posted September 02, 2006 02:37 PM              

Before I leave for now just wanted to let you know that I also agree with what you said here:

quote:

---

The jews believe that in three days the soul complete goes forever behind the veil and its impossible to come back alive. Hence Jesus deliberately waited till the 4th day when Lazarus died.

He died on the passover day on Friday, because Gods plan was that Jesus be the paschal lamb (sacrificial lamb).

---

posted September 02, 2006 04:12 PM            

You set out to prove free will by first denying the tyranny of external circumstances. You argue that some people have overcome great odds, and infer from this that nearly all people can do so. This "nearly" becomes a necessary disclaimer only when you begin to consider the influence of internal circumstances, and conclude that, yes, there are some people who are sick, and therefor, legitimately unable to overcome external factors. Why do you not conclude from the example of these people that we are nearly all unable to overcome external factors? This would be just as reasonable (and just as ridiculous) as your other conclusion, from the example of that minority of exceptional cases mentioned above, that we are all (except for the lunatics) able to overcome external circumstances. Both refer to a minority, but, in the case of the former, you infer that we must nearly all be capable of doing likewise, while, in the case of the latter, you infer that they are indeed exceptional. Is there a logical reason for this, or do you just wish to infer whichever conclusion corresponds to your pet theory?

As I see it, there is no clear line of demarcation between sanity and insanity. It is a spectrum, with the sanest person in the world at one end (Jesus?), and the most deranged at the other. The rest of us are in the middle somewhere.

If you admit that a person who is very clearly deranged hasn't the freedom to think straight, then, if I am correct about this spectrum, it ought to be clear that the freedom to do good is relative to the degree to which a person is sane (i.e. "Christ Conscious"). We choose good to the extent that we are sane. To turn away from good is the act of a deranged, or darkened, consciousness. If you admit that, due to the instability of his/her psyche, a sick person is unable to will the good, how can you make the assumption that he/she is yet sane enough to seek help (a lesser act of will, but, nonetheless, still an act of will)? It may be clear to you that help exists, but, to a sick mind, these are false hopes, the consideration and pursuit of which is only bound to land one in even greater peril. We are fragile beings, and we can convince ourselves of all manner of falsehood. Many of us are only inclined to punish ourselves, and seek the means of our own destruction. This is a reality, albeit a disheartening one.

You may say that, having heard the truth, we cannot claim ignorance, but, it is self-evident to me that we are sinful, sick-minded creatures, who must hear the truth countless times, and never divert our gaze from it, if we are to keep it in mind, and not forget what we have heard and understood before. We fall countless times, and should be forgiven. Freedom is the very power of God, but we are only human, bound and chained by our flesh; by all that makes us human. To say to someone, "You should have known better," is merely to deny the self-evident fact that they in fact did not know better, for, had they known better, they would have done better. It is inconceivable to know what is good and yet to do what is evil. Knowledge of good is not a purely intellectual exercise, it is a visceral experience. The conscience is not a voice from without, but a FEELING from within. If we seem only to hear it, and not to speak FROM it, then it is still distant from us, however it may clamor for our attention.

Conscience is a feeling. If it is not a feeling, if it is not deep-rooted, then it is not true conscience, but just a foreign teaching yet to be understood. It is like a phrase spoken in another language, which, however often we may hear it, remains unfamiliar to us. When it is a part of us, it is felt. The substance of conscience is empathy, which is a feeling. When we empathize, we feel for others, and we act on their behalf, just as we would act on our own behalf if we felt only for ourselves. It is not a choice between acting for myself or acting for someone else, it is, rather, a necessary and logical sequence of events, like a mathematical calculation, wherein, the factors entered must produce a given result, and, if the result is different, it is because the factors entered are different. If I feel for myself, I will act for myself. If I feel for others, I will act for others. To the extent that I feel for myself or for others, I will act for myself or for others. It is that simple, that natural. The only difference between a selfish and a selfless person, is that the former identifies with him/herself, and the latter identifies with others. In both cases, it is still a question of Identity. So, in a sense, the good man is no less "selfish" than the bad man, but, his "self", his identity (in the sense of that with which he identifies himself), is larger, and encompasses others. Like Whitman, he is not contained between his hat and boots.

