posted November 06, 2007 08:30 AM              

We don't have to tolerate the existence of cruelty/ evil in itself.

But if we can realize that those who do evil things to others, are this way because they have completely forgotten who they are......

posted November 06, 2007 08:49 AM              

Perhaps the Creator could see the outcome of what would happen through our free will choices, and therefore manifest the necessary things to hold the balance and ensure things would flow in the right direction; or perhaps this is something He/ She does continuously as He/ She watches over the choices we make.

We, in this moment have a number of choices we can make. We are setting the way for a number of possible outcomes through these choices. No-one is forcing us to make any choice, and we can change our minds as easily as we make our minds. We are CREATING.

Maybe and maybe there wasn't a big bang.
There are all kinds of feesable arguments from many different scientists. Until greater knowledge can PROVE otherwise, all are valid.

Perhaps "God" is a man or perhaps God is just an energy. Perhaps He/ She is both!! Perhaps God is the manifestation of the highest energetic vibration, but also has a body as we do......Perhaps He/ She uses both.
And perhaps "nothingness", "Nirvana", "Infinite Live", etc is just a part of the universal forces....???

Until greater knowledge can PROVE otherwise, all possibilities seem possible.

Until we can tune into God and acquire greater wisdom; feeling it; knowing it; being it.....

Then all we can do is speculate.

But speculation is fun and good for exercising the mind and ability to question and reason.

Our personalities are governed by our environment, the restrictions of our bodies and lives, etc.
But the higher consciousness within us isn't. We can tap into this if we desire.

If we are a part of God, and chose this expression of manifestation for some great purpose, then the restricted lives we live may have been chosen by our higher consciousness, even though we are not conscious of this at present.

posted November 06, 2007 08:49 AM            

The Hermetic Principle of Mentalism, while explaining the true nature of the Universe upon the principle that all is Mental, does not change the scientific conceptions of the Universe, Life, or Evolution. In fact, science merely corroborates the Hermetic Teachings. The latter merely teaches that the nature of the Universe is "Mental," while modern science has taught that it is "Material"; or (of late) that it is "Energy" at the last analysis. The Hermetic Teachings have no fault to find with Herbert Spencer's basic principle which postulates the existence of an "Infinite and Eternal Energy, from which all things proceed." In fact, the Hermetics recognize in Spencer's philosophy the highest outside statement of the workings of the Natural Laws that have ever been promulgated, and they believe Spencer to have been a reincarnation of an ancient philosopher who dwelt in ancient Egypt thousands of years ago, and who later incarnated as Heraclitus, the Grecian philosopher who lived B. C. 500. And they regard his statement of the "Infinite and Eternal Energy" as directly in the line of the Hermetic Teachings, always with the addition of their own doctrine that his "Energy" is the Energy of the Mind of THE ALL. With the Master-Key of the Hermetic Philosophy, the student of Spencer will be able to unlock many doors of the inner philosophical conceptions of the great English philosopher, whose work shows the results of the preparation of his previous incarnations. His teachings regarding Evolution and Rhythm are in almost perfect agreement with the Hermetic Teachings regarding the Principle of Rhythm.

So, the student of Hermetics need not lay aside any of his cherished scientific views regarding the Universe. All he is asked to do is to grasp the underlying principle of "THE ALL is Mind; the Universe is Mental--held in the mind of THE ALL." He will find that the other six of the Seven Principles will "fit into" his scientific knowledge, and will serve to bring out obscure points and to throw light in dark corners. This is not to be wondered at, when we realize the influence of the Hermetic thought of the early philosophers of Greece, upon whose foundations of thought the theories of modern science largely rest. The acceptance of the First Hermetic Principle (Mentalism) is the only great point of difference between Modern Science and Hermetic students, and Science is gradually moving toward the Hermetic position in its groping in the dark for a way out of the Labyrinth into which it has wandered in its search for Reality.

The purpose of this lesson is to impress upon the minds of our students the fact that, to all intents and purposes, the Universe and its laws, and its phenomena, are just as REAL, so far as Man is concerned, as they would be under the hypotheses of Materialism or Energism. Under any hypothesis the Universe in its outer aspect is changing, ever-flowing, and transitory--and therefore devoid of substantiality and reality. But (note the other pole of the truth) under the same hypotheses, we are compelled to ACT AND LIVE as if the fleeting things were real and substantial. With this difference, always, between the various hypotheses--that under the old views Mental Power was ignored as a Natural Force, while under Mentalism it becomes the Greatest Natural Force. And this one difference revolutionizes Life, to those who understand the Principle and its resulting laws and practice.

