• Thank you to Carol and Steve Bowman, the forum owners, for our new upgrade!

Riders on the Storm

I do some strange things, I just let words come to me to write down as I go along with my thoughts, and at other times I sit and ponder what to say. Today was a spilling-it-out day like some that I had later to go back and delete.

My strongest impression is that the energy that we call God and whose energy is within all of us directs us to make things better, the difference is Better for whom, God, Country, everyone, children, etc..

If we got close to making this planet "Perfect", where would younger souls reincarnated to? This question you asked is only one of the many that leads people to "authorities" for answers that selldom exist IMHO. This area is probably where the concept of Satan or Devil or demon or Black-majic get created, again only my opinion.

Take the Tibet comment I made earlier, was it better for the Buddhists to be overrun or England to be then defeated there by the Chinese military? I don't want to treat it lightly, but I see much of this like some vegetarians who feel as though they are saving animals by eating from the next lower level of the food-chain and their denial that something had to die for their survival.

Recall that nearly everyone has the conflicting thoughts about how long before our planet solves our problems for (and with) us by its God.
 
Hi Ken,

I have mentioned Simone Weil in a prior post. She was an eccentric, brilliant, highly respected, but short-lived philosopher that died in the early 40s. Her works in their "raw" form are mostly notebooks full of aphorisms and short thoughts, which are (I suppose) the philosophical equivalent of the types of equations that serve a similar purpose in the papers of physicists. Hence, like the latter I require someone who is skilled at bringing things down to the level of the layman in order to get any grasp at all on her thought. (She was also a very gifted mathematician, though not as good as her older brother--which bothered her. So, IMO that may also have influenced the way she expressed herself.)

In any case, late in her short life (despite a secularized Jewish background) she began having Christian mystical experiences. She also became very enamored of the Cathars and their beliefs, and helps to explain them to me. From her perspective, with me clumsily paraphrasing, the All-Good One had to create an area or zone outside of itself in order for there to be a place of free-will separate from itself. Thus, the act of creation of creatures having free-will involved by necessity the creation of a place for them of relative evil compared to the Transcendent Goodness of God in order to allow freedom to these beings it would create to be/choose other than God's total perfection/goodness. Otherwise, they would only and always choose as God chose without freedom to diverge. Consequently, existence outside of God is in some sense permeated by evil and/or otherwise inferior to and evil compared to the Divine (as the Cathars insist). God has intervened in this existence ("under the Sun" as Solomon would have put it) in various ways, including most notably in the Incarnation, but I think I'm getting past the point I intended to make.

Hmmm. I'm losing my train of thought, but I think that I was going to say that the very nature of this place as a place apart from God's total and overwhelming goodness means that it will always be less than perfect. If it was totally perfect and completely at one with God, there would be very little or no scope for free will to operate. So, unless or until it is totally permeated and subsumed by God (which seems to be a distinct possibility in Christian doctrine) there will be plenty of scope for mistakes, experimentation, and adverse (painful) consequences as well as outright evil. This means that we'll always have a chance to do some good here, but that there will always be a chance to do evil as well (or at least until God pulls down the curtain). At least, as I see it.

Cordially,
S&S

PS--Interestingly, Weil's view of things fits together very well with the accounts of Newton of the heavenly life between lives (on the higher planes). In that location, which is somehow closer to "the Source" and is permeated with the radiance of divine love from the Source, everyone reports loving each other and acting out of love as near as they can manage. They are all like little magnets placed in a strong magnetic field and all pointing unerringly towards and acting in accordance with the Source of Divine Love. However, as soon as they return to this domain or level of existence where they are no longer under that influence they become (once again) merely fallible humans capable of wrong decisions, etc. A lot more could be said on these subjects--but out of time at the moment. ;)
 
PPS--Actually, as I think about it further, the goal seems to be able to be the same way here as we are there . . . . to be able to do what is so easy there---here . . . where we are no longer under the glorious radiant influence of the Source. Here where it is hard and maybe even impossible. To walk the walk of heaven while we are here on earth. No wonder it takes us so long to get it right.
 
