02-07-2009, 11:27 PM
(02-07-2009, 12:25 PM)Richard Wrote: From Quo: see above for full quote "....The concept of ascension is a concept that we have found largely within your cultures’ Christian belief systems. .......when the remainder of the population of the Earth will be destroyed by the end of the world or some other version of the apocalypse, whether the cause of it be man or spirit.
It is not our understanding that this concept is a helpful one spiritually. It is not our opinion that this is the way things work in any physical sense. In our opinion the processes of ascension or harvest are subsumed within the process of moving through the physical death and entrance into larger life, as this instrument would put it.....
I said: ....Beginning from the start premise-point that faith and theory are closely linked, what then is in it for one to argue for one unknown position verses another unknown position (like arguing over fake diamonds as suggested in my previous post "Strictly Law of One/About Social Values post #33") if in fact neither are known? Remember always, the LOO states: we are meant not to know in 3D. Perhaps as much, or more is revealed of the individual holding one position vs another, than in the truth about what may not be known, i.e. in this case arguing for death verses life. It may be further argued that at least in the Christian context of The Rapture, one is nonetheless arguing for a sustained life (albeit a favored life) position in any event, whereas in the Ra/loO argument of a 'Spontaneous event', one is calling for the total physical death and annihilation of the physical vehicle? One must for oneself, and rightly so rather quickly, given that neither may be known, ask what this might at least suggest about one's inner deeper psychology? More to the point yet, and if one spends a vast amount of time, and even years, arguing this position as a student, or self-appointed speaker for this position, and finding a plethora of reasons in vagaries for this position, might it not equally suggest that one isn't very happy with his present lot, and that there may indeed be a hoped for payoff in getting out of this present 3D predicament one in fact signed up for to begin with?
...What may be in it for anyone to argue for death, except of course a better life? Forgive the pun. But if one is in love with oneself in the abstract and positive sense, then I dare say one is in love with everyone else as a consequence, and as such is in love with life as well. As proof to this simple thought experiment I would offer that there is not a soul on this plane who would not fight for the life for someone they dearly loved, including his own. Nor would he wish for that someone to give up their life for any reason (including getting to heaven or 4D), as "Heaven Can Wait" (as much as can 4D). We know we know this. No? Then what is in it for the one wishing and arguing to get out sooner, rather than later? He wouldn't wish it for his dog, much less his child, much less his brother, much less his lover. Then why wish it as a theory or faith for himself, much less the Planet and all of life on it?
[/quote]
(02-07-2009, 12:25 PM)Richard Wrote: Quantum
Good points. Perhaps the leaning towards one point of view or the other is a reflection of ones view of life at this given time. ....the Creator is with you as you are with the Creator, live with love in your heart, share that love with those around you, live in the moment and do not fear.
In the end, as you say…its all theory or faith. I guess we’ll all solve the mysteries of the universe when our time comes. But lets not wish that upon our selves too soon. I still have things to experience and share with the Creator.
I’m not finished yet.
Richard
Well said Richard. I am reminded of the GAELIC Blessing: "May the good Lord take a liken to ye, But not too much, and not too soon!"
I will close with a scene I am further reminded of from a great American novel by the late Joseph Heller called "Catch 22." The main protagonist in the story is Yossarian who is lying in bed with Nurse Nurse (she is a nurse with the last name of Nurse). Both are devout atheists. Here is the beautiful inside-out mind of Heller: he has both in bed having an argument about the God each does not believe in. Nurse Nurse, who does not belive in God, does not believe in a God who is benevolent, kind, and merciful, whereas Yossarian, who equally does not believe in God does not believe in a God who is malevolent, wrathful, and unforgiving. Even in either's non-belief, both reveal a great deal about their psychology, just as much as do those professing a greater belief in the LOO, but with one holding the position of life over death. Surely it reveals much about either's inner psychology.
To life,
Q