So, finally, students all, grasp the advantage of Mentalism, and learn to know, use and apply the laws resulting therefrom. But do not yield to the temptation which, as The Kybalion states, overcomes the half-wise and which causes them to be hypnotized by the apparent unreality of things, the consequence being that they wander about like dream-people dwelling in a world of dreams, ignoring the practical work and life of man, the end being that "they are broken against the rocks and torn asunder by the elements, by reason of their folly." Rather follow the example of the wise, which the same authority states, "use Law against Laws; the higher against the lower; and by the Art of Alchemy transmute that which is undesirable into that which is worthy, and thus triumph." Following the authority, let us avoid the half-wisdom (which is folly) which ignores the truth that: "Mastery consists not in abnormal dreams, visions, and fantastic imaginings or living, but in using the higher forces against the lower--escaping the pains of the lower planes by vibrating on the higher." Remember always, student, that "Transmutation, not presumptuous denial, is the weapon of the Master." The above quotations are from The Kybalion, and are worthy of being committed to memory by the student.

We do not live in a world of dreams, but in an Universe which while relative, is real so far as our lives and actions are concerned. Our business in the Universe is not to deny its existence, but to LIVE, using the Laws to rise from lower to higher--living on, doing the best that we can under the circumstances arising each day, and living, so far as is possible, to our biggest ideas and ideals. The true Meaning of Life is not known to men on this plane .if, indeed, to any--but the highest authorities, and our own intuitions, teach us that we will make no mistake in living up to the best that is in us, so far as is possible, and realising the Universal tendency in the same direction in spite of apparent evidence to the contrary. We are all on The Path--and the road leads upward ever, with frequent resting places.

posted November 06, 2007 09:06 AM              

The words there do not appear to be in any disagreement with the extracts from Neale Donald Walsh's "Conversations With God" and such.

So perhaps there is Free Will; people just need to acquire a deeper understanding of what this really means.

MM wrote:

quote:

---

Could you embrace that?
from St. Thomas Aquinas

I said to God, “Let me love you.”

And he replied, “Which part?”

“All of you, all of you.” I said.

“Dear” God spoke, “You are as a mouse wanting to impregnate

a tiger who is not even in heat. It is a feat way

beyond your courage and strength.

You would run from me

if I removed my

mask.”

I said to God again,

“Beloved I need to love you – every aspect, every pore.”

And this time God said,

“There is a hideous blemish on my body,

though it is such an infinitesimal part of my Being-

could you kiss that if it were revealed?”

“I will try, Lord, I will try.”

And then God said,

“That blemish is all the hatred and

cruelty in this

world.”

---

And I wrote this today:

quote:

---

Cruelty= the powerlessness of a being to the inflictions and torture caused by another.

No, I can't love that.

I can forgive those who are cruel through the realization that they have just forgotten who they truly are. But I can't and won't love the existence of cruelty in any dimension of Time......unless one day it can be totally transmuted.

---

posted November 06, 2007 10:20 AM            

The glass of wine spilled on account of laws of dynamics
and the natural clumsiness or distractedness of the person,
which may be a common trait, or merely one which is latent,
and brought out under certain additional circumstances.
If the person were more aware of his/her actions
in that situation, he/she would have exercised more care.
If the person were more highly evolved,
he/she would have been more aware, and more careful.
But all of us can only exist at our present level of development.
We grow not at our own chosen speed
but at "the speed of God", so to speak.

BR,

All love is blind. Of course, love is accepting of faults, but first it must see them. And make no mistake, to love them is not to overlook them. It is to heal them. We do not love a person's wounds by ignoring them and letting them fester. We clean and dress the wound. And that is not always comfortable for the one we love.

"All great love is even above all its pity;
for it still wants to create the beloved.
'Myself I sacrifice to my love,
and my neighbor as myself,'
thus runs the speech of all creators.
But all creators are hard."
~ Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche

Mature love is creative.

Self-love can certainly, as you said, make us more aware of ourselves. It can make us comfortable enough with ourselves to peer into the shadows of ourselves. But a certain degree of gravity is necessary to excercise such a love. As I see it, we are not talking here about selfish and unselfish love, but about innocent and mature love. Mature love is discriminating. It is love, chastened by experience. It loves all, and accepts people "warts and all", but that doesnt mean it does not see room for improvement, and is not ambitious for our perfection. "God loves us just the way we are, but He loves us too much to let us stay that way." Mature love is receptive, not passive. It does not coddle. It chastens with a sure and gentle hand. Still, no matter how gently you clean a wound, its going to sting.

