On 4 June, 15:28, Molly <[email protected]> wrote: > "I cannot be you. Nor can I be > anyone other than myself. These are not possible." > > this is where we part ways, my friend. I contend that we ARE all > others, and ourselves, the One and the Many. Within us, we are the > Father, Son and Holy Ghost as realized in the moment through > awareness. "All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man > knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, > save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him. Come unto > me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you > rest." (Matthew 11:27 - 28) Someone who has realized themselves as > individuals, and all others, "knoweth the son." The son ascended to > the father in us allows heaven on earth. There you have the heart of > the Christian mystic teaching. >
Yes, but if 'No man knoweth the Son, but the Father', that is, paraphrased for a modern reader: no man knows the Son, rather, only the Father (knows the Son). Then no man can attain that level. The next phrase explains the get-out clause, i.e., "save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him". I'm hoping that you misspelt that last word and that it should have been capitalised, i.e., "and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal Him", so that "Him" actually relates to God rather than anything/anyone else. The key point of this is that Christ himself must intervene and ALLOW the revelation. It isn't a self-realisation according to that quote, rather, it is a mediated event mediated by Jesus. And I'm not too sure that this quote can be relied upon, as it smacks a bit of Pauline theology more that actual Christian teaching (by 'Christian teaching' I mean teachings actually taught by Jesus rather than words put into his mouth at a later date by those with an agenda to make his words more Pauline). Could you do a bit of research for me, please? Is there an equivalent statement in Mark? Mark was the earliest Gospel and the one that has had the least amount of tampering done to it. If there is no equivalent quote or if the quote is slightly different, I would lean towards the version in Mark as being closer to the Christian teaching. I can agree completely that we are all linked to one another, but only God can truly state that he is ALL of us. We DO, without doubt, reflect one another, and that can make it seem like we are, in fact, others, but it is no more than mistaking the reflection in the mirror for your actual self, which I don't think you would do given a mirror. Just as there are optical illusions, there are spiritual illusions and, in a holographic universe, both of these can be pitfalls for the seer (pun intended). Still, no worries about disagreeing. I've never yet met another individual with whom I agreed regarding everything. These differences are the whole reasons for our individuality and define our purpose for existence as they PROVE the fact that differences can be had/made. If we all thought the same, there's be little purpose in having so many people. Our differences are our strengths. ;-) > Can we live in all time consciousness and linear consciousness > simultaneously? I believe so. You may not. It's OK. I respect you > completely. > I believe we can, but not whilst incarnate. Once we have 'shuffled off this mortal coil', then we can have access to the "all-time consciousness" and that may well be one of the boons to heaven. Having that possibility taken away from one may well be one of the punishments of hell. > "We do, though, have a > certain amount of time to think about how we react TO those > realisations and/or feelings and it is our duty to one another to > take > that time and do just that." > > Interesting, and what some, I suppose would feel to be choice. "Come > onto me" would be the first step. > Well, yes. Jesus' philosophy was, if taken and lived by, a way of becoming at peace with the world and accepting one's role in it. To "Come unto me" would be the first step for a Christian. It may take other forms for those of other faiths. For Jews, it would be "To love God with all thy heart, with all thy soul and with all thy might" and for Muslims it is to understand without doubt, that "there is no God worthy of worship but God/Allah". Note that both the other Abrahamic faiths require no mediator/intercessor as is implied in the quote you quoted. However, In the Lord's Prayer, Jesus implores everyone to state "Thy will be done". Note how this does not allow for free will or any will other than that of God. and that everyone addresses God, through that prayer, as "Our Father, which art in heaven...". There is no intercessor implied in the Lord's Prayer and I believe that this role of intercessor is another Pauline doctrine that was not a valid Christian teaching. We all have a one-to-One relationship with God and the Lord's Prayer is a testament to that in amongst many quotes that lead us to believe otherwise. But, please, do me that favour and see if there is a similar quote in Mark, as I strongly suspect there isn't (and I don't have time to look, myself, at the moment but I WILL look as soon as I get home). And, please note that it takes a lot of work to separate Jesus' real quotes from those that were added later. The main thing to look for is whether or not they line up with Pauline doctrine or not. If they DO, then they are suspect. Jesus was a Jew and would have, therefore, believed that each of us has a one-to-One relationship with God, as that is a basic tenet of Judaism. Anything that makes Jesus 'special' and, in some way, God-like, is probably incorrect. Remember Jesus' words in Gethsemene: Not my will but Thine be done. It was his resoluteness in this belief that it was 'The will of God' that is/was enacted and the one-to-One relationship that marks his mission not any 'special relationship' that he held. THAT is Pauline doctrine. > On Jun 4, 7:39 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On 4 June, 09:21, Molly <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > your sneer is showing. I will leave what Pat knows and doesn't up to > > > Pat. But will say, like relative and absolute, One and Many, choice > > > is a matter of state and stage of being. Ultimately, as we have > > > realized the One within our individuality, our choices are the choices > > > of the One, our self will becomes Divine Will. Yet, the choice to > > > realize the One, to move toward, with or against others, to use > > > hateful words or compassionate words, to make the move to understand > > > or not, are all the relative choices that allow us to realize > > > ourselves as One in Many. The paradox of it, is that we have choice > > > and non choice and ultimately, they are the same because when we have > > > realized infinite possibility, we have made all choices and so no > > > choices. How many people do you know that have realized infinite > > > possibility (Christ consciousness)? Anyone capable of moving against > > > another person, has not. This realization, like all others, requires > > > a change in viewpoint (that is a choice) that precludes such action. > > > Those 'choices' are illusory and depend on our inability to know the > > future like we do the past. We have access to the past through memory > > but have no such facility with respect to the future. Einstein put it > > best when he said that 'Free will is not compatible with space-time' > > and it's really as simple as that. The space-time continuum holds ALL > > events: those of our past, any present and all of the future. The > > appearance of free will comes about because we have no access to the > > future but DO, in the present, have the ability to perceive possible > > 'next moves'; however, we can only ever perform one of those > > possibilities and it is the one act we perform that is the act that > > was, forever, contained in the continuum. > > > Put mathematically: There is an event, X, that is a possible future > > event and there is an event, Y, that is a possible future event. We > > shall refer to the ACTUAL event as 'A'. > > > Reality, in