On 27 Aug, 15:00, iam deheretic <[email protected]> wrote:
> Patrick after struggling through what you have to say, I realize the
> importance of the little pebbles I use for meditation and remembering. I am
> definitely a simple man and can be confused easily.
> I have little use for the Rumsfeldian way of terror and
> domination.Personally I am glad what you wrote is copyrighted , .o) that way
> no one can use it or quote it.
> Allan
>
As it's a part of a yet-to-be-published book, I felt I had no choice
but to protect it. Those pebbles are, by the way, vital for us all.
I have little use for Rumsfeld other than to use the term
Rumsfeldian. ;-)
> On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 11:16 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 will, as God has no
> > desires. Desires are based on a perceived lack of something and God
> > lacks nothing. When you are all that there is, what could you
> > possibly desire?
> > The sixth negative commandment is, “Thou shalt not steal.” The
> > well-respected Torah commentator Rashi states that this commandment
> > pertains to kidnapping, i.e., the stealing of other people (The
> > punishment for breaking any of the Ten Commandments was death and the
> > Ten Commandments dealt with relationships between man and God and
> > between man and man. Theft of property was punishable by fines and/or
> > material compensation. Kidnapping, though, was punishable by
> > death.). In a broader sense, it deals with the concept of owning an
> > individual. If you steal someone, you have taken them like you
>
> ...
>
> 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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