When we speak of selfish and unselfish love, we really speak about the scarcity and the abundance of love. Now, a naive person may have a small amount of love or a large amount, but that love will still be blind. It is not the love we feel when we see a person's shadows, or our own shadows, and love them still, working to bring the healing light of understanding to bear. It is the love of not seeing, of seeing only what we want to see. And whether that love is self-directed and narcissitic, or extraverted and generous to a fault, it is foolish. It is love that blindly sows the seeds of conflict and hatred. Even if one has a great deal of love, enough to cushion the fall, and make acceptance possible, if one does not see the sickness, one looks in the dark for a cure. And love itself is the best medicine, and it may even be a kind of panacea, but love takes time, and must be shared in a way that the person is receptive to, and in a way that will not merely enable them to persevere undisturbed in their folly.

Petron,

I was not sure I would reply either.
I was about 80% sure I would,
until you commented on it.

quote:

---

"The Teachings are that a man may be both Free and yet bound by Necessity, depending upon the meaning of the terms, and the height of Truth from which the matter is examined. The ancient writers express the matter thus: "The further the creation is from the Centre, the more it is bound; the nearer the Centre it reaches, the nearer Free is it."- The Kybalion

---

Exactly. One must consider the terms; their relative meanings and uses. This is as I have been saying. When we see the power we have, we call it freedom. When we see the power we do not have, we call it limitation. But whether we see our freedoms or our limitations, we are the same. Looking over where we have come from, or where we have yet to go, we are in the same boat. And in the present moment, that boat is making progress. But the shore, and the boat, are not too different things. The greater freedom toward which we are travelling, is and is not another kind of freedom than the freedom of finding God in the boat with us, enjoying the ride. Again, this is like what I have said about the freedom to enjoy the unmowed lawn, and the freedom to mow the lawn. When you arrive at the one, the other is obsolete. When the power to will with absolute freedom is attained, it is in that very moment that we will have no more use for it. When we have no personal use for it, it will be granted to us, that we may use it for the sake of others.

Man is not free, so long as he sees as a man. And he will see as a man for as long as he is a man. He is bound far from the center, and must traverse a Byzantine-like labrynth of evolution, to arrive comfortably in the present moment. So long as his being is weak, how can he rest comfortably? He paces between past and future, in search of a cure for his blindness. Always, he doubles back upon himself, following the winding, crooked paths, to the center of the Labrynth. It is indeed in the future. But when he gets there, he will not say, "Behold, the future," but, "Behold, the present moment,".

posted November 06, 2007 10:40 AM            

It is easy to see how determinism can empower people, when we understand the shift in perspective. For instance, if you are defining empowerment according to "what I do for myself", you are not going to see determinism as empowering. But, if you understand that a person my be empowered without empowering themselves, you are on the right track. Determinism empowers us by giving us the tools we need to understand others and to work within the limits of our lives, in order to effect real change in the world. While talk of personal responsibility is useful in reminding us to use the powers at our disposal, determinism reminds us that, in order to make real change in the world, it is not enough to remind people of their present strengths and options, but, to remind them that the development of an individual begins early, and that those early years are not called "formative" for no reason. Do we want to repeat this pattern for generations, of learning to empower ourselves when we are middle-aged and half-ruined by our upbringing in a Babylon? Must we preach this Exodus unrelentingly, and continue to send our children to be raised as slaves in Egypt?

Determinsm shows already empowered individuals how to empower other, disempowered individuals, who, for whatever reason, are not motivated by talk of free will, and the good examples of people whom they see as different from themselves, and, so, not really examples at all; just as a finely crafted sword cannot serve as an example to a maker of spoons. I would only be repeating myself to list off to you the numerous ways in which a deterministic worldview may be used to help people. You cannot help individuals without changing society as a whole. And the changes I recommend address the empowerment of society as a whole, and not just isolated, "free" individuals, cabable of playing a Moses to themselves. If you can play Moses to yourself, play Moses to your people. If you can break the strong chains forged to hold a grown man, then loosen the shackles of the child as well, and do not leave him behind with only a bible and a discourse on free will, lol.

posted November 06, 2007 12:44 PM              

Just because I question something you present here and ask for clarification does not mean that I am angry. It is only your perception that I was or am angry. It is how you read my words. Not the emotion that I was feeling at the time I wrote that which you cannot know in the written word or at all for that matter. Although you might have perceived the anger in my words concerning all the injustice and evils in the world that we do to each other. In which case it is righteous anger which is directed at that and not you personally.

Are you angry for saying that I sound angry? I do not perceive that you are because I am not attempting to judge you or your motives.

posted November 06, 2007 12:50 PM            

But we cannot fool ourselves that we are perfected.

If we were free to follow Christ,
we would be as Christ.

