On 11 June, 06:43, Ash <[email protected]> wrote: > Pat, couldn't Molly's view be reconcilable with a quantum connectedness? > Perhaps a matter of 'tuning' in? >
Well, it's difficult to tune into everything--even with the best of variable resistors. And anything less than that would not encomapss Godhood, as I see it. You can tune into several different aspects, but there is no way that we, as humans, could ever achieve omnipotence as our form (and the requirements of our form, like oxygen, food, water, etc.) has limitations that prevent us from existing in certain places where these requirements don't also exist. We could try to tune into the 'background radiation' in the hopes that it could link us to the Big Bang, but even that might only result in an understanding of that Bang rather than lend us any glimpses into heaven, for example. Our quantum connectedness keeps us connected to every other thing always, and that I firmly maintain and I believe there is no way to loosen that grip, as it were. However, it's no more than grasping a rope that's tied to a tree; grasping the rope doesn't make you one with the tree, although it does maintain a link. In order to be the tree as well, you need to be God, as only He has the link to everything. > On 6/10/2010 7:24 AM, Pat wrote: > > > > > > > On 4 June, 18:20, Molly<[email protected]> wrote: > > >> "and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him." - is how we attain > >> that level, through our own Christing. > > >> Perhaps it comes down to believing, as the mystics do, that attaining > >> the spiritual level of Christ is possible for man, and that was > >> exactly the message he intended to deliver. Whether we assign the > >> term "Christ", or buddha or Bodhisattva, or Son of God, the esstential > >> idea is the same, as I see it. What we do ourselves, we do for > >> everyone because through the eyes of God, we are everyone. > > > I do agree, but with the fact that 'spiritual attainment' is possible > > for us all, not 'Godhood'. None of us can be all that exists, as the > > rest of the universe would disappear if all the universe was contained > > in a particular human. I.e., that human, if they existed, would be > > surrounded by vacuum and explode. Thus, there's little point to 'God > > incarnate' unless that is, exactly, the process behind the Big Bang. > > And, yes, I DO say that with tongue in cheek. > > >> You don't have to agree. This is my humble view. > > >> On Jun 4, 11:22 am, Pat<[email protected]> wrote: > > >>> 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 > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
