all that matters.

I agree.  It sure can change a life if allowed into it. :)

Love your neighbour as yourself. Easy to say, surprisingly complex to do.

Loving yourself is hard for some, how then can you love others. Loving others is hard for some, how then can you leave the world a little better than when you entered it. Knowing what love really is in some situations can be very hard, for example if two opposite obligations tug at you.

Yes, certainly easy to say, hard to do  :) - but in the end, indeed, all that counts.

I wrote this several years ago to my family and friends and thought it might fit in here.

I've been musing about love lately. Not just romantic love but all the different kinds of love.

We should all know what love feels like either coming to us from another or giving it to others. It starts with our mothers before we are born. The first few years of our lives we usually are surrounded by love. In that way, we learn to love in return. We are given love, and we return it in order to get more. As we grow we start to learn how to give love without expecting anything in return...unconditional love. An example is giving that first Valentine to mom or dad. Then maybe along comes a kitten or puppy, it is our chance to give love to something without getting much in return besides a lick on the nose.
As we grow, we find love grows...even our love of life.
Then there is that wonderful first love. You remember the one you couldn't stop thinking about. Was it mostly glands? Of course, but that didn't make it any less love. It was enough love that it could break our hearts and usually did. Again we learned about love.
As the years go by we love our parents (even more than we knew we did),friends, mates, children (some of the purest love), pets, and even some strangers. Our love continues to grow.
Hey, wait a minute, did I just say strangers. Yes, I did. Ever make a contribution to a charity? How about a homeless person? Maybe you gave to the food bank or a hospital. There you have it...love of strangers. It is another form of pure love...giving from the heart or pocket without expecting a return.
If I ever wonder what God is like, I think of all of these loves especially that pure unconditional love. By loving unconditionally, we all are more like God. What a goal to aim for!

T'ressa

At the same time we have to be aware of those who hate, and who are determined to do us great harm.  It does no good whatsoever to love the butchers of ISIS who delight in beheading children and burning men alive in cages and other atrocities too brutal to mention.

Until we live in a perfect world, we need to demonstrate our love for innocent victims of terrorism by eliminating those who would slaughter them for the crime of existing.

R

Just a reminder:

"You have heard the law that says, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy. But I say, love your enemies! Pray for those who persecute you! In that way, you  will be acting as true children of your father in heaven. For he gives his sunlight to both the evil and the good, and he sends rain on the just and the unjust alike. If you love only those who love you, what reward is there for that? Even corrupt tax collectors do that much. If you are kind only to your friends, how are you different from anyone else? Even pagans do that. But you are to be perfect, even as you Father in heaven is perfect."

Matthew 6:43-48.



rondele wrote on Apr 14^th, 2016 at 5:25pm:

At the same time we have to be aware of those who hate, and who are determined to do us great harm.  It does no good whatsoever to love the butchers of ISIS who delight in beheading children and burning men alive in cages and other atrocities too brutal to mention. Until we live in a perfect world, we need to demonstrate our love for innocent victims of terrorism by eliminating those who would slaughter them for the crime of existing. R

Also, there are some sources that say that the Iraq war created ISIS. Perhaps if a more love-based approach was taken after 911 rather than an angry, fear-based, and to some extent power hungry approach, ISIS would not have been created. If a man in Iraq sees his brother get killed he might become angry (just as Americans became angry after 911) and then join a group like ISIS. People do all kinds of foolish things when they are motivated by anger and fear, just as when they listened to the Bush administration's desire to start a war in Iraq. Here is an article where an Army general states that the Iraq war was a mistake and that it created ISIS. My guess is that he isn't a woo woo minded liberal.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/iraq-war-isis-michael-flynn_us_565c83a9e4b079b2818af89c

Below are some of the General's words.

"Retired Lt. General Michael Flynn, the former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency who came up through intelligence positions in Iraq and Afghanistan, says that the George W. Bush administration’s Iraq war was a tremendous blunder that helped to create the self-proclaimed Islamic State, or ISIS.

“It was a huge error,” Flynn said about the Iraq war in a detailed interview with German newspaper Der Spiegel published Sunday.

“As brutal as Saddam Hussein was, it was a mistake to just eliminate him,” Flynn went on to say. “The same is true for Moammar Gadhafi and for Libya, which is now a failed state. The historic lesson is that it was a strategic failure to go into Iraq. History will not be and should not be kind with that decision.”

Thank you.

For your presence.

I Love my children. Yet I discipline them. True Love does not equal submission.

Thank you.

Each of you.

For your presence.

Quote:

Alan PUL RUBBISH MAKES ME WANT TO VOMIT!

http://i66.tinypic.com/2kk02w.jpg
http://i65.tinypic.com/2yya9f5.jpg

Not an impossibility, if we seek to love others unconditionally. Why would Jesus say be ye perfect as your father in heaven is perfect if it isn't possible to do so?


Alan McDougall wrote on Apr 15^th, 2016 at 11:49am:

recoverer wrote on Apr 14th, 2016 at 6:14pm: Just a reminder: "You have heard the law that says, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy. But I say, love your enemies! Pray for those who persecute you! In that way, you  will be acting as true children of your father in heaven. For he gives his sunlight to both the evil and the good, and he sends rain on the just and the unjust alike. If you love only those who love you, what reward is there for that? Even corrupt tax collectors do that much. If you are kind only to your friends, how are you different from anyone else? Even pagans do that. But you are to be perfect, even as you Father in heaven is perfect." Matthew 6:43-48. rondele wrote on Apr 14th, 2016 at 5:25pm: At the same time we have to be aware of those who hate, and who are determined to do us great harm.  It does no good whatsoever to love the butchers of ISIS who delight in beheading children and burning men alive in cages and other atrocities too brutal to mention. Until we live in a perfect world, we need to demonstrate our love for innocent victims of terrorism by eliminating those who would slaughter them for the crime of existing. R The shorter version is, "It is easy to love those that love you, but I tell you to love those who hate you" (almost an impossibility)

Quote:

The shorter version is, "It is easy to love those that love you, but I tell you to love those who hate you" (almost an impossibility)

Alan, when you speak of Hitler, I think I get what you are saying. There are people in this world that do evil, brutal and ruthless acts, there is no question about this.

It has been inspiring to read when 1796/Crossbow has written about love, like, dislike and hatred. Not his words verbatim, but my interpretation: love is not about liking. Disliking is not about hatred. Having both love and dislike for somebody is possible. I can dislike something and somebody and strongly so, but once I wish somebody else harm and suffering, I am one to hate.

Straightforward, but so easily confused, misunderstood and misrepresented.

Thank you.

For your presence.

It is simple.

Love is all that matters.

Thank you.

For your presence.

Love is.

All that matters.

Forgiveness is part of love. It is the same as love. The difference between love and forgiveness is only in how love is directed or what love is directed to.

Forgiveness is that part of love that we can direct towards things distasteful. Forgiveness is what enables us to love in all directions. 

God's love is forgiving.

There is no sin so great that it cannot be forgiven.

