Forcing either/or decisions upon others doesn't bring the rational out (of) the mind, is what I know. There are reasons why Pat needs the idea of a fixed future for him. Let's be generous and wish him that all his wishes may come true.
On 25 Mai, 19:12, vamadevananda <[email protected]> wrote: > Pat, cut out this know - all attitude. It's not worth a fig ! Just > state what you know, in few lines. > > I have no need of your kindness or its contrary from you. Just spell > it out, in simple terms we all here can understand. If you are ashamed > to admit that you do not know, let me assure you that is no crime ! > > And we all know the substance of experiences most charlatans bandy > about ! The world would be better without them and their delusions. > > To get back to the core : Spell it or shut up, Pat ! > > On May 25, 9:27 pm, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On 25 May, 15:14, vamadevananda <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > What do you know of the next life, Pat ? > > > Plenty. But you would probably disagree. > > > > If you do, please spell it out now. If you do not, it would be only > > > fair on your part to spare the rational minds who congregate here of > > > such obscure notions ! > > > There isn't enough time to 'spell it out'. It would take many long > > discourses and, of course, you'll view that as 'an excuse', but it is > > the truth. There are many details that your rational mind (more > > likely, your preconceived notions) may take issue with; however, that > > would be the problem of your rational mind and not of my knowledge. > > I've had several experiences that have given me some keen insights > > into what CAN happen in the next life. If you're asking me, > > specifically, as to what will happen to you, then, I would be > > prohibited from stating such details, even if I were informed OF those > > specifics. Nevertheless, they ARE fixed and you can do nothing to > > change them. Although, my kinder side will allow me to say that you > > won't have many worries. ;-) > > > > On May 25, 5:25 pm, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On 24 May, 21:00, gabbydott <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Again, just out of curiosity, have you ever tried to see your off- > > > > > spring as your next life, Patty? > > > > > In the sense that they represent a certain aspect of 'immortality', of > > > > course. But they WILL die some day, and, as we are all still alive, > > > > they cannot be my 'next' life, rather, they are a vital part of this > > > > life. For all I know, in the next, we may never know one another. > > > > Then again, we may spend all of eternity together. The next life is > > > > not to be confused with any part of this life and progeny are a vital > > > > part of THIS life. > > > > > > On 24 Mai, 18:22, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > On 24 May, 14:16, Molly <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > "the difference isn't in THIS life, but the next" - the next life, > > > > > > > yes, but also in this - less anger and fear, more peace and > > > > > > > compassion... > > > > > > > True. One need only fear God in this life FOR the next. There is > > > > > > no > > > > > > need to fear 'creatures' in this life, as they will only harm you if > > > > > > The Creator has already dictated that. And if He has, then there is > > > > > > no avoiding it, if He has not, then there is no way to bring on that > > > > > > harm. Therefore, only fear The Creator and never fear ANY > > > > > > creatures. > > > > > > > > " Proof isn't available, except > > > > > > > to those who can reckon it." - yes, yes - and I would go further > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > say, the proof is in the living of it! > > > > > > > I.e., the proof is in "the putting" rather than "the pudding". For > > > > > > those who reckon it, their life is the putting forward of the proof, > > > > > > yes. > > > > > > > > On May 24, 7:28 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On 21 May, 22:31, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Pat, we've been on this roller coaster too many times. Can > > > > > > > > > you see > > > > > > > > > what you are saying? > > > > > > > > > > The "One" - "True" God told a man................ Well who is > > > > > > > > > verifying this information of a true god speaking to a man? > > > > > > > > > It's > > > > > > > > > absurd, which is why you follow with........."Now, Imagine > > > > > > > > > for a > > > > > > > > > moment.........."........Well hell Pat I could Imagine that a > > > > > > > > > one true > > > > > > > > > god spoke to my dog and told him to chase a kill > > > > > > > > > squirrels..........We > > > > > > > > > could imagine anything. > > > > > > > > > The verification is IN the Qur'an. I made the statements the > > > > > > > > way I > > > > > > > > did because I knew that you wouldn't accept it any other way. > > > > > > > > The > > > > > > > > fact that I can't even couch my statements in an acceptable way > > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > proof that the Qur'an is true...if you but read it and > > > > > > > > understood > > > > > > > > it. ;-) > > > > > > > > > > Then you say.."If you accept the premise............." > > > > > > > > > > I don't accept the premise of any religion, I find all of it > > > > > > > > > sometimes > > > > > > > > > amusing but mostly annoying. I don't care about the Quran, > > > > > > > > > the Bible > > > > > > > > > or the deep sea scrolls, I've checked it all out and > > > > > > > > > regardless of > > > > > > > > > what ancient man conjured up or whatever was discovered at > > > > > > > > > Nag Hammadi > > > > > > > > > and elsewhere, I find the