"The earth certainly will not end but transform"

Sorry, I have to disagree here.  The spiritual plane will have to adjust to the loss of the earth.  Our sun is about 5 billion years old and has a lifespan of about 10 billion years.  As our sun gets towards the end of its lifespan it will start to fuse progressively heavier atoms when it runs out of hydrogen to fuse.  This will increase the size to giant proportions - it will actually called a red giant.  It will swallow up Mercury and Venus with its added volume, but not extend out to the Earth.  The earth will become so hot that no H2O will exist in its liquid or solid forms, making life impossible.  Eventually the sun will go nova, most likely obliterating the earth as well.  Even if a remnant of the Earth is left, life will have long since vanished, and will be impossible as well, since there is no sun to sustain it.

Sorry, probably too much information, I know.

Quote:


Your argument is based on a projection of present reality and our current understanding of physics and cosmology. It doesn't and cannot account for intervention by Ascended Masters. The future IS changable, so we don't really know. Anything we say is projection and speculation.

Rob

Quote:


Aha! I suspected that damn dino all along - never trusted him one bit!

pratekya wrote:
>>>I think the earth's eventual destruction would be an easier thing for you to accept and deal with than a typical materialist<<<
I never understood the logic of materialists (no afterlife) when they care for the future of the earth for millions of years ahead while they're surely going to die in a few years.
Sppoky

"I'm not sure why I'm being characterized as Dr. Spock, or told that I'm treating you as if you are a child."

Purple Dinosaurs, a superior overeliance on logic as though I am too simple to understand it, and your judgement that I 'seem' to understand spiritual things and how the Earth's destruction will be easier for me to deal with, as though you know me, my spirituality, and how I will 'deal' with something that is far into the future. It comes accross as arrogant.

"I was just addressing the idea that "the earth will certainly not end but transform".  I suppose it was because I disagreed with you?  Or because I used reason to back up my argument?"

You argued points against me that were not even mine. Once again, you failed to read my post carefully. I never said that the Earth and the Sun will not be destroyed. As for your reasoning, you fail to understand that reason is far from being the only means of discernment. There are better tools for that. But this is the only one you seem to have. And  that bit about 'a big purple dinosaur will eat the sun tomorrow, while screaming that he loves kids.' is condensending. We are not children and we don't need an evil Barney story to understand something.  I see you fail to put any personal info in your profile. Like your age.

"Are you assuming because I think logically that I'm not interested in spiritual matters?"

I am assuming you are using logic because that is all you seem to have to use. Perhaps you haven't studied logic enough to recognize it's limits, especially when it comes to subjective spiritual matters. To expect *evidence* to show that the ascended masters have stopped the life cycle of a star before is ridiculous.

"For the record, I have Bruce's workbook, his first volume I have read, his second is on order from Amazon, and I just got a used mp3 player / mic thing that will help me to work with Bruce's workbook.  Yes you probably have read more of Bruce's stuff than I, and definitely know a term that I do know nothing about." 

You need more than logic and book learning. If that's all you have, fine. I can understand that. But please don't come accross as condesending.

"After your condescending responses, I'm not going to take the bait; I'm no longer interested in hearing about ascended masters, or much of what you have to say honestly." 

My response to you was reflective.

"Try practicing the love you profess more if you want your message to get through; I'm having a hard time seeing it through the condescention."

As opposed to what? Your logic, which excludes love completely? Your condensceding purple dinasour remark? Your telling me about my spirituality and what it means? Where's YOUR love? I'm not going to give you the touchy-feely love you think you should get when you are coming accross as arrogant. I haven't rejected you as a person, nor will I. But I reject your attitude and your apparent arrogance. If you want feel-good love, try extending it first.

"How is explaining what is going to physically happen to the earth shooting my mouth off?  I actually think my comments added something constructive to the situation.  Seriously, its suprising to me to meet someone who thinks he's so spiritually superior to me when A. He doesn't know me, and B. he writes with such condescention after someone writes something that challenges his beliefs."

Just what beliefs of mine did you challenge? You had to fallaciously (and illogically) argue positions with me that I didn't state as mine. For someone who professes logic and reasoning and should understand fallacies, that is dishonest. I don't think you are a dishonest person. People who rely on logic usually aren't. But do please try to be more careful if you are going to profess reasoning.

I have not suggested that I am spiritually superior to you in my posts. In fact, I aknowledged that there are others on this board who have more experience than I do. This is another Straw Man fallacy.

Don't be condensending and I guarantee I won't give it back. We don't need evil Barney stories to understand things. Telling me the 'good news' about my spirituality, as though you know my spirituality, comparing me to a 'typical' materialist, is not cool. Furthermore, we all know that we only have a certain amount of time in our physical bodies and the important thing is what we do with the opportunity, ect. This is why it appeared that you didn't read what Bruce has put here, not read up on the posts of the members of this board and what we know, and so here you come accross as shooting your mouth off as though we all need to know the obvious. As though you are the master logician and teacher and we poor sobs need to be shown the obvious with purple dinosaur imagery and lessons in reasoning.

It's not what you are trying to argue so much as how you do it. No one likes to be talked down to.