God gave man freewill to make mistakes and learn and grow, and God knew beforehand all the sins that would be committed, all the errors man would make along his freewilled journey.

Repentance is the presentation of our sins to God. It is presenting our self to God, as we are, in full acknowledgement of our sins. And in request for forgiveness. 

Repentance enables God's light to shine into every dark and horrid corner of our being, and clean and lighten our self.

In repentance there is no sin that God will not forgive.

Although God's life is in all things, his spirit animates all things, is within us, we cannot keep it out, for it animates our soul, but by not repenting we keep out God's forgiveness which is God's love, we keep a part of our self away from God, we make a barrier that keeps God's love and light out of our self.

Repentance enables forgiveness to come into our self. It is like opening a cupboard door to let the light shine in. It is like inviting a cleaner into our house and showing the cleaner all our dark and dirty places, the places we are ashamed of, and then the cleaner cleans them. But if we invite the cleaner into our house and only show her the cleaner parts to clean but keep the dirty rooms and cupboards locked, then she cannot clean those places and leaves the house only part clean. But if we show her all the dirty places she will clean them and leave our house clean right through.

Repentance is our opening up to God, is showing God our wrong and dark and dirty places. Forgiveness is the cleaning and relieving light that then comes in.     

Forgiveness is relief. It relieves the weights of guilt and shame, and the ailments that accompany them. It frees us from the darkness and blindness of denial and irresponsibility, and enables us to see clearly within and without of our self.

All prayer commences with repentance. Repentance lets in God's light, right into our being, even into the darkest places to lighten them. Repentance brings connection and honesty between our soul and God. 

The nature and workings of repentance and forgiveness are the essential teachings of Christianity.

   

1796, pretty good Aussies say, but I am not and this is both beautiful and powerful writing.

Thank you.

For your presence.

Love is all that matters.

It is the clear path.

Alan McDougall wrote on Apr 16^th, 2016 at 11:16pm:

I agree with what you wrote and it was a beautiful post full of truth, except just this one point you made There is no sin in repentance that God will not forgive.Jesus warned that "If you hurt one of my little ones it would be better for you that you were never born (He is talking to paedophiles) Jesus also said there is a sin for which there is no forgiveness, in this life or the next. Thus, I am believing what Jesus said about the matter, not you!

1. Being better if not born does not equate with not being forgiven. Being better if a boy had not gone to school one day, rather than had gone to school and done some awful wrong, and perhaps even get expelled, does not mean he would not be forgiven by his father.

2. Yes, blasphemy the only unforgivable sin is another issue. I might put up a post on that, but maybe not, it might be too long.

3. Our words seem incompatible but underneath I don't think we disagree. It is like a venn diagram of two circles, one inside the other. But yes, do believe what Jesus says, not me. I don't want anyone believing me just because I say something. But if it rings true to them, and fits with their own best judgement, and works for them, then they are welcome to make it their own.

Alan McDougall wrote on Apr 15^th, 2016 at 12:14pm:

Almighty Gods love is conditional, he does not love pedophilic cannibalistic child molesters, for instead, he hates them! In South Africa where I live these monsters have come up with a supposed cure for AIDS. Rape a baby as early in its  existence, preferably younger than three months old, which in the process are torn in half by these monsters, so please stop saying, God, love is just unconditional which is nonsense. Is it not enough just to rape a little baby to ensure the cure is permanent they must also eat its title body as well Don't, believe me, the google it for yourself? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/southafrica/1362134/South-African-men-rape-babies-as-cure-for-Aids.html

It seems difficult to forgive some things. But like anything, it is easy when we know how to do it, and how it works, what it does, and why it works, and when we want to do it because we understand its benefits, and when we have understanding of how and why such unpleasant things occur, why people do what they do.

We need to study freewill and forgiveness to understand them, in order to bring them together for others, their freewill and our forgiveness. As with any study, we must put in time and effort and practice.

Some things make forgiveness easier for us to do.

One thing is a sincere apology; an apology that contains responsibility for what was done, and
acknowledgement of the effects of what was done, and humility. But that is not present often, and we must learn to forgive without it.  

Another thing is understanding of freewill and how and why people do what they do.

And another thing that enables us to forgive is the method Jesus demonstrated when being killed on the cross, when we have no strength to do it, is to ask God to forgive on our behalf. It must be a genuine request, of course, we have to want God to do it.          

Matt 18: 4"Whoever then humbles himself as this child, he is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. 5"And whoever receives one such child in My name receives Me; 6but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him to have a heavy millstone hung around his neck, and to be drowned in the depth of the sea."

Can refer to leading manipulating or causing children or any innocents to sin in any way. It needn't only refer to sexual sins. There are mothers who physically and psychologically torture little boys to deliberately make them violent, and fathers who train them to be violent. There are many parents who deliberately raise their children to be criminals of every sort, or to be antisocial or psychologically unhealthy, and there are parents and teachers who deliberately poorly educate their children to make them dumb so they cannot get along well in the world. There are mothers, fathers, teachers, youth workers who deliberately lead youth into drugs and crime. There are university lecturers, sociologists and psychologists who encourage their students to hate society, to attend demonstrations and be violent and throw paper bags of faeces at police. That verse refers to all the sorts of ways there are to get normally law abiding sensible people whether children or adults to commit sins for others by proxy.

Yes, many homosexuals and paedophiles are made as children by male and female adults manipulating them into addiction to same gender sex, to incestuous sex, to adult-child sex. And not just men but women too do this to children far more than is revealed. But there are a multitude of other sins besides sexual that a child, youth or adult can be manipulated by others to commit. People who might not otherwise sin can be lead astray by people smarter and more cunning than themselves towards every sort of sin there is.    

Manipulating others to sin is worse than doing that sin our self. For when we have done it to and through another, plus they have done it too because of our manipulation, and so the comeback is far greater than having done it just our self. The manipulator who causes others to sin reaps more comeback than if he or she just did the sin their self.          

   Knowledge not lived is spiritual error. To those whom are more aware, more is required of them--the greater their responsibility.

Thank you.

For your presence.

Love is.

This new day.

Many on this board believe love is a superior form of "like".   But to like something is to prefer it.  Usually to set it up in the world of forms (the physical world), and often oppose it to something that is disliked.  In this narrow view, everything is black and white.  love/like vs. hate.  Opposites are seen and not recognized as being polarities of something bigger.

From my own experience and that of others, Love is something far different.  Love is the groundspring of our true nature before it gets perverted or warped by ego.  Love flows from God, out to all areas of the universe and in all astral planes.  Those who allow this low to flow through them "get it," and usually their love is then magnified  (Jesus says "Whoever has will be given more, and they will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what they have will be taken from them.").  I love that quote from the NT, because it seems paradoxical.  What it really means is, as you open yourself up to universal love you get more. 

The person who closes himself/herself off to God's love is usually focusing on their own ego/needs, and getting lost in the "us vs. them" mentality of the physical world.  These people need to "be right" to show that others are "wrong."  To them, that have little universal love, that turn their backs to the flow of God's love, more is taken away.  Swedenborg was shown representations of people actually facing away from heaven; deliberately acting out of ego gratification and selfishness. 