To expect to receive respect for human life, from a person who feels no respect for human life, is unreasonable. He cannot give what he does not possess. And, if he did possess it, he could not give you disrepect in its place. That is unreasonable, and impossible.

This is not an excuse, as some have suggested, but a hard reality. We cannot possibly know how sane, conscious, or focused on the good, we are at any moment, - therefor, we do not have the luxury of claiming insanity, ignorance, or distraction. Just because I cannot empower myself to do a good work, does not mean that God has not empowered me to do that good work. We should always strive to do good, and to make the utmost of the powers given us. That is, after all, the only way to know how much power is given us; after, and not before the attempt.

I do good when there is good in me. I do evil when there is insufficent good in me. But it is God who graces me with the goodness to produce good fruits. If I were to use God's omnipotence as an excuse for my powerlessness, that would be because I have insufficient good in me. When there is good in me, I do good, - not because I consider myself responsible, but, because like attracts like, and goodness naturally desires to do good. Regardless of my belief that God is ultimately responsible for the good or evil that is in me, I will still do good or evil, according to the good or evil that is in me.

posted September 02, 2006 05:03 PM            

What did Einstein discover of our universe? He discovered that the only absolute thing in this universe
is that the speed of light is constant, everything else is relative. He went on to prove that time is relative
and not constant. He beautifully described that we must not not speak of space alone, but talk of space-time continuum together. He also described how the earth moves thru this space-time warp around the sun. So now you know why the sun
and the moon just does not drop...Hehehehe...

Now lets look at genesis "Let there be light". God having created our universe in this way is still outside of His creation. One has to get this and the rest should follow. Just as man keeps his knowledge to himself. So does God keeps His knowledge within His field. What did Carl Sagan say? This universe ever is-was and ever will be. Read the parallel "I am that I am" You must be now imagining how God looks like...hehehe.....No thought cud ever contemplate this invisible force of God, that runs in everything. Call it mathematical model by scientists or an ocean by poet or something else. He is called by many names. All those are attributes of God.

So God foresees every choice that a man wud make. He foresees, but he does not know the choice a man would make. Theres
a big difference. Why he foresees? (Read above passage). This universe being a part of Him. The past and present is also
an part of him. Now lets apply science. Knowing that iPod made record sales last year does n't the product manager beef up the sales forecast so that his production team produces more iPods next year. So with the future. Take care of the present and the past will rectify and the future will be bright.

Another example, What do astrologers tell you? Do they tell you so and so will definitely happen? No good astrologer will ever tell you that.

What did Krishna say in the battle field in Geeta "I am the one who kills. I am the one who is killed." Do you think God really wants you to kill? No. He foresaw the battle wud happen between truth and untruth so reincarnated as Krishna.
The battle cud have been avoided, if God stripped one of the kings choice of free will. But God did not intervene,
he vowed not to raise arms against anyone in the battle but assured his favourite Arjun that he will be the charioteer
of him.

It is said "Judge not lest you be judged." by Jesus. Why because our Father in heaven has foreseen
every choices the judged man has taken. But he did not ordain yet. Only in extreme cases he will.
Every one needs to be rescued. The good and the bad

>>>How can someone who does not know where they are going, make a free choice about the direction they take?
As I said even God does not not know what direction this captain wud go, but does He foresee the choices. Absolutely.

>>>And, how can someone who does know where they are going, freely choose to go in the wrong direction?
They won't. These are Gods favourites. Even if they do God saves them. He decrees. Requote the Jesus quote from Luke...

posted September 02, 2006 05:55 PM              

Freedom wouldn't be entirely abandoned freedom without Faith.
Visual~ Leaping off, soaring, arms wide, with complete surrender into the UnKnown.

This is Freedom. Freedom of fears, of limitations, of needing security...of needing to know.

This is also Faith. Faith that somehow we will come through ok. Faith that the unSeen would cradle our landing~ somehow,someway in the end.

But, there is no force strong enough to compel us off of that safe cliff-edge~
this would come entirely from our own Free-Will choice to leap and let go of control/being controlled.
God hopes we will have Faith and choose Freedom (all bars and cages are our own illusions).
But God would accept us the same whether we leapt or chose to stay in our safe green corner.

