Amen to that Abra! Cheers!! I totally see what you are saying here!

Here we go again Its the Bible Quoters vs. The Non-believers in yet another thread. Doesnt this ever get old and boring to you guys and gals ?? Its all been said before and neither proves nor disproves anything.

JB:

Although our perceptions are similar, they also differ...

With that in mind, we each believe that which agrees within us. That which resonates as truth, directly according to that which has already been accepted.

If Christianity helps one to feel as though they have hope... once again, then the reality is attributed to that which was different. The difference being the acceptance of Christ. That alone substantiates the belief within one. Regarding the textual acceptances, I am sure it varies according to many different outside factors and the internal features of ones psyche.



By the way, regarding the seed analogy you presented a couple of days ago... who or what decides which thought has been nurtured more? What measure is used for comparison?

I agree that true "worship" is, plain and simple, gratitude to life, gratitude to the universe or gratitude to all that is for what we are and what we have. Gratitude for everything, even the lessons in life, feeling the joy of ourselves. That is worship.

I worship every day with gratitude.

Joy is for all. It is not just for one group who feel that they have all the answers about God.

Yet they look at me as if I am lost. They have pity on me because I don't belong to their group who think they have it all figured out.

Save your pity for someone who is truly lost in darkness. It is not me.

I worship every day. I feel joy always. Please don't be so arrogant that you think that you own the truth and that you own God.

This is all I wish for you, that you admit or acknowledge that you may not have all the answers about God, and that you may be wrong about the details.

I will say this, I believe it does not matter what faith you are. It is what is in your heart, the love and the gratitude and the joy, that will give you wings for ascension.

JB

We are given the freedom to choose and make our own decisions. some of us choose to to worship God and obey him. But it is still an overall choice to do this. As Americans we are slowly begining to lose all of our rights.

Mirror,

I am not a "non-believer." I am more open minded than most people I have ever met and I am willing to consider anything no matter how ridiculous it sounds. But somehow, some way, it has to make some kind of sense and it has to fit with the whole picture of things.

Think of it as the logical thinkers vs. the entranced believers.

JB

Egos abound

Certainly not the seed.

Either the seed is nurtured or it is not. It is either planted or it tossed out to dry up in the sun.

But to answer the question: You, (the thinking center) either nurtures the seed or you do not. So I guess you decide.

The one who thinks is the planter and nurturer of the seed (idea or prayer)

It is not a contest than needs a judge to decide. If two buildings are being built and one is finished before the other one is finished, there is no need for a judge to decide who the winner is. It is plain to see which building is finished first.


But you seem to be talking about a competition here. The creative process is not a competition where one wins or one looses. A thing is either created or it is not.

But in the event of a contest:

Two people want to win a single race. Only one will win. The one who wants it the most will train harder than the other one, they will pay the price, they will visualize winning, they will nurture the desire longer, harder than the other one, and they will have the least resistance than the other "competitor."

Resistance to a prayer happens when you visualize loosing the race, and when you have doubts. The one who wins will intend to win, they will have less doubts about it, some will even know that they are going to win, failure is not an option.


If you want to give me an example of a situation I could know more about what your question involves.

JB

If you are referring to me, I would like to know why you made this remark.

(Everyone has an ego, it is part of our package in these incarnated lives.)

I have made it a point in my life to consider all information, never rejecting any possibility, no matter how ridiculous it may seem. I don't know too many people who do this.

For information to be held as "possible" in consideration, it has to make some sort of sense and it has to fit into the currently held total picture being considered.

If it does not fit, I ask for information to see if I can get it to fit.

All information is valid.

Truth is information.

When I don't believe something myself, I know why I don't believe it. I just would like to know why other people believe it. This would help me to get this information to fit into the current picture.

They are like puzzle pieces.

I am being as sincere and as honest as I can at this point.

JB

Should two people have contradicting desires of an interdependant nature, one of which would affect the other if either was realized... which one prevails?

The notion necessitates a separate governing body...

Besides that, you claims automatically necessitate judgement of some sort or another... inherently so... the comparison of opposing desires regarding the same situation or scenario, or differing thoughts which are interdependant upon one another necessitates comparison...

Who or what measures this comparison and by what standard?

Thus, my insistence that your beliefs necessitate a notion of separate.

Ego covers over actual reality... there is no 'God' in ego...

Of course we all have one... it is how we function amongst that which is not of us...

A coping mechanism born of the need to be accepted...



No 'God' there...

Your question is too vague.

The creative process is not competitive. All things given thought are manifested on the plain of thought. The one that is given the most attention and the most thought and the most action and has the least amount of resistance will manifest in reality.

Each thinking center is has perception. Each perceives from a different point of view. These perceivers are the judge you seek, as to whether a thing is manifest or not. If they cannot perceive it, then it is not in their reality, hence it is not manifest.... to them.

If a thing is not perceived by a thinking center, it is not in their reality. If it is not perceived by any perceivers, it does not exist in their reality. If they only imagine it, then it exists, but it is not manifest into their physical space.

JB

I thought it was quite clearly described in conceptual form...

I will use your quote then, so as to better build a bridge of understanding...



Who or what observes and decides this judgement call?

Abra,

It is a challenge to face the foolishness of people all around us on so many levels. Even ancient writings depict the same challenges we all struggle with today; the tendency towards violence for not getting one's way from others that want their own way too.