So for myself, I see love as an all pervading force of good, which we either open our inner being up to and radiate outward toward others or we close ourselves off from (and in so doing turn away from it).

But we always have a choice.  People can and usually do evolve over time.  Not in an instant.  But gradually, all who live out of selfish ego-based gratification, usually find that the grass is "browner" not greener, and eventually, they look for a more universal kind of spirituality.

M

DocM wrote on Apr 17^th, 2016 at 12:12pm:

Many on this board believe love is a superior form of "like".   But to like something is to prefer it.  Usually to set it up in the world of forms (the physical world), and often oppose it to something that is disliked.  In this narrow view, everything is black and white.  love/like vs. hate.  Opposites are seen and not recognized as being polarities of something bigger. From my own experience and that of others, Love is something far different.  Love is the groundspring of our true nature before it gets perverted or warped by ego.  Love flows from God, out to all areas of the universe and in all astral planes.  Those who allow this low to flow through them "get it," and usually their love is then magnified  (Jesus says "Whoever has will be given more, and they will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what they have will be taken from them.").  I love that quote from the NT, because it seems paradoxical.  What it really means is, as you open yourself up to universal love you get more.  The person who closes himself/herself off to God's love is usually focusing on their own ego/needs, and getting lost in the "us vs. them" mentality of the physical world.  These people need to "be right" to show that others are "wrong."  To them, that have little universal love, that turn their backs to the flow of God's love, more is taken away.  Swedenborg was shown representations of people actually facing away from heaven; deliberately acting out of ego gratification and selfishness.  So for myself, I see love as an all pervading force of good, which we either open our inner being up to and radiate outward toward others or we close ourselves off from (and in so doing turn away from it). But we always have a choice.  People can and usually do evolve over time.  Not in an instant.  But gradually, all who live out of selfish ego-based gratification, usually find that the grass is "browner" not greener, and eventually, they look for a more universal kind of spirituality. M

Well put Mathew. Love acts like a kind of spiritual gravity as a force holding everything together. It works on a different level to like or preferences.We can see this in everyday life: a mother may not like her drug-addict son but sees beyond the addiction to love him anyway: knowing he is much more than his addiction. How much more would a creator/source know that we are more than our petty, ignorant behaviour! 

M, one can like good acts and/or bad acts. I suppose love is more fixed than ambivalent like/dislike in that sense because harming (not "harming") someone else is not love, or that love has a strong direction rather than like/dislike zig zagging. But love is not automatically present in all dealings just because one loves. X loves the family and dislike the son's teenage rebellion period, X also hates the neighbour and like it like that.

I agree, Ambivalent, to some extent.

And it is true, you can love someone but not approve of their behavior.  But to not enable the bad behavior is different in a loving way is different than "hating" the behavior.   Allowing love to flow has a certain calm grounding.  It does not mean to take no action against bad behavior, but it is distinctly different. 

Once we indulge in the active act of hating, we engage our egos and turn away from the grounding foundation of love inside each of us.  That is why I say true love has no opposite, and that hate is the opposite of "like" or "prefer". 

Those who call pure unconditional love "nonsense" merely don't understand it, or haven't experienced it.  Those who feel it is only an attribute of God, and not available to each and every one of us are too caught up in the world of forms and ego to see it or understand it. 

For those who prefer the new testament to back things up:  " I tell you the truth, anyone who believes in me will do the same works I have done, and even greater works, because I am going to be with the Father."

Yet another point that is important when considering Love is the lack of ego involved in it.  People who act lovingly do it, because it is the only way to be; not to get praise, satisfaction, or an ego boost.  Lao Tzu spoke of this in the Tao Te Ching.  It is the opposite of egoism.  Swedenborg wrote that in his conversations with the deceased, they seemed embarrassed to take credit for their good works.  When he asked them about this, they told him that loving people believe that Love and God act through them, but that they do not deserve "credit" for their actions. 


M

M, to some extent is a good response, if your response was nonsense it could still be good. Both responses can be great inspiration to dig deeper.

Doc:

When you say "engage our egos," what precisely do you mean?

Hey Albert

For me, engaging our ego means to serve the part of use we invest into being apart from our link to God and the universe.  Our egos are built up from childhood.  It is the perishable part of our earthly selves that sees the world as a harsh place and is so lost in the forms that reality presents to us, it makes us think in selfish oppositional ways. 

There is an old buddhist saying "no self, no more problems."  Westerners unknowingly think that this is nihilism; that if we lose the shell of our ego we would cease to be, or merge mindlessly with some grand unity of things.  Nothing could be farther from the truth.

Sometimes, in deep meditation, in nature, or at other points in our lives, we deeply connect to everything.  In that state, we don't have to be right.  We don't have to be better than another.  We don't look down on others.  We aren't defending anything.  We are not afraid of losing an argument.  That enlightened state is, from my understanding our true self, and the more frenetic, confrontational, ego based state is, unfortunately the way most of us operate.

When a person is able to let go of the ego, they find they live differently not because they are "trying" but because that is the only way to be.   Sacred texts be it the gospels in the new testament or Lao Tzu's writings therefore say that a good person is kind to those who are kind to them, and also kind to those who are unkind to them.  Why?  Because kindness is our nature without ego. 

M

Doc:

Perhaps what you said can be interpreted in this way. Before we incarnate in this world we are at a level of being that is free of conflict, and therefore, there is no need for "ego-like" behavior.

After we incarnate in this world we are presented with different kinds of challenges, and this can cause us to develop portions of our mind in a way that seem egotistical.

Therefore, it isn't a matter of there actually being an ego like entity. Rather, we create aspects of mind that are selfish, self-centered, fearful, confrontational etc.

If my interpretation of what you said is correct, then I agree.

I don't agree with what you say about the "no self" viewpoint. I've read a lot of Eastern teachings and not  all, but a fair amount, definitely mean it literally when they say there is no self. Such teachings are nihilistic and deny that eternal uniqueness exists. They say that individuality is just an illusion.

I'd like to add that even when we are at one with God we still have an aspect of mind that is capable of having self concern, because it is quite natural for a conscious being to concerened about its welfare. It is not wrong to be able to look out for ourselves. It is not wrong to become afraid if we are threatened in some way. Of course, when we abide with God we will find that there is nothing to be concerned about.

Albert

Hey Albert,

I do think we are in agreement.  And I do personally believe the ego is a mask we all adopt through parental education and by necessity to function in the earth plane.  But I think most people focus on their egos and lose their connection to God and love.  After death, I believe there are stages where the ego falls away.  Swedenborg called this the second stage after death.  In that state, the mask we wear serves no purpose. 

I do think that many eastern religions are not nihilistic, but you have to get deeper into them to see it.  I do also find that humble loving people rarely want to take credit for their acts of charity.  Swedenborg mentions that this is the way the angels (deceased basically good human beings) act in the afterlife.  That they are keenly aware that when they do something good, it is because that is the only way to be, and that it is the love permeating creation (from God) which is really what they say to be thankful for.