So how could Freedom Be Freedom, without Faith?
They go together.
It seems you understood what I was trying to say. Nice.

posted September 02, 2006 06:10 PM            

You said it all so well in the last post of the previous page.

Makes me want to sing:

Everybody needs to be rescued.
Everyone should be to their own white knight.

Hahaha.... black knight (if you will ) for some of you

posted September 02, 2006 10:06 PM              

I started this post with only one intention, that we could have a discussion regarding our thoughts on free will. NOT TO PROVE anything to you or anyone else. My hopes were that we might share our thoughts, pro and con, regarding free will and maybe learn something from each other in the process. I began my post by clarifying that this is how I think about it and not " this is truth." Because none of know all truth. All we can do is share our beliefs and thoughts with each other in the hopes of finding some truth in what each of us think and believe. And even in this case come to understand why some people such as yourself don't believe in free will.

Your reply to me was nothing short of hostile and rude. How would you feel if I referred to your conclusions as "ridiculous?" Or if I stated they resulted from your "pet theory?" That is unkind and when you begin a post in a hostile manner as you did you lose your listener. No one wants to hear the opinions of someone who obviously does not care to hear the opinions of others and regards them as "ridculous" simply because they don't agree with your opinions.

I chose an article regarding the philosophical debate about free will which, if you read it, took in both the pros as well as the cons regarding free will.

You made a lot of unfounded assumptions of what I said instead of what I truly said. I never used the term insanity. Nor do I think that people who have mental disorders which are uncurable are therefore incapable of doing good. You drew that out of thin air because I never even implied as much.

quote:

---

Mirandee -

You set out to prove free will by first denying the tyranny of external circumstances. You argue that some people have overcome great odds, and infer from this that nearly all people can do so. This "nearly" becomes a necessary disclaimer only when you begin to consider the influence of internal circumstances, and conclude that, yes, there are some people who are sick, and therefor, legitimately unable to overcome external factors. Why do you not conclude from the example of these people that we are nearly all unable to overcome external factors? This would be just as reasonable (and just as ridiculous) as your other conclusion, from the example of that minority of exceptional cases mentioned above, that we are all (except for the lunatics) able to overcome external circumstances. Both refer to a minority, but, in the case of the former, you infer that we must nearly all be capable of doing likewise, while, in the case of the latter, you infer that they are indeed exceptional. Is there a logical reason for this, or do you just wish to infer whichever conclusion corresponds to your pet theory?

---

HSC, This is as far I read in your post. I had no interest in reading anything else you had to say from that point on.

You don't have to participate in the discussion on this thread if you don't want to. I addressed the thread to you along with others because I thought you might be interested in a discussion on free will and sharing your thoughts along with listening to the thoughts of others. Since you are the one who brought it up on other threads. If you aren't at all interested in why I or others do believe in free will then why should be interested in why you don't?

We are just sharing our thoughts on free, will not out to change or convince others differently. The liklihood of that happening is very slim when it concerns a belief that others hold.

I could refer to the charges you made and all the unfounded assumptions you made in your post but I do not have to defend my beliefs to you or anyone else. My only wish is to share those beliefs and thoughts and maybe explain why I believe that. Then listen to what they have to say. If you have questions regarding what I said in my post you could ask me to clarify what I meant as I did Mannu instead of just assuming he meant something else.

You don't believe in free will for your own reasons, HSC. I believe in free will for my own reasons. I won't change your mind by anything I say nor will you change mine by anything you say. Not if it is a deeply held belief anyway. But we could learn something from each other in discussing it in a rational way without attacking others for what they think and believe. However it does require an open mind to do that.

I don't believe in reincarnation while Fayte and Mannu do. I have no problem with them believing in reincarnation as I do not think it presents any problem or hinderance in their spiritual journey and not believing it does not present a problem or hinderance in mine. No one really knows for certain what happens after death until they die. So who is to say that reincarnation does not exist? Not me for sure. I would not ever say that just because I personally do not believe in reincarnation. I would never cut someone else down by saying their beliefs are ridiculous or illogical simply because I think otherwise. Nor do I hold much respect for anyone who would do that.

I edited this to add that this is how I began my post, HSC:

quote:

---

Back to free will, these are some of my thoughts on it. Not saying I am right about what I think but this is what I think.

