you have one person (at least) in this group, Pat. A good sampling?
On Aug 27, 9:17 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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
>
> ...
>
> read more »
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