M

Doc:

I figure that one of the reasons people lose their connection to God while in this world is because they forget where true fulfillment comes from.

I agree with what Swendenborg said about angels. When I help beings during retrievals, I tend to feel humble and grateful for the role I play. I understand that I could be the being who needs help, but instead I get to play the role of helper. We all come from the same source, and as the creative process plays out, some souls are likely to have to take on more difficult roles than the rest of us, when as a whole we become wiser. I feel grateful towards those who have taken on tougher challenges than myself.

Regarding some Eastern teachers, I first became aware of such teachings in the 1980s, and I am quite clear on what many of them mean.

For example, one time I had a tough day at work, and later in the day (early evening) I told the guru I was seeing at the time about this, and he asked me: "Are you your body and mind?"

I told him I am not, and experienced a great sense of relief. During the next day of work I had a difficult time again. Why? Because the fact of the matter is that my mind aspect of my being is a part of who I am, and it found highly repetitive work quite boring. It was only temporary dissociation that allowed me to feel some relief.

This guru literally meant that I am not my mind, I am only awareness, and the same was true for the highly accepted guru based teachings he referred to.

One such guru was Ramana Maharshi. From "Talks with Ramana Maharshi" page  50.

"Mr. Ramamurthi: How to know the real I as distinct from the false I.

Ramana: If the enquiry is made whether mind exists, it will be found that mind does not exist. That is control of mind. Otherwise, if the mind is taken to exist and one seeks to control it, it amounts to mind controlling the mind, just like a thief turning to a policeman to catch a thief, i.e. himself. Mind persists in that way alone, but eludes itself."

Another example from page 129.

"Questioner: How to get rid of the mind?

Ramana: Is it the mind that wants to kill itself? The mind cannot kill itself. So your business is to find the real nature of the mind. Then you will know that there is no mind. When the self is sought, the mind is nowhere. Abiding in the Self, one need not worry about the mind."

From page 160.

“Mr. Jharka, a gentleman  from the University of Benares, holding the M.A. and the M.S.c. degrees, said that he was stricken with grief due to bereavement of wife and children. He sought peace of mind and  asked how to get it.

Ramana: It is in the mind that birth, pleasure and pain, in short the world and ego exist. If the mind is destroyed all of these destroyed too. Note that it should be annihilated, not just made latent. For the mind is dormant  in sleep. It does not know anything. Still, on waking up, you are as you were before.  There is no end of grief. But if the mind be destroyed the grief will have no background and will disappear along with the mind.

Mr. Jharka: How to destroy the mind?

Ramana: Seek the mind. On being sought, it will disappear.”

The above are just three of many examples where Ramana said the above sort of thing. Yet in nondual circles he considered the holy grail of truth.  I do not agree with the points he made.

Albert

Thank you.

For your presence.

Love is you.

Love is all that matters.

Albert,

I do understand your example of the guru.  And I disagree with his statements.  Some, like Eckhart Tolle also speak of freeing onself from "mind" (his version of ego), but he then talks about finding the inner perceptual person, who does "think" but lives in the present, and takes immediate action when indicated.  So the idea is to rid oneself of neurotic overthinking, and live in the present moment, with clear perception and action borne not of ego related ruminations on the past or the future, but on the Now.


And I do think it is paradoxical that a person can rid themselves of their ego and still be unique, for we feel that it is our ego that makes us who we are.  Yet we already are someone before our parents teach us to defend ourselves and put on our masks (egos) to protect us. 

So who is that young infant interacting with the world, before the development of ego?  Why it is us, and we all have unique perceptions, reactions and tendencies. 

So my understanding is that there is a primary us, apart from the ego or outer person.  And I don't think all Eastern religions have to deny this and be nihilistic.  What most of them do deny is the separation of us from everything else.  That is something we do while incarnate on earth, closely tied with the world of forms . 

M

  As each blade of grass, each snowflake, each thumbprint is unique, so wasn't each Spirit and every Soul connected to the various created Spirits, created unique and at least slightly different than one another. 

  This basic individuality/uniqueness, and self awareness, never changes or alters, unless one happens to destroy themselves through such severe and consistent blockage of attunement to Love.

   Even when one consciously merges with Source, there is individuality, uniqueness, and self awareness retained. 

   And Albert is correct--i've devled enough into some Eastern belief systems to realize, with much less expereince and delving than him, that some of these speak of the individuality and self awareness of our Souls and Spirits as an illusion and that there is only One self. 

  In other words, some of these are lopsided, over polarized to the Yin.  Why, because some of these beliefs and interpretations come from those who were overly polarized/lopsided to the Yin themselves.  We teach and perceive that which we are. 

  But there are even some Western mysticism beliefs that talk similarity.  I remember reading a book about a nun, and which talked about St. John of the Cross, and she talked about a very similar concept, that individuality and self awareness was an illusion--and one that we supposed to banish. 

    Again, over Yin polarization.  Those more polarized to the Yang, or those who have a greater balance and integration of the Yin and Yang, will easily understand and perceive that the above is a distorted interpretation of reality. 

  Conversely, some people that are over polarized to the Yang, focus over much on individuality and either lack awareness of Oneness/interconnectedness or consider it less important. 

   One of the big, consistent human dilemmas, and why i so often speak on and stress the importance of balancing and merging these both within ourselves and within the larger society/culture. 

    The most expanded teachers, will be those that have a complete integration/merging of the Yin and Yang within themselves like Bob Monroe's "He/She".  And He/She definitely has a sense of self and it's own unique individuality.

   I've had a couple of guidance dreams, which made the point of showing that we retain our individuality and self awareness, however much we expand. 

One dream involved me meditating outside while looking at the Sun, and merging with the Sun.  The super expanding sensation was at first almost frightening and i thought i might lose my self/sense of self and i initially resisted the process.  But then i chose to let go and let it happen, and found out that i was still me after the process, but a much more expanded version of myself.

  I had another dream where i was standing in a circle, connected to others, and i had an awareness that i was supposed to move in the middle and fully open up to the Christ consciousness within and Spirit without (yes, somehow it seemed like both simultaneously--very hard to explain or describe).  After the process was complete, i still had a sense of self, but i also felt completely connected, and because of that connection, felt extremely powerful and transcendent. I was still me, but a higher, better, purified version of me--me connected to (in a fully conscious sense) Source and the Whole. 

Because of these powerful and affecting dream guidance dreams, i am fairly sure that my long time intuition about all of this is correct.   

  Since Source cherishes it's uniqueness, self awareness and individuality, and specifically created us with freewill, uniqueness, individuality and self awareness, why should these be considered any kind of illusion? 

  It's only when one puts the little self above the Oneness/interconnection or our Source, that it becomes limiting and delusion. Some did this in the very beginning--the lost ones who for whatever reason, became very separative. Some of these have caused a lot of issues and inharmony in creation since, and not only have become stuck themselves, but have had that influence on others. 

 

Quote:

Yes, many homosexuals and paedophiles are made as children by male and female adults manipulating them into addiction to same gender sex, to incestuous sex, to adult-child sex.