---

posted September 02, 2006 10:27 PM              

It is when we take that great leap of faith that we discover that while God and much about him will always remain unknown he is not detached from us out there somewhere but rather is the knowable God, the intimate God who penetrates all of creation.

It is my belief that is why God did give humankind free will to choose to take that leap of faith into the unknown. It's a risk and you are right that we mostly cling to that safe edge.

In Scripture Peter actually was walking on the water until the storm came up and the waves then grew high. Then he began to sink as the result of fear took hold of him. Jesus held him up from sinking and he asked, " Why did you lose faith, Peter?"

posted September 02, 2006 11:19 PM            

===========
Continuing on....

Did Jesus knew Peter would deny him 3 times? If you read the bible it appears that Jesus knew. He didn't, he foresaw the choices Peter would make.

Does n't serpent lex in to present? Destiny raises its face as a serpent would and stands before man. The man has to make a choice. Peter was not enlightened yet when all this occurred. He ended up doing exactly what Jesus had foretold.

I do not blame Peter. So strong is the circumstances and conditioning around us when we are standing face to face that even the best crumbles.

My hands tremble as I write about Jesus's conditions when he was asked to chose. Remember, God does not intervene in our decisions. So there is your Neo (of Matrix) fighting for the rest of humanity.

Peace be with you all....

posted September 02, 2006 11:30 PM            

A few months ago, I asked myself "Why did Moses see Gods back when he appeared to him?"

And I am satisfied with what I discovered so far. Gods back represents his creation. With his front he foresees the things that lies ahead.

posted September 03, 2006 12:41 AM            

One of the three temptations the devil put to Jesus in the dessert was to throw himself off a cliff. He said, "Go on. Your faith will protect you. Surely God will catch you." Jesus said, "Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God."

We ought to live modestly, observing the pathways which God has made manifest to us, before seeking to leap recklessly into the unknown, like children without sense. There is a time to be creative, and a time to respectfully observe the natural laws of His creation. And, in creating, we ought to do so within the boundaries of what is reasonable. To create for ourselves a world which is not only unproven, but, is logically disproven, is not an act of "freedom", but an act of willful disregard for the conditions of the real world. Only a childish or foolish pride sees the real world, declares it a self-imposed limitation, and decides to abandon common sense for the sake of a fantasy world of imagined "freedom". These are the characters in legends who have no respect for the Gods, and usurp a position which is not their own, and come to destruction, and must be sacrificed or saved by some more mature and cautious figure. Like the Little Mermaid, or Neil in Dead Poet's Society, these are the ones who take things into their own hands, and, if they are not rescued by daddy, they end up blowing their brains out when the world does not conform to their unrealistic expectations of it. Romanticism is a beautiful thing. But it is just one weapon in the hero's arsenal, and ought not to be unsheathed too soon. Unbridled romanticism ends in a deadend cynicism. There is a balance to be respected.

There is a time to exercise that noble and courageous Faith, but it is when the path before us leads into darkeness, and the only other path is to return to the safety of what we have already known. It is to experiment with eyes wide open, and not to blindly conclude and pass judgement before the facts are in. It would be foolish and premature to make use of that sacred faculty (faith) at a time when the correct road is clearly marked by the light of reason; to close our eyes to that light, and enter an unnecessary darkness out of an impatient desire to be bold.

The child who tries to jump his bike over the stream is also bold. And we may encourage him with our cheers when he lands safely with a smile. We will all confess that we were too careful, too mindful of our limitations, and too fearful to attempt it ourselves. But soon he will try to jump the wide river, encouraged by our admiration for his brave and free spirit, and he WILL fall upon the rocks and be carried under by eddies too powerful for his little arms to make light of. Then we will reflect that caution, too, had its place.