"...if this be so, would not each particle in the Universe be aware of its being THE ALL -- THE ALL could not lose its knowledge of itself, nor actually BECOME an atom, or blind force, or lowly living thing. Some men, indeed, realizing that THE ALL is indeed ALL, and also recognizing that they, the men, existed, have jumped to the conclusion that they and THE ALL were identical, and they have filled the air with shouts of 'I AM GOD,' to the amusement of the multitude and the sorrow of sages. The claim of the corpuscle that: 'I am Man!' would be modest in comparison."

~ The Kybalion
The Mental Universe

When Christ proclaimed "I and the Father are One",
I suspect, he intended this to mean only that
he is an extention of The Father, and not literally The Father.

The the spirit of the fruit
is the spirit of the tree.
The fruit may FALL from the tree,
but it will carry the spirit with it.
The tree commits its spirit to the fruit,
and the fruit commits its spirit to the seed.
When the tree dies, the fruit lives.
When the fruit dies, the seed lives.
And when the seed dies, the tree lives again.
They all share a common spirit,
but, as tree, fruit, and seed,
they are not that spirit.

The son of a king is a prince, to be sure.
But, he is only a prince; not yet a king.
And when, after much study and experience, he is crowned,
he rules for a short while, and dies, his purpose accomplished
(at the cross, and not at the resurrection),
and by his sacrifice, willing or unwilling
(not "my will", but "Thy will be done"*),
preserves by his heirs;
not in blood, but in spirit.

Remember,
Christ asked that the cup pass from him, "if it be possible".
And when he said, "Not my will, but Thy will be done,"
he was both praying for strength and declaring an eternal truth.
As Roger Waters wrote, "What God wants, God gets."
As for us, we can only know the truth,
and pray for the strength of will,
to be in agreement with God's plans.

But, as I said,
we cant fool ourselves that we have "arrived" in the present moment.
In truth,
We are there and we are going there,
only in a relative sense.
There is no present moment.

"You cannot step in the same river twice.
You cannot even step into it once."
~ Heraclitus

There is no present moment.

Being is only a process of becoming

We are being and becoming.

We are free to become, but not free to be-and-not-become.
There is no such thing as being that is not becoming.

"Arriving" in the present moment
is not like arriving at a specific place in space/time.
It is rather like a stream joining a river,
and losing itself in the force of a stronger current,
or a river joining the ocean, and losing itself in the peace of a great hollow.

But I spiral.

The point is that Holy Spirit,
and the so-called present moment
is located everywhere and nowhere.
Not in the tree or the fruit,
not in the river or the ocean.
Rather, in the process which implies them all.

And beyond this process is the intelligence.
The intelligence of a process.
As a process implies intelligence.
And we ourselves are neurons in the Mind of God.
Our prayers are synapses.

And all of this is a metaphor.

And the only true speaking in tongues,
is speaking in metaphors.
Let there be interpretations.

posted November 06, 2007 12:52 PM              

HSC,

Regarding the article on Determinism that I posted and the four things you disagreed with in the article I want to respond on some of the things you said.

Your first disagreement was thus:
1. The application of names like "causeless volition"
and "motiveless choice" to the doctrine of Anti-determinism
is indeed justified.
The Anti-determinist's assertion
that the Ego is a self-determining cause,
is a perfect example of sophistry at its most blind.
Clearly, Anti-determinists feel constrained
to offer some cause,
in order to avoid the obvious inconsistency,
but this slight-of-hand trick only works
when people dont think deeply enough
to ask what is behind this curtain.
The success of Anti-determinism, as a worldview,
depends entirely on the superficiality of most people's thinking,
and, for this reason (that the majority of people think superficially),
it has managed to survive as long as it has.
It admits that there must be something behind the choice,
and dodges the question of what is behind the Ego;
that is, if the Ego is behind choice,
and choice is composed of the Ego,
of what is the Ego composed?

We are all born with Ego, HSC. We could not survive without a healthy ego. Our ego is a large part of who we are. What's the cause of the Ego or Id in human beings? What's the cause of water, the sun, the air we breathe, the universe itself? People who believe in God will tell you that God is the cause of the Ego in human beings just as God is the cause of everything else in creation. People who don't believe in God will tell you that the Ego just happened in the Big Bang or in some other way which ultimately can be taken back to God. Because ultimately how God chose to create all that exists does not matter so much is that God did . Ultimately all of it based on the I AM ( God ) so because I AM all else IS. Do we really have to even know the cause of the Ego when we know that it exists in all human beings? Isn't just knowing it exists enough? At any rate we have to just settle for not knowing the cause of the Id or Ego with aboslute certainty because like it or not, we are only human and what we cannot know is very, very vast. Especially when science has not even been able to discover all that causes the human brain to function as it does. We can't solve the mystery of the human body, it's own little universe, so how are we going to solve the mysteries of God and the outer universe? But some things we do know. We do know that all human beings have an Ego and that we cannot survive without that Ego.