  Clearly you haven't had too many friends that are exclusively, or mostly, sexually attracted to the same sex.  Because if you did, you would know that the majority of them have known of their attraction to the same sex since they were little. It may not have been yet sexualized, but the pull and underlying attraction was still there. 

  Just as i knew since a very young lad, that i really liked girls in a different way than boys, and even at 4/5 was very curious about what was under those skirts, as i knew on some level without seeing, it was different.

   Your words about homosexuality are just typical right wing, conservative, ignorant homophobic b.s.  You might as well come out and call it a psychological or spiritual sickness or the like.  Oh wait, you have in the past. 

  There are different underlying reasons for why some people come in that way.  Often and usually, it's because they are coming in direct from having an experience in the opposite gender or they have had the majority of their lives in the opposite gender of what they are now.  There is a strong subconscious memory and pull of being attracted to what formerly was their opposite gender and now is the same.  And naturally, they are still attracted to that gender, because our subconscious, our Soul mind, is often more powerful and affecting than our conscious mind and personality.

  For some, it's because their Souls wanted to experience some intense challenge to grow more, and so they chose to be born into bodies with those tendencies. Should you be so brave and mature to go through same for Soul growth.

  For others, they have karma, for having put down, persecuted, and/or belittled those same types of people, and eventually have realized the need to experience what it's like, to fulfill their spiritual debt and to gain greater compassion and empathy. 

   But rarely, in non pedophile situations, has it been caused by molestation or some parental warping. I know this, from having been close with and talking to people who were born like this--the huge majority of them say they knew they were different from a young age, with no outside cause or trauma, and the only trauma came later and was from not being accepted or considered as equally worthy/valuable because of their difference. 

  Attitudes and misinterpretations such as yours have contributed to their suffering.

  Now i'm beginning to see why you so often rage about "do gooders" and "liberals", because they have and do see through your poisonous, lacking in Love beliefs and ways.  They reject your lies and distortions, and you deeply resent and even hate them for it.

You so often call them hypocrites, because your projecting your own hypocrisy on them. 

  A Pharisaic hypocrite who pays lip service to the importance of Love, the Love of Jesus and God, the power of forgiveness, but inwardly knows little about any of these. 

  Speak about so called out of body experiences, but do not speak about the Love of God and Jesus, until you actually live it.

 

   

You need to re-read what you quoted of me. I said "many", not the "majority". And there are many, too many, little boys who are groomed, manipulated, aroused, masturbated, indoctrinated and brought up into a confusing condition that they would not otherwise have developed into and then need help to sort themselves out. These are those to which I referred.

Personally, I am indifferent to homosexuality. What others do, does not bother me. But indifference is considered homophobic by leftists.

Most conservatives/libertarians are indifferent to it too. That is what conservatism is, the belief in freedom to do whatever you like, providing it doesn't harm others or restrict other's freedom. Most conservatives just want to be left alone to live their lives without leftists constantly telling them what they are not allowed to do, say and think, then being labelled haters, racists, sexists, homophobes etc for thinking or saying anything outside of leftist bounds. 

Leftists are just self-righteous authoritarians. They want to restrict others and change society. And worse, they want to level society. There is no human attitude more authoritarian than that. The worst of them seethe with hatred. Not fleeting thoughts or passing impulses to hurt or harm, but they have a constant chronic wish for the destruction and elimination from the planet those who are not like themselves or not compliant with their dictates on how people should be, or anyone who is not compatible with their fantasy of how they think the world should be.       

Your claim that I :

Quote:

...call it a psychological or spiritual sickness or the like.  Oh wait, you have in the past.

is not true. You have made that accusation of me twice before, and you have not cited it. Unlike you I do not delete posts, so you should be able to find it somewhere if it exists. 

I have said this though: Homosexuality should be allowed but it should not be encouraged i.e. by making it sacrosanct - beyond criticism.

That is only reasonable, to a reasonable person. Anything that can be thought of can be criticised, include heterosexuality, so I think homosexuality can be criticised too. Nothing should be above criticism; nothing should be sacrosanct.

And nothing should be banned that does not harm others.
    

Thank you.

For your presence.

Welcome.

Yes, the far left is nothing other than hypocritical.  They claim to celebrate diversity and yet they shout down any conservative who dares to speak at their college.  Diversity to them applies only to those with whom they agree.  Their mindset has gone so far down the rabbit hole that we have delusional situations like this:

http://eagnews.org/video-harvard-students-debate-whether-whites-should-kill-themselves-due-to-privilege/

Justin, you have already been suspended by Bruce for your injection of politics into your posts among other reasons.  Yet you continue.  Isn't there an Occupy demonstration somewhere that you can attend?  Or a 9/11 Truther event?  Maybe even a meetup group in Richmond you can try to join?  You obviously have an abundance of free time.

Just knock it off.  1796 has more wisdom in his fingernail clippings than in any of your narcissistic, self righteous posts.

R

Look, how difficult is it for people not to insult each other?  If you have a point to make, make it.  It isn't just Alan doing the insulting on this thread.

But it is so easy to respond to a post and give your opinion without saying someone is empty headed or a narcissist, etc. 

It really is.

Yes. Please return to a respectful way of arguing.

Agreed.Be nice.

Listen up "doctor."  You have been on the board long enough to recall not only the ridiculous, but obscene, allegations made about 9/11, including the charge that no plane crashed into the Pentagon.  That it was all a setup done by the Republicans to justify our intervention in Iraq.

It was claimed that the Pentagon was actually hit by a cruise missile fired from a submarine  (never mind that there are no waters in the vicinity in which a submarine could navigate).  And the passengers and crew booked on that flight?  Well, they were all intercepted by the CIA and kidnapped before they arrived at the airport.

Yes, this is delusional left wing thinking and clearly politically motivated.  It would be easy to ignore this nonsense except for this fact- one of the passengers killed that morning was a neighbor of ours who placed several frantic phone calls to her husband, telling him what was going on.  That's a matter of record.  He's a man of complete integrity.  He was devastated.  As were we.

We passed by the Pentagon each day to and from work.  We saw and heard the accounts of the first responders who dragged charred bodies from the building.  Pieces of the plane were plainly visible.

So.....let's bottom line this.  We have a board member who is accusing innocent people of committing mass murder.  No other way to spin this.  And you are upset by the use of the word narcissistic.  I suggest you save your disdain for the execrable behavior of the person who truly deserves your approbation.

In the 17+ years I've been on this board, there has never been anything so outrageous and obscene. That, to me, is far more egregious than anything I've said.

R

Doc:

Regarding Eckhart, I've watched a number of his videos and have is book the Power of Now and read most of it.

It is possible that he had the enlightenment experience he spoke of. Here's the rub with enlightenment like experiences. I first had an enlightenment experience back in 1980. Amongst other things I clearly understood that I am not just the body-based being I believed myself to be, I very clearly understood that I am the spirit being who is aware of my body-based existence (this happened while I was in the Army doing guard duty one night). Yet here I am years later, and I can't say that I've overcome all of my shortcomings and I am not beyond being wrong about spiritual matters.