"Sure, he that made us with such large discourse,
Looking before and after, gave us not
That capability and god-like reason
To fust in us unused."
- hamlet

posted September 03, 2006 01:20 AM            

I am hostile toward falsehood. I am not hostile towards you, as a person. I try to make that clear, but I forget to be explicit about that sometimes, and I also forget that people here dont know me and how understanding I am as a person. I think you can be wrong, and I can say "you are wrong", and that does not imply that I think you are a bad person, or that I wish to offend you. I simply care about the truth, and I have reasons to support my claims. I have read the "reasons" put forward by the others here, and they do not make sense. I do not mean that they do not make sense to me, but, that they clearly make nonsense. I sympathize with the discomfort you feel in being told that you are making nonsense, but, I wish you would consider my reasons, and not simply ignore my words because the force of my conviction disturbs you. You are "free" to read only the posts of wishy-washy thinkers who are content to speculate, and say, "I could be wrong, but this is pretty to me, and i like to think of it this way," but you will be depriving yourself of the exposure to people who know what they are talking about and resort to pure logic in order to support their claims other than emotionally-fuelled arguments like "god wouldnt do that", or "that doesnt fit in with what i was told or what i read in this book", or "if i believed that i would use it as an excuse, therefor it must be wrong". It is your "choice".

If you said that 1 + 1 = 3, I would not pay lip service to your right to believe that. I would be plain with you and say, "your belief is ridiculous" (and I would proceed to offer sound reasons to support this claim, in good faith that you would wish to hear them out, and to know whether or not your belief is indeed ridiculous). Do you really think that is rude and arrogant? The reason you do not say that my p.o.v. is ridiculous is not because you are more tolerant than me, but, most likely, it is because your own view is not founded on a rock of logical deductions, and is not a priority to you; if it were, I think you would have enough confidence and investment in your view to champion it. You would want to convince me, if you had conviction and if you saw that it mattered. Is this important to you? I am not here to have fun and curiously play "show and tell" with my beliefs. This is no 5th house business. This is not personal (or not merely personal). Beliefs about free will are not harmelss things which have no bearing on how we see and conduct ourselves in the world.

This topic is VERY close to my heart, and to God, and I know for a fact that the understanding of these truths is going to lead to a more tolerant and understanding world. If you find me intolerant, I can only ask that you try to see past your bruised ego, and realize that I am not attacking you when I attack the beliefs that limit you and your ability to understand others. I am not intolerant of you, but of the errors which lead you to expect more from others than they have to give, since that expectation is what leads to passing judgment on others and seeing their shortcomings as self-imposed and deserved. When we think everyone is capable of helping themselves, we will refuse to concern ourselves with their wellfare. That is the truth. But, when we understand that we are imbued with advantages which others are not, and are in a position to serve them, we will desire to do so.

I do not think I inferred wrongly about what you said, or took anything out of thin air. You said that some people, due to mental illness are incapable of doing certain things, but, you went on to say that they are at least capable of seeking help, so as to be in a better position to help themselves. Am I wrong that this is what you said? My response to this is that I think it is short-sighted and leads to a hard-hearted approach. I think you probably fear being responsible for these people, so, you want to believe that it is their free choice not to seek help. The truth is that, no matter how many commercials there are on t.v. for anti-depressants, or how many self-help books there are in the library, or therapists with open doors, people with deep psychological problems are often unable even to reach out. On account of their illness, they are often so stubborn and cynical and distrustful of others, that they require a person to meet them on their level, and lead them by the hand, with kid-gloves, gently, patiently, back to recovery. In the past, it was common for psychologists to dismiss mental delusions. When a patient spoke from his warped perspective, the doctor would change the subject, and talk about the weather. The theory was that the patient would soon forget his delusional views, but, the reality was that the patient, feeling misunderstood and alientated, would sink even deeper into subjective concerns. Now doctors actively encourage patients to discuss their delusions, and doctors willingly lose sight of their own agenda in order to meet the sick person on their own level, and to lead them, from where they are, step by step, back to reality. If they trusted in the patients' "free will" they would abandon them to their demons or delusions. Instead, they seek to reach out as much as possible, without becoming lost themselves, in order to help the patients to a place where they can help themselves.

(Incidentally, I think you are wrong when you say that substituting the concept of disturbances for demons is an advancement, and signifies a higher understanding than that possessed by the peoples of ancient times. I think they are just two ways of seeing and describing the same phenomena, and neither is more accurate than the other.)

"I won't change your mind by anything I say nor will you change mine by anything you say."