We not only know with certainty that all human beings do have an Ego or Id we also know how the Ego in human beings functions. Maybe in future generations we will discover even more about how the Ego functions.

The largest problem with philosopy is that on the most part it cannot answer the questions it poses. For this reason that is the fate that strictly philosophical concepts such as Determinism suffers from. Determinism cannot answer the questions it poses. It just states that since we don't know the cause of the Ego we cannot be responsible for our actions and choices based on Ego motives. The difference between philosophy and theology, since basically they are the same in all other areas, is that theology takes philosopy a step further and places in at a much higher level. Theology says that God is the reason and cause for all things. So for that reason I think that the philosophical concept of Determinism is more dependent on the superficial thinking of human beings than Free Will is because at least the concept of Free Will does explain the cause. God. God gave all of humanity the gift of Free Will. Whereas all that Determinism says is that since we cannot know the cause of the Ego what we do and all of our choices really have no motives and anything we choose to do we cannot be held responsible for because we were just determined to act this way from just our existance alone and the things inside us that we were born with which we cannot overcome at all because we are fated to be this way.

Free will states that we can overcome the Ego motives behind our choices and we can overcome all circumstances in our lives because with our gift of free will we can change ourselves and in doing that we can change not only our lives, we can change the world to make us and the world a better place. Free will makes human beings co-creators with God. However, due to the gift of free will we are held responsible for the choices we make. And the motives of the Ego or subconscious mind are many times something that we don't know. Often we do not know what our real motives are because many of our actions and choices come from subconscious motives which free will also states we can come to know and we can change those patterns of behavior. But even so, and I explained this before, culpability plays a large part in how responsible we were in our mindset when we sinned or made the wrong choices. For example a severely mentally challenged person or someone suffering from severe depression and many other things of the psyche can be a factor in how responsible we are when we make our choices in life. What would be a sin for one person might not necessarily be as grave a sin for someone else depending on the things going on inside the person's psyche at the time. For that reason God is lot more gentle on us than we are on ourselves and each other. He knows what is going in our psyche when often we do not.

It appears to me that Determisnism is a concept that does not hold humanity accountable for anything and it is fatalistic concept. As BR said, if Determinism exists in more than just a philosophical prepositon, we may as well all go lay down in the street and die. Because in the face of all the evils in the world that cannot be changed either we are totally helpless to live out our fated lifetimes and then just die. How does that offer humanity any hope? How does determinism empower people because it seems to me that what Determinism does is disempower to people to the state of hopelessness.

I'm happy that you do agree that responsibility is an issue that does need to be addressed, HSC. Because Free Will does address that. Free Will does hold us responsibile for our choices and puts us in the co-pilot seat of our lives, God being the Captain or pilot. Determinism is a strange name for the concept because Free will does state that we are free to determine but determinism states that it's already all been determined for us. How does Determinism address responsibility because I may be just be missing that?

The thing about Free Will, and I have stressed this point before as well so yes, I am rehashing a point. We only really have two fundamental choices to make in life and all our other choices will flow from that fundamental choice. We can choose to live our lives in and through God or we can choose ourselves over God. If we choose God our choices in life will have that as their basis for all other choices and our choices will be focused more on what is good for the world and others as well as ourselves. If we choose ourselves all of our choices will be based strictly with our own good in mind. If we choose God fundamentally our free will eventually meld with God's Will and it will become One Will that we live through. That does not mean giving up our identity. Of course, even if we do choose God fundamentally we will often in our lives fudge on that choice. We will often want to take control of the reins and make choices based on what we want to do instead or what we feel we know better than God is good for us. Though this may be expressed in different terms it is Christianity's way of describing that oneness with God and all of creation that everyone talks about. I only state that because I know how hung up some people are on terminology around LL. It has to be expressed in their way or they see it as evil dogma. LOL

posted November 06, 2007 01:00 PM              

I love that you spiral, HSC But please give me time to catch up with it. If I post something such as I just did that you have already answered it is because I have other things that are distracting me here to do and am trying despartely to catch up on the posts here.

Although I love that people have so many thoughts to express here I may have to set aside time later today just to read through it all before replying. I just want you all to understand that if I say something in my posts that you have already explained.

posted November 06, 2007 01:22 PM            

Mirandee,

A person is not a victim,
in the sense that "victim" and "aggressor",
or "victim" and "tragedy"
are parts of a larger whole,
images of a Higher Self.

But this does not imply fault.

If the "victim" does not exist as separate,
how can it exist as "victim"?