It seems to me that Eckhart understands the value of not getting overly caught up in our minds and the importance of making the best of now rather than fight with it. Yet he shows that having such knowledge and an enlightenment like experience doesn't mean that one is beyond being wrong about spiritual matters. He stated that after he had his experience he read the teachings of Jiddu Krishnamurti, Ramana Maharshi, ACIM and attended some Buddhist meetings, and this helped him understand what he experienced.

This shows that his experience didn't enable him to develop perfect discrimination. For example, he wasn't able to see the shortcomings of Ramana’s teachings and ACIM. ACIM is really into this ego thing. It speaks of it so much that one is bound to believe that it actually exists as an insidious entity. This is how the course affected me when I got involved with it.

Eckhart presents himself as if he is enlightened.  Going by what I’ve seen, a lot of people take his word for it. For the American guru I mentioned on my earlier post, he advocated the Ajata Vada principle (so did Ramana).
This principle of Advaita Vedanta contends that not only is the world an illusion, it was never created. This is meant literally. I remember speaking to a fellow group member about this and I said it doesn’t seem true. This group member said, “if the Sage (guru) says it is so, then it is. Despite the fact that this group member’s own experience showed him that something had  in fact been created sufficiently enough so he could experience it, he chose to believe that nothing at all was ever created, not even an illusion, because this is what guru said. I’ve seen many people get limited and misled by the beliefs of their guru. Until they reach the point where they are able to thoroughly question the validity of their guru, they can’t question his false and misleading viewpoints.

If Eckhart had better discrimination I believe he wouldn’t present himself as he is enlightened, because he would understand that this would cause some people to believe that he is an infallible spiritual authority. They might be inclined to believe what he says in the below video, that God does not exist as a unique being who decided to create all that he created.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5AZgO-cK7HA

Another thing, going by what I’ve read, some people interpret what he says literally, and use their mind to believe that they are not their mind, they are only pure awareness.  I know of an American Guru who is a porn and sex addict. He says it is okay because he is not his body and mind, he is only awareness. His guru (a fairly well know elderly man from India) got in trouble for making sexual advances towards some of his students. 

This India guru said it didn’t matter that he did this because he is not his body and mind, he is only awareness. The sex-addict guru defended his guru with the same kind of rationalization. Both of these gurus also state that we don’t have free will.

If Eckhart had better discrimination, he would understand that many people are misled by this “You are not your mind” business (the title of one on the Chapters in “The Power of Now”). I believe it would be clearer to state something such as, “don’t allow your psychological conditioning to limit you, the awareness and mind aspects of your being are both parts of who you are.”




DocM wrote on Apr 17^th, 2016 at 10:02pm:

Albert, I do understand your example of the guru.  And I disagree with his statements.  Some, like Eckhart Tolle also speak of freeing onself from "mind" (his version of ego), but he then talks about finding the inner perceptual person, who does "think" but lives in the present, and takes immediate action when indicated.  So the idea is to rid oneself of neurotic overthinking, and live in the present moment, with clear perception and action borne not of ego related ruminations on the past or the future, but on the Now. And I do think it is paradoxical that a person can rid themselves of their ego and still be unique, for we feel that it is our ego that makes us who we are.  Yet we already are someone before our parents teach us to defend ourselves and put on our masks (egos) to protect us.  So who is that young infant interacting with the world, before the development of ego?  Why it is us, and we all have unique perceptions, reactions and tendencies.  So my understanding is that there is a primary us, apart from the ego or outer person.  And I don't think all Eastern religions have to deny this and be nihilistic.  What most of them do deny is the separation of us from everything else.  That is something we do while incarnate on earth, closely tied with the world of forms .  M

Roger,

Not sure why you put "doctor" in parenthesis, you can just call me Matthew.  I like my screen name, and don't use it for any reason other than it suits me and I started off with it.  If it was meant as a dig, I forgive you.

As to the 9/11 posts, I have not read them.  I still see no reason to use an insult, even if you find someone's theory disgusting.  Obviously, some conspiracy theories are outrageous.  Some posts on this board are outrageous.  Say so (or don't), but use the moderator system if you feel it is justified. 

There is no need to insult someone personally.  Whether a person has any personality flaws should not enter into a discussion as it demeans both the person and the person giving the insult.  I still contend that there is always another way in a forum discussion.

Once can say that someone's argument is ridiculous to me, or doesn't make sense, is simplistic, misses the point, etc. That is different.  I'm sure when I'm passionate about a topic I may cross the line sometimes too.  But it is not right, and I try to be mindful of it. 

"Doc"

Doc- If I accused you of being a mass murderer (i.e. you were behind the 9/11 attacks), that is not a mere insult.  It is repugnant and disgusting.  So if you responded by calling me a couple of choice adjectives, that would hardly be equivalent to the crime I accused you of.

R

  1796, i can only look back at the last 40 posts in your total posting history.  You have been here since December of 2013. Between these, this would make it very difficult to pinpoint your old post(s) which talked about this issue. 

  In any case, i don't need to, as what you recently said, if a person reads between the lines, says plenty about your position.   

  So doesn't the following,
Quote:

"Homosexuality should be allowed but it should not be encouraged i.e. by making it sacrosanct - beyond criticism.

   Very gracious of God's special messenger to allow homosexuality. 

  As far as encouraging it?  Why does it matter one way or the other?  First off, for the huge majority of people, it's a inborn thing that a person knows and feels since very little. Actually talk to some folks whom are gay, and you will learn this very quickly.   

2nd, there is absolutely nothing ethically, or morally wrong whatsoever, about adults of the same gender engaging in consensual sexual, romantic, and/or long term relationship interactions. 

   So it doesn't matter how many people do or don't do it, and it should be beyond criticism, and frankly, unless it affects you directly, it's no concern of yours at all.

Also, people that are gay, don't and really can't "convert" others to be gay.  The only time any kind of influence happens, is when an adult unethically molests a child, and people that are gay and who have not been molested themselves, do not go around molesting minors.   

   Where is the holistic logic or love in any thing you have said regarding this subject? 

Roger:

I can understand why you and other people get upset when people consider alternative explanations for the 911 events.

Perhaps if you considered the intentions of people who do, you wouldn't consider it necessary to loathe them so much.

A cruise missle into the Pentagon? I haven't researched that theory, but it does seem questionable. I won't come to a definite conclusion without researching the matter.

Some say airplanes didn't crash into the Twin Towers, rather holograms were used. I haven't researched this subject in depth, but going by the videos I watched, the multiple angles provided, and other information, it seems as if airplanes did crash into the Twin Towers.

One thing that makes it so I am willing to question, is the way in which three towers collapsed as if controlled explosins took place. I'm not an engineer and I don't know how the towers were designed, but it seems strange to me that fires on the upper levels of the towers could cause the collapses that took place.  Some engineers do not believe this possible. Plus there are other factors, such as thermite found at the site, and George W. Bush saying he saw a plane crash into a tower on TV, before such an event was aired.

I tend to be liberal minded, but not to a fanatical extent where I would do something such as believe everything somebody such as Bill Maher says.

