I will quote gabby in response to that; "Thanks for overstanding!" I will now direct you to the time stamp on my last post which I will copy and past for your convienience since your's will not reflect the same time;
I guess what I'm trying to say is that we are already part of God and therefore eternal with God! It is beyond our comprehension for the most part but it is scriturally based that all things are possible through HIM! Molly has suggested and is correct in that it is also scriturally based) that these things shall be revealed to whom HE shall reveal it. On Jun 11, 11:11 am, DarkwaterBlight <[email protected]> wrote: Please take note and google The 11:11 phenomenon! May love, light and laughter fill your day! D.B. On Jun 11, 12:20 pm, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > On 11 June, 16:17, DarkwaterBlight <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I guess what I'm trying to say is that we are already part of God and > > therefore eternal with God! It is beyond our comprehension for the > > most part but it is scriturally based that all things are possible > > through HIM! Molly has suggested and is correct in that it is also > > scriturally based) that these things shall be revealed to whom HE > > shall reveal it. > > It may be scripturally based that all things are possible with God, > however it is not commensurate with logic, so there's a big > discrepancy between logic and THAT particular scripture. I would opt > for the logic on this one. Revealing things, which are themselves, > already done is, of course, logically possible. And, of course, as > there is only One omnipotent being, only THAT power could reveal all > to anything. But the human brain could not retain it. Only after our > consciousnesses are free from material limitations could this be > possible. What God can't do, for example, is to stop being God. He > may be omnipotent, but cannot stop being omnipotent and still be God. > So, ALL things are not possible; rather, all possible things are > possible. And no one really needs scripture to believe that. ;-) > > > > > On Jun 11, 11:11 am, DarkwaterBlight <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Surely you would agree that since God is everything and we are thus > > > linked to God that, we, therefore are linked to everything as well. By > > > virtue of HIS omniscience we, also, can tune into everthing! Not all > > > things at any given time by any means but through HIM we may know all > > > things as they are revealed to us. Certainly not godhood but God's > > > likeness DOES, in fact, include His power, even to create, as Ash has > > > suggested in another post. > > > > On Jun 11, 6:19 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > 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 > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