Do you imagine that this is not a close-minded thing to say? I have not said that you cannot change my mind. If you have logical arguments and can point out a flaw in my logic, I would welcome such a challenge and a change. When you say that you are not interested in influencing people, all it tells me is that you do not think your view matters, or is important for the advancement of civilization as we know it. You are content to let your view die with you. I am not. My ideas mean more to me than my life. I will die someday, but, in the meantime, I will do everything in my power to spread the truth I have found, so that it lives after me, and grows stronger because of my support of it. Because it matters to me. My knowledge of human nature is not like my taste in movies or music. It is not something to be shared casually, the way I would share a list of my favorite things, and hope that you might take an interest in them, and care less if you did not. It is far far more important, and I care deeply about whether or not others can see and hear and value these things. They are not pretty objects in my personal collection, but they are profound truths which exist apart from me, and which have deep and abiding merit, and are capable of producing lasting effects in the world at large.

Purposefully,
HSC

"When a man contradicts me,
he arouses my attention, not my anger.
It is enough for me if he directs his response
to the substance of my inquiry.
Agreement is utterly boring...
True friendship is opposition."
- Montaigne

posted September 03, 2006 02:07 AM              

Your conclusions seem extreme and yeah, have to agree with Mirandee, somewhat antagonistic.
Somewhat like the Zen masters who had to throw someone out of a window and pound on their chests to jolt 'enlightenment' into them?(the only part of Zen so far that I've found horsesh*t)
If you need someone else to pound something into you, then you're still not going to receive it. It won't happen that way.
Just as a continual, repetative recorded program of what goodness is is not going to compel you to do good, only the compassionate stirrings of your Own Heart will. If you need something outside of yourself to show you the way, then you're not paying attention to all the myriad signs around you, that would show you what your and others goodness and 'evil' have wrought and so therefore be able to assimilate your future direction.

Some moments call for prudence and some for boldness. The "leap" is a metaphor, albeit a significant one to life. Do we stay in our conditioned comfort zones, only because it is secure even though we know it is going against the transmutative flow of our Spirit?
Do we sacrifice the blessed gift of our life, for fear?

Life is a continual battle of Faith, and oftentimes I stay on the ledge, trembling.
Only because of the times I have been blindsidingly wracked of belief by harsh experience. But nothing, nothing on this earth will keep me from overcoming and believing again. Nothing will. Yes, it's 'blind'. And no it's not. It's not exclusive. It's seeing and still, amazingly believing, regardless if all experience and 'reality' would tell you differently.
This Faith is only "blind" because it is not of this earth. It's not all up in our face, screaming it's existance. It's a quiet hope, that won't by heard by intellectualism or theory.

Blind Faith? Romanticism?
A child's innocence and recklessness?
*uck yeah!!!

Beautiful, Beautiful things.

I believe in the Sun even
when it is not shining.
I believe in love
even when I am not feeling it.
I believe in God
even when he is silent.
~Anonymous Jewish holocaust victim

Faith on a full stomach
may be simply contentment--
but if you have it when
you're hungry, it's genuine.
~Frank A. Clark

You've gone and got me Firey. arrrrrrrgh.
Are you ok?
We're just here talking, Steve.

Anger turned inwards
is depression.
Anger turned sideways is Hawkeye. ~ MASH

(just cause I always liked that one.)

posted September 03, 2006 02:36 AM            

- Nietzsche

posted September 03, 2006 02:43 AM              

I don't want to discuss ethereal beliefs with logic. It's pointless. And I don't have anything to prove to you, nor anyone.
My beliefs are just as meaningful as yours are to you, but I understand that it took experience and introspection, not direction from anyone else to bring me to them. I don't believe it is something that can be taught, although yes, gradually inspired in timely ways. And I think that tough-love only works on needful minds. And that in the end the tough-love will have no lasting effect, because it never came from the individuals own introspection.
etc, etc, etc.....yeah, no more "nonesense" for the evening .....goodnight.

posted September 03, 2006 03:17 AM            

Thank you.
That is all I have been getting at.
These ethereal beliefs are illogical.
Perhaps they are true, in some subtle sense,
but they are not conformable to concrete logic.
I just wish people would see that,
and not try to twist logic to support their ethereal beliefs.
If you refuse to discuss them logically,
and admit that it is pointless to try to do so,
then, there is nothing I can say.
My place in this discourse concerns the modesty of logic.
I have defended the purity of logic.
Perhaps there is something out beyond her ken,
but I confess my ignorance of it.
Free will is not logical.
That is where I rest my case.