SeaAndSky said:
Hi Tanker,

I know what you mean about alternate translations. They seem to try to out-do each other in terms of the exclamation of meaninglessness in verse 1:2. Here is a brief sampling:

New International Version
"Meaningless! Meaningless!" says the Teacher. "Utterly meaningless! Everything is meaningless."
New Living Translation
“Everything is meaningless,” says the Teacher, “completely meaningless!”
English Standard Version
Vanity of vanities, says the Preacher, vanity of vanities! All is vanity.
Berean Study Bible
“Futility of futilities,” says the Teacher, “futility of futilities! Everything is futile!”
New American Standard Bible
"Vanity of vanities," says the Preacher, "Vanity of vanities! All is vanity."
New King James Version
“Vanity of vanities,” says the Preacher; “Vanity of vanities, all is vanity.”
King James Bible
Vanity of vanities, saith the Preacher, vanity of vanities; all is vanity.
Christian Standard Bible
"Absolute futility," says the Teacher. "Absolute futility. Everything is futile."
Contemporary English Version
Nothing makes sense! Everything is nonsense. I have seen it all--nothing makes sense!
Good News Translation
It is useless, useless, said the Philosopher. Life is useless, all useless.
Holman Christian Standard Bible
Absolute futility," says the Teacher." Absolute futility. Everything is futile."
International Standard Version
"Utterly pointless," says the Teacher. "Absolutely pointless; everything is pointless."
NET Bible
"Futile! Futile!" laments the Teacher, "Absolutely futile! Everything is futile!"
New Heart English Bible
"Vanity of vanities," says the Preacher; "Vanity of vanities, all is vanity."

WOW! I get the point already! I particularly like the NIV version: "Utterly pointless," says the teacher, etc. Also, the Contemporary English Version: Nothing makes sense! Everything is nonsense. I have seen it all--nothing makes sense! Ouch. :confused:

Cordially,
S&S
Click to expand...

Not one soul should ever depend on a mere book (bible) for freedom to love, freedom to think for themselves and grow. I read a bible cover to cover ONCE. Put it down and never went back really.

It served its illogical purpose for me in this lifetime. haha. I respect those who need to "feel" something in their hands though, in order to grow.

I hope this does not upset anyone. I was merely trying to "chime" in. There are a gazillion different versions of the bible it seems. One for every day, season year...
 
One more thing. We are all energy. Energy can not be destroyed either. We all have come from the same source of what others call an almighty God or whatever, that is not a person, but pure and the most unconditional LOVE.
That is my belief anyway. :)
 
Hi Morgan,

Reading a Bible once from cover to cover is a good start, but maybe not a good end--IMO. It is a gift that keeps on giving, though it can also be a struggle. We all of us search for wisdom where we can find it, if we're searching at all. You may want to try it out again sometime.

Cordially,
S&S

PS--The gazillion different versions are actually a gazillion different translations, which confuses everything. Then, there is also the problem that I mentioned above, that presuppositions--especially theological presuppositions--definitely influence translations.

PPS--Whether the infinite is personal or impersonal remains a point of confusion. It may be easiest to just say "both" and "neither" as we are incapable of ever completely comprehending or categorizing the one who is beyond our comprehension. I lean towards and emphasize the personal because I find that God "relates" to me--and I am a person--and does so in a personal way. At least as I (and to the extent that I) experience God. However, God also relates or interacts with me in other ways and modes that are more difficult to classify. So, perhaps also impersonal as well, maybe . . . ?
 
Last edited:
Each to his or her own, I suppose. I did once hear someone suggest that I might have been a minister of a Christian church in a past life. I've no idea whether or not that might be true. What I can say though is that in a past life I tangled with what I saw as corruption and hypocrisy within such organisations. At any rate, this time I started out in a Christian education and rejected it at a deep level almost immediately. I'm very certain that scriptural-based ideas are not for me this time around, perhaps never again. One can certainly have one's fill.
 
I've been through the positions of Morgan and Soulfriendly at different times in my life this time around the life-cycle.

Since we have only the writings that the Church allows us to see, and what is reprinted, has been edited and "updated" and translated and force-fitted together that the message from Jesus fades in some respects. On the other hand, there are people claiming that there are codes in the bible, that if you look on page xx and link every y'th word/ character, you get message z.

The book has far more changes each year than most people realize. It takes a bit of searching, but I've done that several times and found the meaning of the changed passage to be different to me, so, which meaning was correct?

To quit that confusion, I went "All In" to listening to my Guide, whoever he/it is.
 