Nothing will change there as far as I can tell, as long as people seek advantage and privelege over other people....for whatever excuse can be rationalized.

That God gets crutched as an excuse for violence, the violence gets rewarded against such with or without words, and God is no different in reminding those that harbor such ill will as to give them more of what they seek in the means of their errors to the end of those errors which only corrupts further; but the lesson is consistenly missed. And life continues with selfish and arrogant misconceptions as a rationalization for being above the disadvantages and underpriveleged conditions imposed upon those that seek to be in the 'greener grass' of that which is coveted....irrespective of the harm it causes another in the violence necessary to take that which is not given.

In that regard, man is a mythological nightmare himself for harboring such needs and distractions as advantage and privelege over others.


Few times in history have men come to a place where they are heard for saying "come out of that". Their reward has been death at the hands of men seeking to repulse the man as though the thought is just the man speaking it. Martin Luther King, A. Lincoln, JFK, B. Bhutto, to name a few.

Some, like Gandhi and Nelson Mandela suffer but have the compassion and sympathy of the masses for their eloquent and selfless passion to persuade men with their warnings about the ill will and in their lack they do find some refuge, yet the reminder seems to be more of the awe that they survive speaking out against man's ill will more so than the speech they engender finding place with remedy.

Even Gandhi and Mandela are considered mythical in light of their idealisms. Yet also contemporary to that which can be verifiable in their present generation.

It seems that idealism is a quaint nicety.

The Magna Carta and the French Constitution that influenced the US Constitution are all three part of the same philosophical basis, yet are mythical in the light of the reality of how little actually is reflective of the intents of each. Yet they exist as models of idealism from their time and are all under te scrutiny of adaptation and manipulation and machination by men seeking advantage and privelege by their amendment.

And violence reigns over their respective justifications.

The Soviet Union...the People's republic of China....etc. also suffer amendment and adaptation.

Even socialism is licentious, at best.

Violently convoluted and contrived as well to advantage the priveleged.

Disengenuos violence is perpetrated in the name of furtherance of all suppositions among man's doings.

Why should God not find the same done to His intents and purposes that involve men?

Would God not be aware as I am that man is incapable of keeping himself mindful of his own personal business, come what may?

It is man that violates all things by reaching beyond himself into the things of others genesised and spawned in his covetousness and licentiousness found in his content and character which is more highly prised than his respect and dignity for others at all.

All gods of men are subject to the Creator and His Word, there is no doubt, but that man must seek the separateness of gods is but a conundrum for man to embrace, not the Creator.

No matter the religious or secular conviction of any man in any religious or secular discipline, there exists contrivances upon the veracity oof the truth being offered man from spiritual sources. Some borne only of the observations of man's failure to see past himself and see the collective as the individual in interdependence. This , too, is extended to the intentions of God's own content and character by man.


How will man ever learn from the past?

How can contemporary examples with verifiable context do no more than reflect the same defiance of which is purposed upon ancient contemplations?

There is nothing new under the sun.

Not even cpntemporary ways of saying the same thing eloquently.

Truth is hidden from those that refuse to seek truth.


The battle rages in the minds of men still, and few see the battle as ridiculous. Ridiculing the past that has been rejected by man is equall to the rejection of more contemporary observations being ignored willfully by each and every generation of man.

Just looking at the children thinking that we old people don't get it, reminds me of myself when I was young and thought my predecessors were blind too.

There is nothing new under the sun except for the desire for shade that grows more convenient with age and season.

But it is not mythological to embrace truthes wherever they are made available, only a contrivance of man that fails to grasp that truth is timeless and that truth requires time to be absorbed and time is short for man indeed.


Try as man may, rest for an aging and weakening body does not give rest to the soul.

It only delays the inevitable. Mortal death.

And that death as an end to a means is a myth.

Creativesoul,

You seem to want to preach that all is ONE, and yet you seem to have a problem with the concept of how that can be,~ since by all appearances, things still seem to be separate.

You are still thinking as a separate.

Perhaps you don't understand the concept of a whole being made up of separate parts. Even a whole orange is made up of separate parts, each doing something to contribute to the whole.

Yes we are ONE, but we are also separate parts, and separate points of view. Points of view are each different.

I have in the past described source as INFINITY, the infinite being that perceives, and its parts as "The eyes of Infinity," which are each separate point of view and thinking center. We are the eyes of God Itself, perceiving its own creation.

JB

Answered above. The perceivers do. They are the eyes of Infinity, or the eyes of source/God.

JB

I reread my post and you overlooked the answer below.. that was your answer. How did you not see it?

You have surely applied your own misconception(s) about me towards me and my understandings...



Your expression holds no logical reason JB... with all due respect,

Are you suggesting that when more than one desire which contradict one another are owned by more than one perceiver, it is determined by the perceivers which own the desire(s) as to which one was first or nurtured properly?

Um.... how could that be?

Perceiver "A" desires so and so...

Perceiver "B" desires the same thing...

Each of the two observe and assess their own desires...

Which one prevails?

How is it determined who desired best and who desired first?

What measure is used to determine this?

No one needs to decide (as a judge) which thought or creation was nurtured first or properly.

They need only perceive the manifestation of that thing.

If the seed does not sprout, it is not seen.

If it is not seen, it has not sprouted.

If it has not sprouted, it was not nurtured, watered, or planted.

How complicated is that?

JB