People often think to extremes. Some people believe just about every conspiracy theory that is out there. Some people close their minds to just about anything that challenges the status quo. Perhaps there is a way that is closer to the middle.

This world has a long history of numerous people doing really negative things. This includes people that present themselves in a way that seems positive. If it is possible for there to be people in countries other than the United States who act without pure motives, then it is possible for there to be this kind of people within the United States. When I say this I even have members of the Democratic Party in mind.

Perhaps there are some people who understand that it is important to speak out about possible wrong doings. To vilify such people, will perhaps that sort of way leads to dictatorships where freedom of speech doesn't exist. It reminds me of when people would speak against President Bush during the early stages of the Iraq war. When the citizens of a country lose the freedom to speak up about possible unnecessary wars and other things, well then that country is in trouble.

If a President isn't able to handle being spoken of in a perhaps overly negative way (such as how the Republican Party speaks of Obama), then perhaps such a person shouldn't become President.



rondele wrote on Apr 18^th, 2016 at 3:13pm:

Doc- If I accused you of being a mass murderer (i.e. you were behind the 9/11 attacks), that is not a mere insult.  It is repugnant and disgusting.  So if you responded by calling me a couple of choice adjectives, that would hardly be equivalent to the crime I accused you of. R

  Rondele, again i invite you to actually debate the issue of 9/11 and the facts and evidence around same, in the Off Topic section. 

   This is not the place for it. You are the one going off topic with this. 

  And while i would be more than happy to debate you re: that issue, i have a condition.  No indirect or direct ad hominem attacks, but actual point by point discussion of the various accepted facts and evidence. Either you or i will bring up specific evidence and facts, and we have to logically explain these according to our viewpoints. If you support the official story according to the authorities, then all evidence and facts brought up, need to be specifically countered concisely and in a holistically logical, internally consistent way.   

  Last time, you did not do the latter at all, but solely engaged in the former. I will bump that thread up so that others can see for themselves. 

  Do we have a deal?  Or, are you only capable of engaging in ad hominem attacks such as now? 

 

 

Thank you.

For your presence.

Love

understands.

wrote on Apr 18^th, 2016 at 9:37am:

Thank you. For your presence. Welcome.

Thankyou seagull.

Thank you.

For your presence.

It is easy

to love.

Alan McDougall wrote on Apr 19^th, 2016 at 7:23am:

1796 wrote on Apr 19th, 2016 at 4:37am: wrote on Apr 18th, 2016 at 9:37am: Thank you. For your presence. Welcome. Thankyou seagull. What are you thanking him for he said the exact same thing some posts ago and it remains meaningless He is not present with us, but remote sitting at his computer keyboard. Maybe we should compensate for his lack of comprehension?. ::)

he he he, just letting you know the seagull is a woman Alan.

And a nice one too. She even puts up with me.

Thank you.

For your presence.

Love laughs -- at itself!

So funny!

wrote on Apr 19^th, 2016 at 6:52pm:

Thank you. For your presence. Love laughs -- at itself! So funny!

Greetings Seagull

   I just read all of this post and enjoyed it. I like the way you kept inserting positive comments reminding others as to why it was started in the first place.    :)

   First comment on what Justin wrote:
Quote:

One of the big, consistent human dilemmas, and why i so often speak on and stress the importance of balancing and merging these both within ourselves and within the larger society/culture.      The most expanded teachers, will be those that have a complete integration/merging of the Yin and Yang within themselves like Bob Monroe's "He/She".  And He/She definitely has a sense of self and it's own unique individuality.    I've had a couple of guidance dreams, which made the point of showing that we retain our individuality and self awareness, however much we expand.  One dream involved me meditating outside while looking at the Sun, and merging with the Sun.  The super expanding sensation was at first almost frightening and i thought i might lose my self/sense of self and i initially resisted the process.  But then i chose to let go and let it happen, and found out that i was still me after the process, but a much more expanded version of myself.

   I appreciate your posts more than anyone else on this conversation board, as they make a lot of sense to me. The above quote follows what I believe and have experienced in life while during this physical incarnation.

   I can easily relate to the He/She writings in Bob Monroe's books as I kind of have a physical head start on that. Besides being transgendered (feeling like a woman trapped in a man's body), I think I may have chimerism, which is having both male and female DNA. Currently I can't afford the test to confirm this. I try my best though to keep a Yin and Yang balance in acceptance of both my male and female side. Earlier in life I thought of this as a curse keeping me from being accepted as a normal person in society. The last several years I have decided to consider this as a gift giving me better insight of life from a wider understanding and perspective than those who have a male or female viewpoint only.

When you said
Quote:

One dream involved me meditating outside while looking at the Sun, and merging with the Sun.

it reminded me of my solar meditations where I would look in the direction of the sun. Then after a short while, my eyes would be protected by a dark disc blocking almost all of the bright light around the center of the Sun, allowing me to look directly at it without causing eye damage. Besides preventing eye damage, I eventually improved my eyesight from 20/30 vision to perfect vision. One time during the winter while staring at the Sun, I felt extra heat emanating towards me and it actually melted snow on a lawn table in front of me causing it to drip water onto the ground.

As for what Rondele / Roger wrote, I like to stay out of politics. I know you have your mind made up about what occurred on 9/11/2001, but I implore you to further research. What DocM / Matthew wrote is the truth. He probably did a lot of research about what happened that day (as have I since day one) and doesn't rely on what propaganda news is spinning for the masses to accept. For one thing, cell phones were physically incapable of working on those planes at altitude on that date, therefore your neighbor couldn't have possibly made a call. Also, I have studied pictures showing the Pentagon as having a tiny hole in the building at the precise location that housed the records of the missing 2 trillion dollars that a day or so before Donald Rumsfeld told a congressional committee were missing due to  computer glitch (how convenient) and all of the important personnel just happened to be at the other end of the Pentagon that day (how lucky for them). I know many things about that day but just mentioned a few relevant FACTS to give you food for thought. Here is a quick link among many that you could find through proper research and I'll leave it at that: http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/killtown/penta_lawn.htm

I have many other things to say for this thread but I'm already getting too long winded. Thank you seagull for starting this post, even though everything in it but what you wrote is totally unrelated.    :)

Ralph

  Thank you Ralph. 

   Judging by his consistent behavior and types of posts here, i don't think Roger is particularly interested in facts, much like most of the folks that are on, or that watch, Fox news, aren't interested in facts and evidence.  They do like engaging in personal attacks of others though, because it brings a temporary rush/high based on the illusionary belief that they had some power over/on others.

  It's what Tom Campbell might call, seeking the lowering of entropy through negative/limited means. 

   

   

This is a good example of how your hatred of anyone with political views other than your own distorts your judgment, not to mention your comprehension.

The frantic cell phone calls I referenced were from our neighbor to her husband, before the plane hit the Pentagon.  The route was from Reagan airport in VA to the Pentagon, a short distance in the state of Virginia.  But you say it's impossible because cell phones were unusable after the other two planes hit the WTC.