There is no new offense under the sun.
Just one crack, "a crack in everything,".

When one realizes, on the deepest levels,
the truth of the Self, "victim" and "aggressor" disappear.

But until that time,
they will continue to exist,
as victim and aggressor.

People are indeed mistaken,
if they think that, because the Self is real,
our complaints, and we ourselves,
are mere illusions;
and, really, all is well.

"Some think that life is but a dream.
But you and I, we've been through that,
and this is not our fate.
So let us not talk falsely now.
The hour's getting late."
~ Jimi Hendrix

On the level of the ego, all is not well.

On the level of the ego, all is hell.

And, no, it is NOT your fault,
for being on the level of the ego.

posted November 06, 2007 01:26 PM            

Determinism is invalidated, because the person could have been more careful. It was within their capability to do another thing, but as a result of action that sprung forth from unconscious thought this accident occurred. You couldn't say in this case, "I forgive you, because you had no means of acting differently." The person did/does have means of acting differently.

Free Will is not in play in this instance as well, because most often in a case like this there won't be the free will desire to spill the drink.

__________________________________________________________________________________________

In practical terms, I think Free Will is a more positive concept than Determinism.

People want to believe they have the freedom to change their lives in positive ways. You take away Free Will, you take away hope.

posted November 06, 2007 02:01 PM            

Ok, Sun in Scorpio, Moon and Merc in Libra today. Nice for me...

Petron, your good opinion is actually very important to me. I admire your intelligence. {Oh, Steve and I are already married... did we forget to send you all invitations? KIDDING) What you said was very sweet though. How romantic. I worried for a bit that you were irritated that I orchestrated the big flashy debate thing. I am glad everything is calmer and worked out to be such a learning/growing/teaching experience for all of us.

The last week has been such a trip.
I feel so aware.
I love the fall.

posted November 06, 2007 02:29 PM              

quote:

---

Are you angry for saying that I sound angry? I do not perceive that you are because I am not attempting to judge you or your motives.

---

i don't understand what you mean by asking "are you angry for saying that i sound angry." the vibe from your post was one of anger. and i said "wow Mirandee you sound angry." because of my perception of how you sounded to me, i apologized. and you did say that indeed there might have been some anger in your response for whatever reason.

i could have been wrong, in my perception of how you sounded, and even then, all i was doing was apolozing for having said something that seemed to be so distressing. i could just ignore you response to me, i guess, but i chose otherwise.

whether you perceive anger in my reply is your perogative, surely. if you don't perceive anger in my reply though, what is the point of asking? (if that's what you meant by your question.)

though i must disagree, when you say that you are not attempting to judge me. whether you are judging me, or attempting to do so, that is the impression that i get from your words ~

quote:

---

If you believe that essay stated a truth then it does not reflect the compassion you stated you so admire in HSC's explanation of Determinism. Because it sorely lacks compassion for those who are by no fault of their own victims of cirmcumstances beyond their control that they neither invited or chose. Go tell the people in Darfur they only see themselves as victims.

But then maybe I haven't reached that higher level of knowledge and understanding that you speak of that sees there are no real and actual victims in the world and nothing in the actions of others that cause misery, suffering and death to other human beings that warrants forgiveness.

---

and should you wish to judge either me or my motives, that is fine. that is by nature what is very likely to occur in a discussion forum such as this. if you disagree with my perception of this, that is fine as well.

peace be with you.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

the original post, that caused offense ~

quote:

---

once i read a fine essay about forgiveness...it stated that once we discontinue seeing ourselves as victims, that forgiveness isn't a necessity.

perhaps we, as sinners, find comfort and transcendence in the doctrine of forgiveness...but once we move into higher realms, with a view from a different perspective, well, we see our interactions in a different fashion, and understand that forgiveness was a mechanism that helped us along our path, but the need of forgiving changes in light of the new perspective.

---

posted November 06, 2007 02:35 PM            

quote:

---

So perhaps there is Free Will;
people just need to acquire a deeper
understanding of what this really means.

---

Well said. Yes;
people need to see that we are not free,
and that we only have "free will"
in the sense that
all the freedom of movement we have
is determined according to higher laws.

The people who need to understand, generally,
are the people who talk about "free will",
not the people who say it does not exist.

I'll be the first to tell you that I am not chained to a table
with my eyelids taped open and my mouth sown shut.
I can type on the keyboard, and do all sort of things.
"Wee, look at me. I'm excercising my freedom!"
Of course, all these behaviors are determined.
The reason I feel free is because my will
is not in conflict with God's will for me.
But watch;
as soon as I come up against a limitation which does not please me,
I am forced to take a closer look at my limitations.
The maze narrows and narrows until I make my choice;
the best choice I am capable of making.

