On 27 Aug, 13:59, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
wrote:
> 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.
>
You misunderstand what will is. It's then, no surprise you're
befuddled by what you have read. Will is resolute. Will is always
enacted. The only one that has will is the One. We have our will by
virtue of the fragmentation of God's will, as displayed in all
creatures with awareness.
One of the biggest criticisms of Jesus, in his day, was that he
came out with quite a few statements that seemed incredibly arrogant
(I and my Father are one, for example); but, when the universe is
understood from a monistic viewpoint, the arrogance is re-understood
as confidence. You saw this in my exchanges recently with gruff.
Hopefully, I will, in the future, come across as less than 'that
arrogant', as I would describe everyone as a 'Child of God' and not
just myself. And, please, don't try to construe that as some sideways
claim to Messiahship. I wasn't born in 'the City of David', I'm not,
as far as I know or can prove, a direct male descendant of David. I
cannot possibly be that. But I will tell you that, if the square-root
of 1 percent of the population grasp my concepts, that Messianic era
will be upon us. But, before that, and as people rebel against what I
have to say, it will seem like the opposite is true.
> 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’.
>
> ...
>
> 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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
