God states that it is a sin to acknowledge the > > existence of Gods OTHER than Him. It would be impossible for a > > monistic God to acknowledge an entity other than itself. After all, > > He’s omniscient; He would know there was no other. So, too, it is > > wrong and vain for man to acknowledge any other. > > The second negative commandment is, “Thou shalt not make unto > > thee any graven image…of anything that is in Heaven or on the Earth… > > for I AM a jealous God.” In this commandment, God gives His reasoning > > for the prohibition. Jealous, in THIS usage, means demanding of > > complete loyalty. One is not permitted to try to depict God as any > > one thing because He demands complete loyalty and, in order to be > > completely true to the concept of a monistic God, one would have to > > depict the entirety of space-time in order to be comprehensive. > > Anything less is a vain attempt. To think that one could, in any > > item, truly depict God “in toto” is vain. > > The third negative commandment is, “Thou shalt not take the Lord > > thy God’s name in vain.” Here, it’s plainly stated. Again, to think > > that one could change destiny by calling out the name of God is simply > > vain. Remember that all events are extant in the whole of space-time > > and it is God that drives them all. There is nothing any of us can do > > to alter the will of God and to think we can is to be vain; rather, > > that which we do is an enactment of God’s will, as there is no other. > > The fourth negative commandment is, “Thou shalt not murder.” To > > think that we are as powerful as to be able to snuff out life is > > vain. To an object of energy, all events can be boiled down to > > various transformations of energy. In our universe, we have > > discovered that energy is conserved and not lost. It only changes > > from one form to another. At the moment that we call death, there may > > well be a series of energy transformations such that the non-corporeal > > elements of our existence are separated from the corporeal but that > > does not mean that life, which is experienced through our > > consciousness, ends. As I’ve mentioned before, once a field of > > consciousness has been created, it has an anchor to the Calabi-Yau > > space which is outside of time. This field cannot cease to exist. It > > stretches outside of time. Energy transforms. That is all. > > Consciousness is, if anything, freed from the confinements of the body > > at death as much as it is when we dream. In our dreams, we can act > > without fear because there is nothing there, truly, but ourselves. To > > think otherwise is to deny one’s own being. Life, in this case, more > > properly, one’s ability to remain self-aware cannot be ended so long > > as there is an extra-spatio-temporal aspect to the field of > > consciousness. To think otherwise is vain because it denies the > > oneness and the continuity of God’s self-awareness. > > The fifth negative commandment is, “Thou shalt not commit > > adultery.” This is about internal consistency, loyalty and acting in > > good faith. In creating this universe, God has said “These things > > will happen”. And those things will happen. There is no changing the > > will of God. To act in such a way as to break our will, which is > > implied as adultery is an act against a solemn vow to NOT act in a > > particular way, is to deny the oneness of God. There is no new thing > > under the sun. To think that we have acted in such a way as to break > > the will of God, is vain and it is, also, to believe that God is not > > omnipotent. If something happens, then it must have been in > > accordance with God’s will, otherwise God is less than omnipotent. > > And THAT is not the case. Also, we cannot act against our OWN will. > > Will is resolute. If it is ones will to do A, A will be done. If A > > is not done, it could only have been a desire to perform A, followed > > by a desire to not do A. Will is always performed. If adultery is > > perceived to occur, a wise man should realise that it was never the > > partner’s will to remain faithful but, rather a desire to remain > > faithful, followed by a desire to not be faithful. In the Torah, Jews > > are entreated to not make vows lightly as vows are a declaration of > > will. If a man presumes to declare his will and acts otherwise, he > > soon loses the respect of his peers. Simply put, adultery is > > seemingly duplicitous behaviour and “One” cannot be duplicitous. That > > alone would be enough but God, also, acts ONLY on > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
