Ohh I'm not ragging on him and he presents a very convincing arguement, I just think it falls down where I have pointed it out and for the reasons I have said.
I'm a beliver in the Oness of God and we all know that by now, but I also belive in choice. Of all of the many words I have read of Pats over the last day or so, I have not seen him present any sort of evidance to show the kind of determinism he speaks of, and each and every time I have asked for such, well he neatly sidesteps the issue. Claiming lack of space or time, well I think that if such determinism is correct then I'm wondering why my questions and why my asking for such evidance has not yet made him present any, I think he chooses not to, therefore I reject his claim on the grounds that he keeps on demonstrating to me his own will in this matter. On 27 Aug, 13:51, Molly Brogan <[email protected]> wrote: > Well, I go by including this post with previous conversations, so, > rather than speak for Pat, I will let him respond to you. But I think > there is more than you give him credit for. > > On Aug 27, 8:48 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > Yet Pat does not say this at all Molly. We choose nothing, it may be > > that circumstanes enable us to discover more about our 'nature' or it > > may not, we have not say in the matter. The very words I am using in > > order to explain this I am not choosing, they are coming out due to my > > lifes circumstances and other compulsions that 'I' am unaware of. > > > So we cannot choose our awareness, nor can we change who we are. > > > And that's the pint I am making, if we really have no choie then what > > are Pat's motives, I can't control if I belive in this system of his, > > so why is he trying to change my mind if my mind is not mine to > > change? > > > I think this shows that Pat himself is engaged in using his own will, > > which invalidates what he says. > > > On 27 Aug, 13:33, Molly Brogan <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > I can't speak to Pat's motives, but I will say what I think in light > > > of his work. He courageously outlines for us, the realm of > > > possibility as he sees it. He tells us that we cannot change what is, > > > which is everything possible. But we choose our awareness of all that > > > is, our viewpoint. But doing this, we change who we are and live our > > > potentiality of all that is. This is how we, as some say, co create. > > > We do by making the possible real. We don't really change what is > > > possible. > > > > On Aug 27, 8:20 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > 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 > > ... > > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