Listen carefully....Virginia is approximately 200 miles from NYC.
Cell phones worked here.  Can you grasp that?  And I'm supposed to engage in a discussion about your "facts" that show the whole thing was an inside job?  And if a missile hit the Pentagon, tell me what happened to the passengers booked on that flight?  Where are they?  And how were they all intercepted before getting to the airport?  Large blue  birds flew them away?

The two of you should get a one way ticket on that vehicle that goes to the center of the earth.  Enjoy the view.

R

Thank you.

For your presence.

Love lets go.


(I will now close this thread. If others wish to continue it that is their choice.

This forum has become a place of constant arguments and personal attacks at this time. I will take a break from reading any posts for as long as I please. Goodbye, all.)

  True PUL type Love endures. 

  This Love stands in the storms and spreads centeredness, positivity, and logic.  It speaks to higher ideals and walks the walk in the face of adversity and challenge.

  PUL type Love stands up to those bullying or purposely trying to mislead others. 

  PUL type Love accepts people as they are, warts, shadow and all and doesn't seek to cut off all interaction/communication because the young ones are behaving badly, as younger ones are apt/prone to do (unless the situation is really extreme).    

  PUL type Love, and real helper types, try to get through to people, even when it doesn't seem like people can be reached. 

   PUL type Love finds the humor even in the ugly situations.   

   Yin retreats or indirectly attacks/provokes.  Yang directly fights/attacks.  Somewhere in the middle, in the blend, the extremes meet and one neither fully retreats nor truly attacks, but a balanced expression/interaction happens.

  Love is so much more than the huge majority of humans think it is.  And above all, among humans, the completeness, the balance, the perfection of Love can be found so far, only in one example, one name, one life.  And if that life is examined objectively, one will see all the above examples of PUL type Love expressed.


 

rondele wrote on Apr 20^th, 2016 at 8:03am:

This is a good example of how your hatred of anyone with political views other than your own distorts your judgment, not to mention your comprehension. The frantic cell phone calls I referenced were from our neighbor to her husband, before the plane hit the Pentagon.  The route was from Reagan airport in VA to the Pentagon, a short distance in the state of Virginia.  But you say it's impossible because cell phones were unusable after the other two planes hit the WTC. Listen carefully....Virginia is approximately 200 miles from NYC. Cell phones worked here.  Can you grasp that?  And I'm supposed to engage in a discussion about your "facts" that show the whole thing was an inside job?  And if a missile hit the Pentagon, tell me what happened to the passengers booked on that flight?  Where are they?  And how were they all intercepted before getting to the airport?  Large blue  birds flew them away? The two of you should get a one way ticket on that vehicle that goes to the center of the earth.  Enjoy the view. R

Hey Rondele,

When you said
Quote:

This is a good example of how your hatred of anyone with political views other than your own distorts your judgment, not to mention your comprehension.

  I  never intended what I said to be interpreted as hatred. I hate no one and if you are referring to my comments about 9/11/2001, it is not a political view, but a scientific view. All I said was that cell phone calls could not have been made from the airplane, since the phone signal was incapable of reaching the ground. That has nothing to do with the ground distance, as cell towers along the ground can repeat a call all across the world.
Here is an article on the internet that explains what I was referring to:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/phone-calls-from-the-9-11-airliners/16924


Quote:

Posted by: Justin      Posted on: Apr 18th, 2016 at 3:23pm   Rondele, again i invite you to actually debate the issue of 9/11 and the facts and evidence around same, in the Off Topic section.     This is not the place for it. You are the one going off topic with this.

   I totally agree with Justin that this should be discussed in the Off Topic section. My reply that I'm now making will be the last one on this post. I didn't want to mention 9/11/2001 anymore, but after you said that I have hatred, which I don't, I felt I needed to defend myself.

Ralph

wrote on Apr 18^th, 2016 at 5:07pm:

1796, i can only look back at the last 40 posts in your total posting history.  You have been here since December of 2013. Between these, this would make it very difficult to pinpoint your old post(s) which talked about this issue.    In any case, i don't need to, as what you recently said, if a person reads between the lines, says plenty about your position.      So doesn't the following, Quote: "Homosexuality should be allowed but it should not be encouraged i.e. by making it sacrosanct - beyond criticism.    Very gracious of God's special messenger to allow homosexuality.    As far as encouraging it?  Why does it matter one way or the other?  First off, for the huge majority of people, it's a inborn thing that a person knows and feels since very little. Actually talk to some folks whom are gay, and you will learn this very quickly.    2nd, there is absolutely nothing ethically, or morally wrong whatsoever, about adults of the same gender engaging in consensual sexual, romantic, and/or long term relationship interactions.     So it doesn't matter how many people do or don't do it, and it should be beyond criticism, and frankly, unless it affects you directly, it's no concern of yours at all. Also, people that are gay, don't and really can't "convert" others to be gay.  The only time any kind of influence happens, is when an adult unethically molests a child, and people that are gay and who have not been molested themselves, do not go around molesting minors.       Where is the holistic logic or love in any thing you have said regarding this subject?

You can google like anyone else and find old posts. Someone with a 157 IQ could do that easily. So find what you accuse me of writing.

  As mentioned earlier, no need to, because what you directly said and implied recently, says enough about your stance and it's distorted nature on this topic. 

  When someone says that many people that are homosexually oriented, are that way because of molestation, parental and/or societal warping, they obviously do not perceive clearly about the matter whatsoever. 

    When people say things such as, homosexually should be "allowed", but not be beyond "criticism", they clearly are speaking from those same limited/distorted and ultimately harmful belief systems.

   I do not need to look for your past comments on this issue, because your recent ones say volumes for those that can read in between the lines. 

   Some advice.  Don't identify so much with certain groups and labels like right wing/conservative. This over identification and over focus has led you astray in various ways.

  Two, spend more time in direct prayer/meditation and communion with Yeshua and the God that is best described by humans as pure, unconditional, universal Love. 

  The more you attune to these, and the more you live and choose Love, the more your perceptions will clarify, expand, and become more accurate and helpful in nature.

  Partaking in these constant personal ad hominem attacks will get you no where fast spiritually speaking and has a distorting, limiting effect on perceptual capacity and tendency. 

 

   

I am a swinging voter. I have voted left at least as often as I have voted right.

I am and have been a member of several leftist/socialist associations, including a leftist think-tank, and I am and have been a member of several conservative associations too.

A democracy is steered in a straight line in a similar manner to how a motor vehicle is steered in a straight line, with continuous slight left-right movements of the steering wheel. Too much or too sustained turning of the steering wheel to either left or right will result in the vehicle or the democracy running off the road. Good steerage of a motor vehicle or a democracy is a process of continual corrections to left and right as required, with care not to over-steer or over-correct.

Along with being steered by two opposing forces, a democracy is also driven by those two opposing forces. They are like the opposing strokes of the piston in a two stroke engine. 

I find the harmonious conflict between the two attitudes and their forces to be wonderful and fascinating. They are of the same vehicle, both required to drive it forward, and both required to steer it straight.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LuCUmQ9FxMU