a space-time continuum, allows for either: > > > A=X > > or > > A=Y > > > But, if free will exists, the equation would read: A= (X or Y) > > > But, we can never perform (X or Y), rather, we can either perform X, > > or we can perform Y. It's a subtle difference but one with a HUGE > > impact. I hope the parentheses helps. > > > What you say regarding responsibility FOR our actions is correct. We > > are. for the very same reason that we have no choice, that is, > > because we have no access to the future. Having that veil preventing > > us from knowing the truth of future events means that we only have our > > past information to use at any given present-time in which we act. > > Because we don't know what WILL happen, the onus is thrown back on us > > as to what we do BECAUSE we cannot see the future. It's a beautiful > > Catch-22 that gives us both the illusion of free will and the > > responsibility for our actions. > > > A note about acting against others: all acts against others must be > > subsets of the 'infinite possibilities' that you state exist. Yet, I > > can firmly state with perfect knowledge, that there is NOT an infinite > > number of possibilities. For example, I cannot be you. Nor can I be > > anyone other than myself. These are not possible. It is possible to > > discuss me being you, but it can NEVER be done in reality. So, there > > is a set of actions that are 'possible actions' and that set is > > limited, although the set differs for each of us. Another example is > > that I cannot have both X and Y chromosomes and be a human female. > > Although it could have been stated that, before anyone knew I was male > > (i.e., before my birth) that it was 'conceivable' that I could be > > female, it was NOT, technically, possible, as my masculinity had > > already been determined at my conception (in a 'macro' view, it was > > determined at the Big Bang, as all events in THIS universe are effects > > of that cause). > > > Also, realisations aren't choices, per se, either. Rather, they > > 'occur to us' and are beyond our control, just like our feelings boil > > up from within due to outside influences. We do, though, have a > > certain amount of time to think about how we react TO those > > realisations and/or feelings and it is our duty to one another to take > > that time and do just that. > > > > On Jun 3, 6:44 pm, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > ...even Pat knows this! > > > > > On Jun 3, 12:00 pm, Molly <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > so, you don't choose the words you put into your posts? > > > > > > On Jun 3, 1:49 pm, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > All choice is an illusion. > > > > > > Cynicism is but ignorance as to the true nature of things > > > > > > > On Jun 3, 8:20 am, Molly <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > we choose our words, our thoughts and emotions. But as you say, > > > > > > > when > > > > > > > we are "in the equipoise way" those choices are self evident and, > > > > > > > as > > > > > > > DWB points out, only Brahaman. Cynicism will not get us there. > > > > > > > > On Jun 3, 12:40 am, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Being aware that there is no choice to be made and remaining in > > > > > > > > equipoise is the way. > > > > > > > > > On Jun 2, 3:43 pm, Molly <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Making the choice to be neither, yet embracing all those that > > > > > > > > > are, as > > > > > > > > > essential to the One, is the means to escaping the slavery we > > > > > > > > > each > > > > > > > > > impose on ourselves. > > > > > > > > > > On Jun 2, 5:29 pm, ornamentalmind > > > > > > > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Those who dominate are actually slaves to their own lower > > > > > > > > > > nature. > > > > > > > > > > > On Jun 2, 12:15 am, iam deheretic <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Molly is right. > > > > > > > > > > > Allan > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 2:33 AM, ornamentalmind > > > > > > > > > > > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Such confidence is rarely seen. > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jun 1, 3:00 pm, Molly <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > we all use it, you are no exception. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jun 1, 1:57 pm, ornamentalmind > > > > > > > > > > > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *** assumes the royal 'we' is being used *** > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jun 1, 4:43 am, Molly <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "we need to take on a greater arrogance to put > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the ' good - at > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - heart ' arrogant in place." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I see, like toning down anger with more anger. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, this can be > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > effective, but only if our counter anger is seen > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in truth by us. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Often, in such situations, instead of one person > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > lovingly using the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > affect of anger to tone down another into a more > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rational state, we > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > get two people raging at one another. And like > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > force, this rarely > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > comes to love. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The trick to it would be, I suppose, that our > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > judgment of another be > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > completely clear, devoid of all self serving > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > agenda, shining like the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sun at high noon, without shadow. Often, we do > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not recognize that it > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is not until the words are already spoken and the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > damage done. More > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > often, we donn the suit of the warrior out to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > squash wrong in another > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with our sword of love and come to find that > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > indeed, we have picked > > > > > > > > > > > > up > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the sword of self interest instead, and are > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ultimately at war with > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ourselves, only recognizing it in other when our > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > own shadow turns the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mirror to darkness. Thus, humility has its way > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with us, and the > > > > > > > > > > > > light > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is restored. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think that one big clue as to which is which is > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the language that > > > > > > > > > > > > we > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > choose, even in our own thoughts. If we are > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > looking to expose and > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > condemn with references of evil and harsh words, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we are usually > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