Love doesn't require anyone to put up with abuse. If you don't want condensention thrown back at you - don't condensend.

with Love,
Rob

Saying you seem to be into spiritual matters was a compliment and meant as nothing more than a positive affirmation.  Its hard to see that you can come to see me arrogant for attempting an observation of where you seemed to be coming from, especially when it was done with positive intentions.  Seriously, its crazy how something like this can be seen as an insult.  I added the word seem because its correct to do so - you are right in saying I dont know you.  That was my point!  However you argue against me for using that word in two ways, and you can't have your cake in eat it too.  You say I was arrogant for assuming too much about you (which I wasn't doing).  Then you are insulted that by using the word seem I'm insinuating that you don't experience / know much about spirituality.  Well f*ck, can you look for any more ways you can misinterpret what I've said in silly ways that make you the victim?  Maybe you can do it again with the same word twice, with two different meanings, like you have done with my comment that was meant to be a positive affirmation / observation.  Later you also take the point of the materialist.  So in your latest post you take every position possible to portray yourself as the righteous victim, stung by the many arrows of an offhand compliment / starting point for discussion.  I guess I never should have suggested you seem like you are interested in spiritual things.  From your point of view in your attacks that was too much of an assumption / not enough of an assumption / plus you take the opposite view at the same time to be once more, the victim.

Assuming you are interested in spiritual matters (lets just leave aside all that loaded material for a moment and assume that you are and take that to mean the simplest thing possible), my point was exactly what Sasuke mentioned - the physical earth will be destroyed / uninhabitable, and so the answer to the problem of humanity's survival will not lie with a physical Earth.  Is this too insulting to make this point?  Does reading this make you feel like a child?  If you feel threatened by this interpretation, maybe its still worth examining.  I know, you have minced your words and have gone from

(1) "Your argument is based on a projection of present reality and our current understanding of physics and cosmology. It doesn't and cannot account for intervention by Ascended Masters. The future IS changable, so we don't really know. Anything we say is projection and speculation. "

which leads open the question whether or not the earth will be physically saved.  This really could be taken as just about anything at this point - saving the earth physically, or having some spiritual solution to the oncoming destruction of the earth.  You later go on to argue -

(2) "I never said that the Earth and the Sun will not be destroyed"

Ok well your argument (1) above was definitely nebulous, especially coming as a response to a description of the oncoming destruction of the earth.  It is easy to see how someone could interpret your first response, quoted after someone is talking about the physical destruction of the earth, as a juxtoposition to what might happen physically.   Then because of this doublespeak of what you wrote earlier versus what you are claiming you didn't say, now you are arguing I didnt read your post carefully.  I did read your post carefully and its logical to come to the conclusions I did - that ascended masters will save the earth somehow, whether that be spiritually, or physically, whatever that may mean.

Superior overreliance on logic?  I was describing what happens to a star as it moves through its life cycle.  Why would you insist I'm arrogant for such a thing?

Lets look at a couple of your quotes for handy reference.

(3)" Who are 'these ascended masters'? Go meet a couple of them and you will know. In case you missed the obvious, there is one I met pictured to the left. Perhaps it would help you to be more like Her and less like Mr. Spock."

Err, you also conclude a post with 'with Love'.  How is (3) loving?

(4) I see you fail to put any personal info in your profile. Like your age."

What does this have to do with anything?  I'm 30.  Does that make my argument stronger or weaker?  The point possibly you are trying to make is that I'm being childish?  Not sure here; irrelevant at best.

(5) "My response to you was reflective. "
Reflective by calling me arrogant, suggesting I'm attacking you on points I'm not (and that are incoherent anyways as they are exclusionary options), mentioning my age, saying I don't know the limits of logic, saying I dont read your posts carefully, telling me to behave less like Spock... how have you been loving and reflective again?

(6)"To expect *evidence* to show that the ascended masters have stopped the life cycle of a star before is ridiculous."

Or evidence / reasoning that they could do this?  Or that they would do the equivalent spiritually?  Or any sort of argument at all other than your statement on a website?  If you cannot offer anything, then yes I would argue this quote here (7) is the equivalent of saying Barney will eat the sun tomorrow.

(7) "Your argument is based on a projection of present reality and our current understanding of physics and cosmology. It doesn't and cannot account for intervention by Ascended Masters. The future IS changable, so we don't really know. Anything we say is projection and speculation. "

Lastly, you claim the victim's perspective with my Barney illustration.  The point is not that the reader is a child, the point is that its silly to believe in something that has absolutely no reasoning or evidence for it; that the much for likely outcome is one that has past experience / evidence / coherent reasoning that correlates with experience to back it up.  This is where you have misinterpreted me again.  Read my quote again in full and then explain to me how you feel like you are the child in the scenario, and I will try to understand.  Any way you approach it, in the end, you are twisting an incoherent interpretation out of a passage to earn yourself victim status and to attack me as arrogant.

I would say that yes we cannot deductively prove what will happen in the sense of a geometry proof.  Who knows, maybe a big purple dinosaur will eat the sun tomorrow, while screaming that he loves kids.  However, we can make an inductive case that the sun will very very likely follow the steps that happen to other stars in their life cycle.  I cannot prove that you will phsyically die - but from all of the other deaths of human beings so far I can say that it is extremely likely that you will eventually die and follow your natural age progression assuming you do not die early of some disease or accident.

In the end, I want to ask, who is being insulting and arrogant?  Who is the one professing to show more love and to be more spiritually developed / advanced / knowledgeable?  Who is being, therefore, more hypocritical?