whole nuisance of it an > > > > > > > > > infringement upon my > > > > > > > > > right to just live and have a happy existence; fact is I'm > > > > > > > > > happy > > > > > > > > > without it. > > > > > > > > > Yup, well, best of luck! > > > > > > > > > > The Hindus, Buddhists, Christians, Muslims and the rest of > > > > > > > > > the loonies > > > > > > > > > can go peddle their wares somewhere else. I don't see any > > > > > > > > > need to be > > > > > > > > > concerned about any "One True God". > > > > > > > > > Unless, of course, He exists. In which case, you will. > > > > > > > > > > I've been living for 60 years without one and anytime I've > > > > > > > > > ever > > > > > > > > > entertained the idea it was more trouble than it's worth. > > > > > > > > > Religious > > > > > > > > > people and Atheists are all living the same, and all dying > > > > > > > > > the same, > > > > > > > > > and all suffering from old age and disease. If religion was > > > > > > > > > worth the > > > > > > > > > paper it was written on then those that were worshiping the > > > > > > > > > one true > > > > > > > > > god would be much better off than everyone else but because > > > > > > > > > it is all > > > > > > > > > a figment of man's imagination there exists no "One True > > > > > > > > > Difference". > > > > > > > > > The difference isn't in THIS life, but the next. This is a > > > > > > > > testing > > > > > > > > ground and the rewards you reap HERE may actually stand against > > > > > > > > you > > > > > > > > later. Equal and opposite reaction, you know. If a wealthy man > > > > > > > > spends all his money on himself, he gains nothing here or in > > > > > > > > the next > > > > > > > > life, but, if he uses it to help those in need, he loses wealth > > > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > this life and gains paradise eternally. Which is better: a good > > > > > > > > temporary 70 years or a good eternity? Proof isn't available, > > > > > > > > except > > > > > > > > to those who can reckon it. > > > > > > > > > > On May 21, 11:19 am, Pat <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On 21 May, 16:22, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > I had no doubt that we would differ, Pat. What you say > > > > > > > > > > > still evokes > > > > > > > > > > > the question of a consciousness with intent. To say what > > > > > > > > > > > IS just IS > > > > > > > > > > > can be viewed as a truth, like the big boulder outside my > > > > > > > > > > > window. You > > > > > > > > > > > have created the box by imposing a set of inferences. > > > > > > > > > > > When looking at > > > > > > > > > > > the whole there doesn't have to be a box, which > > > > > > > > > > > essentially is a human > > > > > > > > > > > construct stemming from the need to address the unknown. > > > > > > > > > > > We deal with physical science, the proof of things, a > > > > > > > > > > > sort of macro- > > > > > > > > > > > religion which defines everything in terms of what we see > > > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > experience with our physical senses while the natural > > > > > > > > > > > world leaves > > > > > > > > > > > open ended areas which we have no answers for. This is > > > > > > > > > > > the point at > > > > > > > > > > > which the constructs begin to take form because there is > > > > > > > > > > > no proof > > > > > > > > > > > otherwise, eg; the Gallileo experience. Without > > > > > > > > > > > scientific proof > > > > > > > > > > > anyone can say anything, purport truth from dust and > > > > > > > > > > > create "Myth". > > > > > > > > > > > Storms, lightning and thunder are no longer angry gods > > > > > > > > > > > and sacrificial > > > > > > > > > > > human lambs are no longer necessary but for some reason > > > > > > > > > > > we have yet to > > > > > > > > > > > let go of the main theme of religious belief. > > > > > > > > > > > Religion's foundation is completely based on explanation > > > > > > > > > > > of the > > > > > > > > > > > unknown and the unseen, the perceptions of good and evil > > > > > > > > > > > and the need > > > > > > > > > > > to explore afterlife. These perceptions/constructs lead > > > > > > > > > > > to a oneness, > > > > > > > > > > > a central being, a deity and in some cultures a > > > > > > > > > > > multiplicity, a > > > > > > > > > > > composite of deities assigned to elements of the universe > > > > > > > > > > > such as the > > > > > > > > > > > ocean and the sun. Tack on the egocentric nature of > > > > > > > > > > > humanity and what > > > > > > > > > > > you get is man's idea that he is an appendage of the > > > > > > > > > > > oneness, an > > > > > > > > > > > extension of the almighty. Now we have gods with an > > > > > > > > > > > uncanny > > > > > > > > > > > resemblance to humans; why am I not surprised. Religions > > > > > > > > > > > are > > > > > > > > > > > worshiping "Humanity". Jesus = the only begotten son of > > > > > > > > > > > god. Why? > > > > > > > > > > > We are the children of god. Really? Say's who? This > > > > > > > > > > > tendency is > > > > > > > > > > > unrealistic for me and no one has ever throughout history > > > > > > > > > > > shown in > > > > > > > > > > > anyway a proof concerning religious dogma. It all > > > > > > > > > > > remains to this day > > > > > > > > > > > simple "Myths" from which to launch holy wars, commit > > > > > > > > > > > unspeakable > > > > > > > > > > > atrocities, build huge organizations that collect tithing > > > > > > > > > > > and instill > > > > > > > > > > > guilt and fear for living a natural and normal life. > > > > > > > > > > > Not exactly the Islamic viewpoint, there, Slip. Their view > > > > > > > > > > is that > > ... > > Erfahren Sie mehr »
