On 25 May, 18:12, 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.
Are you so sure of that? That is, that you have no need of my kindness? I had need of yours and you delivered it to me. And I, for one, will never forget that. I have an obligation to return that kindness as best I can by my own moral standards. Perhaps that 'need' is the need of the One. Simple reaction to action. I owe you, Vam. And, I always will. There's no 'get-out' clause for that, as your kindness had been required from time immemorial and it demands, through physics alone, a response. Try to separate your emotions and BE the rational man you state you are. I could have put that FAR more harshly, but what good would THAT do but stir up more animosity? And I don't WANT that. >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 ! > I cannot state 'what I know' in a few lines. It would take volumes! Perhaps if you had a specific question, I could answer it for you. If you want to know everything I know (about ANY subject), then you'll have a long time to wait, as there is much to discuss. I do NOT claim to know everything. I used the word 'plenty'. You interpret it as you will and then get upset because of your interpretation. Again, the 'problem' lies within you, not me. Ask me a specific question and I may be able to address it, but if I asked you to tell me everything you know about any particular subject and, then, limited you to 'a few lines', you'd be stuck. So why try to stick it to me? > And we all know the substance of experiences most charlatans bandy > about ! The world would be better without them and their delusions. > LOL!! Calling me a charlatan and, then, in another thread trying to get me 'moderated' for being divisive/derisive. Wow, get a grip on yourself, Vam. Calm down. You're supposed to be presenting yourself as rational. So, your rationality is that which feels I'm a charlatan and deluded? I think that's a tad more emotional than rational. > To get back to the core : Spell it or shut up, Pat ! > IT. There, I've spelled 'it'. But what, on earth, that has to do with the subject, I don't know. To return to 'the question at hand': why not ask a specific question rather than asking me to condense what could be volumes into a few lines? Wouldn't that be more reasonable? I'm not lying, nor am I a charlatan. The 'simplest' condensation I can state is "that any field that retains a coordinate in atemporal space is, by virtue of that coordinate, eternal". There, there's one line. But it won't describe what you might expect to encounter in that eternity. What, exactly, do you want to know? > 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 > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