I have the freedom to eat fast food,
because it was determined that,
in addition to the desire for fast food,
I have been given the other tools to get the fast food.
But do I have the freedom to eat health food?
Before I can have the freedom to eat health food,
I must have the desire to eat healthfood.
But if I am addicted to unhealthy foods,
ignorant of the benefits of healthfood,
and/or unconcerned with my heath
(i.e. ignorant of the benefits),
I cannot even desire healthfood,
so how can I be free to eath healthy,
and do what is best for me?
Choices, especially moral choices
(and all choices may be viewed from a moral perspective),
that require any real effort of will
must be ambivalent.
This suggests the conflicts within us,
which are always being resolved.
We should always encourage ourselves,
whenever we can, to be better,
thanking God for giving us this grace.
And we should remember to encourage others,
to reach for their own potential,
never forgetting that encouragement
may be the very thing that is needful,
the impetus without which their will
would lie paralyzed.

That we are all in this together,
and should take responsibility for one another,
picking up each other's slack, is important.
Nobody can be all things to all people.
We know this, and, yet,
we count other people's shortcomings, and forget our own.
We see where another person is making poor choices,
and we judge them, because, we, after all,
have no difficulty summoning the resources
and willpower to choose more wisely.
We say something like, "Just use your free will",
and we assume that everyone has the same opporunities
and freedoms which we take for granted.

That we should encourage one another to do our best
almost goes without saying.
I think there is a better way to encourage people
to take stock of their own resources and options,
and to try to help themselves with what they have,
than to tell them that they have free will.
We must remember that our encouragement is often needed,
and, perhaps, many other things as well.

A monkey sitting at a type writer
will never recreate the works of Shakespeare,
no matter how you encourage him
or assure him of his latent abilities.

quote:

---

I can forgive those who are cruel through the realization that they have just forgotten who they truly are. But I can't and won't love the existence of cruelty in any dimension of Time......unless one day it can be totally transmuted.

---

So it is not within the power of your will to love this world.

Welcome to the club.

It takes work.

"Fear of God is the beginning of wisdom."

quote:

---

Is the ultimate DESTINY of humanity
to TRANSMUTE cruelty, hatred and suffering?

---

I do not know.
I suspect it is, and I hope it is.

But all I really know is that we have to try.

posted November 06, 2007 02:49 PM              

quote:

---

A person is not a victim,
in the sense that "victim" and "aggressor",
or "victim" and "tragedy"
are parts of a larger whole,
images of a Higher Self.

But this does not imply fault.

If the "victim" does not exist as separate,
how can it exist as "victim"?

There is no new offense under the sun.
Just one crack, "a crack in everything,".

When one realizes, on the deepest levels,
the truth of the Self, "victim" and "aggressor" disappear.

But until that time,
they will continue to exist,
as victim and aggressor.

People are indeed mistaken,
if they think that, because the Self is real,
our complaints, and we ourselves,
are mere illusions;
and, really, all is well.

"Some think that life is but a dream.
But you and I, we've been through that,
and this is not our fate.
So let us not talk falsely now.
The hour's getting late."
~ Jimi Hendrix

---

that's a very nice elucidation.

The point is that Holy Spirit,
and the so-called present moment
is located everywhere and nowhere.
Not in the tree or the fruit,
not in the river or the ocean.
Rather, in the process which implies them all.

And beyond this process is the intelligence.
The intelligence of a process.
As a process implies intelligence.
And we ourselves are neurons in the Mind of God.
Our prayers are synapses.

And all of this is a metaphor.

And the only true speaking in tongues,
is speaking in metaphors.
Let there be interpretations.

posted November 06, 2007 02:51 PM            

quote:

---

Well, you know, HSC, I don't believe that spirituality is all about perfectionism or being perfect. I don't believe in climbing up the ladder. It's more about climbing down the ladder.
That is what Jesus is working on doing, transforming us within, but we often interfere with that and so it is an ongoing and very slow process because of our interference. Plus, only we are concerned with time, Jesus isn't. I don't expect to reach the state of being perfect and I don't feel it is required. Because I feel that God is only concerned with effort on our part. He doesn't keep track of the times we fail or worry about outcomes as we are. He is only concerned in the efforts we make at being better people.

---

God's point of view is all well and good.

quote:

---

Plus, only we are concerned with time, Jesus isn't.

---

How about victims?

Does Jesus care how long they suffer?

Yes, I understand the thing about the effort we make.

But I always thought it was the effort to climb the ladder;
the effort to progress ever closer toward perfection.

Its not if we get there, or when we get there.
Perfection is unattainable.
Its an eternal process of creating beyond ourselves.