Perhaps I am confusing logic with truth,
and that is the crux of my dillemma.

I am not into tough-love, Lia.
I am not trying to bully people into believing me,
or frighten them into listening to me.
I just dont know any other way to say these things,
than in ways which we find threatening.
On the contrary, I think "free will" supports a tough-love mentality.
It says "do it yourself".
It is loving when it says "you can do it",
but, it is deluded when it forgets that
the act of saying to someone "you can do it"
is a needful nudge from the outside.

I am trying to find the path from Saturn to Neptune.
Maybe you know something I don't.
Maybe you shed the skin of the concrete.
I want to know.
I feel like I provoked you into saying some things I needed to hear.
So, maybe my approach was not all bad.
Or, maybe I could have accomplished the same thing in some other way.
Or maybe all things happen as they must.

I cant wait to have all my contradictions shoved under my nose.
I said this, then I said that.
Where oh where is my head at?
Playing hide and seek...

I've been in the clouds,
and I've been underground...
I've walked on the earth
and made gravity an idol, too.

I've worshipped every god but God.

Sorry...

Nobody cares to listen now.
Cant blame them.
I'm just insufferable sometimes.

peace,
hsc

posted September 03, 2006 03:25 AM              

quote:

---

I sympathize with the discomfort you feel in being told that you are making nonsense, but, I wish you would consider my reasons, and not simply ignore my words because the force of my conviction disturbs you. You are "free" to read only the posts of wishy-washy thinkers who are content to speculate, and say, "I could be wrong, but this is pretty to me, and i like to think of it this way," but you will be depriving yourself of the exposure to people who know what they are talking about and resort to pure logic in order to support their claims other than emotionally-fuelled arguments like "god wouldnt do that", or "that doesnt fit in with what i was told or what i read in this book", or "if i believed that i would use it as an excuse, therefor it must be wrong". It is your "choice".

---

Trust me it was not the force of your convictions that put me off from reading the rest of your words, HSC. We also speak with the force of our convictions here on this thread. I explained to you in my post why I would not read further. When you begin your post with hostile type words you lose your listener. They feel it can only downhill from that point on. Having spent more time than I should have in the trenches of GU here I can guarantee by the first hostile statement that it is going to go downhill from that point on.

If it is Mannu and Lia that you are now insulting in this post and referring to regarding who I listen to, I listen to Mannu and Lia because I DO find emotion and love in their words which tells me that they have experienced God on a personal level. In your words all I find are HSC and his intellect. Sorry but as long as we are being honest here and feel it is okay to be harsh when we feel someone is wrong I am sure you don't mind me saying that.

When it comes to matters that relate to God where there is no emotion from the soul and heart and where there is no love in the words, then I know it comes through the intellect and not from God. The knowledge of God and truth comes from knowledge which was discovered not only from study but personal experience with God in the person's life and their inner being. It is obvious to me from their words that Mannu and Lia have taken what they discovered in their inner beings and their experiences in life - in their consciousness - and said, yes, what I feel to be true I now see to be true.

I have studied under men and women who have devoted their lives to God. Theologians who when they speak of God you can see the love in their face, you can hear the love in their words and those words have the ability to transport you above the earthly plain. Your being confirms what they are saying because you can see and hear the love of God within them and that is truly a wonderful,transporting experience just listening to them. I know these men to be great intellectuals who have spent hours and hours for years studying. Yet it is the love in their words and in their demeanor that tell you they know God.

You will not find God strictly through the intellect. You can be knowledgable in many things from reading books but you can never be knowledgable of God from just reading books. God is not encountered in the intellect because our intellect can trick us and often does. Knowledge of God comes from a relationship with God that is formed in the soul, it comes through the emotions and it comes from meditation or contemplation, and prayer and consciousness. Through the intellect and from reading books you can know OF God but you can only really know God from your inner being. And that inner light shines through in the words.

The theology classes and the spiritual books I have read is not how I came to know God. The relationship I had with God and my inner experience with God and seeing how he was working all through my life came before the studies. The definition of theology is "faith seeking understanding." Faith came first. I studied because I wanted to understand my faith better and I wanted to correlate my experiences of God with the experiences of others as that is the only way you can find truth.