Thinking about this a little bit, I can see, or it seems that I was led to the Book of Andrew where I recognized the spirit of Jesus.

Quite a strange thing for a straight, white, male living in the mid-western bible-belt in the USA.
 
Hi Ken,

I read the summary of Book of Andrew, but the whole thing made me a bit suspicious. There were a lot of different books in the first few centuries reputed to have been by different apostles, etc. that were largely rejected by the Church during those periods and are currently batting around on the internet somewhere. (BTW--They are still rejected by most scholars today). According to the Wikipedia article on the general subject of Pseudeigrapha (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudepigrapha) some of the Pauline corpus is also suspect as being in this category. (I knew about the Pastorals being questionable, but some of the others that scholars have questioned surprised me a bit).

Anyhow, since time immemorial, certain authors have attempted to pass off their work as something done by someone more authoritative in order to get people to pay more attention to it. As noted above, there are quite a few such books that were circulating during the first 5 centuries of so. The things that tend to characterize them is that they are attributed to a well-known Biblical character (often an apostle) and press certain viewpoints contrary to the general Biblical witness and especially the witness of other New Testament authors. I.e., they tend to be characterized by a particular agenda that includes promoting certain atypical and/or less emphasized doctrine(s) and teaching(s).

In light of this particular tendency, I have to be suspicious of a book supposedly by an apostle pressing the idea of a gay love affair between two of the apostles that was blessed by Jesus. Hmmm. :cool: Well, maybe. But it does seem to be very targeted towards current events and issues of the day and to press a rather specific and (to my mind anyhow) suspicious agenda. It's appearance just seems a bit too "apt" given current debates on these issues. This doesn't mean that the issue in question isn't very current, interesting and up for debate in many quarters. I just question the appearance of something of this type at this point in time.

Likewise, I am also innately suspicious of people who claim famous past lives. This is especially, especially true of someone who claims to have been a famous Biblical figure. As is often observed, even famous people reincarnate. However, I am not certain this is necessary or likely for someone like the Apostle Andrew, especially after a couple of thousand additional years. Plus, though I can swallow the fact that some of these reappearances may be a bit underwhelming in comparison to the original famous persona (karma maybe?) I tend to be underwhelmed to the point of indignation by some ordinary schnook who claims to be Jesus, Mary or one of the apostles reborn.

Yeah. Right . . . . ;)

Cordially,
S&S

PS--Another example of this problem are counterfeit paintings by people who try to pass off their own work as something by one of the greats--at a very great price!!

PPS--BTW--I'm not even accusing the author of faking it. He may be in good faith. However, not everything that comes out of a regression or contact with the spirit world is necessarily trustworthy on that account.
 
SeaAndSky said:
Hi Ken,

****

PS--Interestingly, Weil's view of things fits together very well with the accounts of Newton of the heavenly life between lives (on the higher planes). In that location, which is somehow closer to "the Source" and is permeated with the radiance of divine love from the Source, everyone reports loving each other and acting out of love as near as they can manage. They are all like little magnets placed in a strong magnetic field and all pointing unerringly towards and acting in accordance with the Source of Divine Love. However, as soon as they return to this domain or level of existence where they are no longer under that influence they become (once again) merely fallible humans capable of wrong decisions, etc. A lot more could be said on these subjects--but out of time at the moment. ;)
Click to expand...

I am responding further on my prior post #36, especially the PS quoted above. So . . . . .

The answer to the dilemma described in my post and made most explicit in the quoted "PS" seemed obvious to me not too long after I wrote the post, but I just haven't had time to sit down and think/write about it (too many ongoing crises). Anyhow, the answer is simple: To do what "religion" in the general sense of the term is all about--bringing the Divine we left "up there" into our existence "down" here "under the Sun". Most especially, to bring the light of the Divine (or "the Source" if preferred) into ourselves. Thus, the omnipresent and permeating influence of the Divine "up there" is something that we must cultivate, bringing into ourselves the "inner light", the inner Christ, the Holy Spirit, the [fill in preferred labels], so that it may illuminate us not only within with that Love, but that it may manifest through us in the external, "under the Sun". Like . . . Duh!! Of course!!

I'd say more, but I have to go make lunch for some grandkids. :D

Cordially,
S&S
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top