So if you dont think this is the effort that counts,
I'm assuming you mean the effort not to be perfect?

You'll have to explain that to me.

I think nothing alters God's love for us.
He is not keeping tabs on our progress or our effort.
God loves us no matter what,
and, it is because God loves us,
that God wants us to strive for perfection.

He wants only what is best for us.

posted November 06, 2007 02:53 PM            

Thank you.

posted November 06, 2007 03:12 PM            

"Determinism shows already empowered individuals how to empower other, disempowered individuals, who, for whatever reason, are not motivated by talk of free will, and the good examples of people whom they see as different from themselves, and, so, not really examples at all; just as a finely crafted sword cannot serve as an example to a maker of spoons. I would only be repeating myself to list off to you the numerous ways in which a deterministic worldview may be used to help people. You cannot help individuals without changing society as a whole. And the changes I recommend address the empowerment of society as a whole, and not just isolated, "free" individuals, capable of playing a Moses to themselves. If you can play Moses to yourself, play Moses to your people. If you can break the strong chains forged to hold a grown man, then loosen the shackles of the child as well, and do not leave him behind with only a bible and a discourse on free will, lol."

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

posted November 06, 2007 03:24 PM              

Stephen~

"I'm sorry if my answers dissatify you."

I don't understand what makes you believe that they have.
I don't believe I've ever given you reason to think so.

I don't have opportunity at this time
to join in more on the discussion, although I wish I did.

posted November 06, 2007 04:14 PM              

quote:

---

Free will states that we can overcome the Ego motives behind our choices and we can overcome all circumstances in our lives because with our gift of free will we can change ourselves and in doing that we can change not only our lives, we can change the world to make us and the world a better place. Free will makes human beings co-creators with God. However, due to the gift of free will we are held responsible for the choices we make. And the motives of the Ego or subconscious mind are many times something that we don't know. Often we do not know what our real motives are because many of our actions and choices come from subconscious motives which free will also states we can come to know and we can change those patterns of behavior. But even so, and I explained this before, culpability plays a large part in how responsible we were in our mindset when we sinned or made the wrong choices. For example a severely mentally challenged person or someone suffering from severe depression and many other things of the psyche can be a factor in how responsible we are when we make our choices in life. What would be a sin for one person might not necessarily be as grave a sin for someone else depending on the things going on inside the person's psyche at the time. For that reason God is lot more gentle on us than we are on ourselves and each other. He knows what is going in our psyche when often we do not.

---

Stephen,
When I read your words I often think I am reading something by a great writer and poet and then I realize it is your own. Are you going to write a book some day soon? You should.

But now I'm somewhat confused as to whether you agree with or disagree with Free Will. Perhaps the concept of "Free Will" simply needs re-defining?

posted November 06, 2007 08:00 PM              

quote:>>a microcosm is a reflection of the whole on a lesser level....
its nothing like a cog in a machine...
the fractal is free if the whole is free.....
you said this in a previous post

quote:

---

I did? Could you quote me, in context, please?
And if, as you have it written, I used the word "if",
I think that would be the operative word here.
If the whole is not free, neither is the fractal

---

you need to go reread.......there was a blank line between what you just quoted...when i said 'you said this in a previous post"...i was refering to the quote below it lol......
about man being finite.......

**********edit in

you used the word deplorable in this thread--Petron

Are you going to quote me?
Please do so, in context.--HSC

quote:

---

What would God's motivation be to have someone act in ways that are completely deplorable?--AG

A logical answer for this would be
"God's motives, if He has any, must be equally deplorable".
But you seem intent on dismissing this possibility without a thought,
despite the self-evident fact that the world in which we live,
which we say was created by God, is full of deplorable actions.

---

posted November 06, 2007 08:52 PM              

quote:

---

Are you for real?

Determinism is mainstream?
What planet are you living on?
What drugs are you taking?

AT LEAST ninety-nine out of a hundred people I speak to
are believers in free will.
Everywhere you go, popculture is flooded with talk of free will.

The governments of the world take it for granted.

The world as we know it runs on "free will"!!!!

Are you even serious??

Your responses are getting so easy to dismantle,
you are really starting to bore me.

Mainstream, eh?

It is? The status quo? Somebody ought to tell the public!

---

again you have a problem with following the discussion....i was discussing big bang cosmology, how the scientists who study it agree..
you objected, showing scorn for the 'popular science club' and so i said this.....

quote:>>but you are the one here who is within the mainstream of academic thought,

and suddenly you went into histrionics about how 'most of the world believes in free will'....lol
most of the world cant find their own country on a map......
i wasnt talking about them...i was talking about those who have taken the time and applied discipline and logic in studying the laws and origins of the universe.....