It is for the reason that I gave that you can put in a 100 page post here with your thoughts from your intellect and your words without love and emotion in them and then Lia and Mannu can speak only a few words and I would listen to them and not you, HSC because they speak through the love and emotion that you seem to disdain and that is where God and truth reside and that is what guides and directs their intellect.

Since you feel you can be harsh with others and tell them they are wrong I know you won't mind that I was harsh with you and told you that you are wrong. You deem my words and the words of others here as falsehoods and illogical when from my viewpoint to not believe in free will is to deny all experiences in life that point to the contrary. And to me that is most illogical. However as I said when we operate strictly through our intellect we can deceive ourselves regarding many things including what is truth and what is falsehood.

As St. Paul said, " When I think I KNOW anything ( regarding God ) it is then that I become a fool. " He also said, " Now I see as in a mirror dimly but then ( after death ) I shall see face to face." None of us know all truth regarding God. We see in a mirror dimly and for that reason no one can tell another they are wrong and hold themselves to be the possessor of truth. God speaks and works and lives in all of us. For that reason we all have some truth to share with others.

posted September 03, 2006 03:31 AM            

Mirandee : I too do not read posts of people who have negative in them after the first few lines. We are similar in this matter For the record, I have not seriously pondered in the beliefs on reincarnation. Like you, I too believe that belief in that is not important for a pilgrim. However for people seriously lacking, that belief is very very important. I may be contradicting myself by that last statement. Never mind. Just my ramblings. Perhaps someone can open a post on reincarnation and we can all get our heads together.

HSC: I am amused by the demeanor you have exhibited on this thread so far.

posted September 03, 2006 03:34 AM              

quote:

---

Thank you.
That is all I have been getting at.
These ethereal beliefs are illogical.
Perhaps they are true, in some subtle sense,
but they are not conformable to concrete logic.
I just wish people would see that,
and not try to twist logic to support their ethereal beliefs.

---

Well no one has ever accused me of not being logical, HSC. I have a very analytical mind and if something does not appear reasonable and logical to me I disgard it. To say that humankind does not possess free will is most illogical to me and so far on this thread you have just spent your time telling us how wrong we are and I have not seen any logical argument on your part in favor of your belief that free will does not exist.

What is your logic is your belief?

I think that what Lia was saying is the same thing that I stated, I think she meant that you cannot apply strictly intellectual logic to matters of God. God is in many ways if not in all ways most illogical to our minds.

posted September 03, 2006 03:50 AM              

It is late now and I did read your post and your questions and I will get back with you later today with a reply and my thoughts.

posted September 03, 2006 04:47 AM            

My advice is silence yourself first. Take a break and reread all that you have written so far. Listening skills are as important as writing skills my friend. Hope its not too late for you.
Regards,

posted September 03, 2006 05:45 AM            

Free will exists and it does not.

Within an arrogant man, God cannot coexist.
Within a person of Jesus's calibre, the one who has clearly demonstrated how man must strive to be, God coexists and fills such a person. Only then can one say "The Father and I are one." Only such a person says "Father let thy will be done."

Until then people just live in delusions no matter how hard they try to convince themselves.

posted September 03, 2006 12:03 PM              

My conclusion is..Jesus did not die on the cross..and this scenerio was set up..we have all been set up..with the False God..which would be OurSelves...we turned our back on the True God..

we are all born with absoulte God Power..we maintain this power as long as the Universal Laws are not broken..as they are broken..our power lessons..and we fall into the false God path..
Blind Faith is BLIND
God is within..use your free wi11 to know ThySelf and God..for we are all god...when you KNOW you have conviction..someone can slap you in the face..and you can offer the other..
OverSoul in Heaven good
Human Mind on Earth bad
Heaven and Hell!
separation from the True God happened...

we must bring Heaven on Earth..
Pax et Bonum!

posted September 03, 2006 12:23 PM              

when someone else slaps you in the face..offer the other side..*edit the other cheek..the other side of your face..not to re-act by shadow..and also do wrong...

other side..as Above so Below again,,
Mind to higherSelf to OverSoul = GOD. ...

there is an oppsite in everything..and A Positive..
balance must be maitained..by your free wi11 to do so..or not. . .

The Good Gods are in Heaven
the bad gods are on Earth...