Questions about the Soul

Discussion in 'Belief and Spirituality' started by Amergin, Jan 8, 2011.

  1. Thomas

    Thomas Administrator Admin

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2003
    Messages:
    11,537
    Likes Received:
    2,024
    I'm not so sure ...

    "Jesus saith to her: Woman, believe me, that the hour cometh, when you shall neither on this mountain, nor in Jerusalem, adore the Father ... God is a spirit; and they that adore him, must adore him in spirit and in truth."
    John 4:21,24.

    Such news speaks of much more than a reformation, but a new creation.

    Also, and this is the best time of year to do so, if one reads of the entry into Jerusalem, the cursing of the fig, the cleansing of the temple (the Court of the Gentiles) and the later discourses, then it becomes evident that Jesus was not a reformer, but actually inaugurated the end of the Age of the Temple, the end of Judaism as it was known.

    God bless,

    Thomas
     
  2. Nick the Pilot

    Nick the Pilot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2007
    Messages:
    3,833
    Likes Received:
    68
    Peaceand karma,

    I would take it one step further. I would say it is the very nature of organized religions to become ossified and overly dogmatic as the centuries go by. I think this is a very basic (and unfortunate) part of human nature. This is why we need new religions to appear periodically, to re-teach the original teachings that get lost as the centuries go by (and break up mistaken dogmas which have become so strongly entrenched in today's organized religions).

    Fortunately, new teachers do come by periodically and re-teach the original teachings. We must be willing to reject overly-dogmatic religions and recognize and embrace these new teachers who periodically come along and break the dogmatic stranglehold that ossified organized religions have placed upon the people.
     
  3. peaceandkarma

    peaceandkarma New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2011
    Messages:
    63
    Likes Received:
    0
    I can take all of the above. I've even seen this myself when I used to sit in a circle at a Spiritualist Church. The Circle leader was a little narrow minded and wasn't open to anything that didn't come out of their own mouth. That seems to be the problem in general, peoples egos tend to come into play and they want to start controlling everyone and everything. These people are the ones that tend to get to high places in an organised religion structure.
     
  4. Nick the Pilot

    Nick the Pilot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2007
    Messages:
    3,833
    Likes Received:
    68
    Peaceandkarma,

    I think you've hit the nail on the head. The big problem is small people with big egos. (Another problem is how these people grab control of an organization, then do everything they can to keep as much control for as long as possible -- and damage the organization in the process).
     
  5. peaceandkarma

    peaceandkarma New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2011
    Messages:
    63
    Likes Received:
    0
    Its a little like David Cameron, the UK Prime Minister. He gets into power and want to be the centre of attention. Starts the process for whats happening in Libya. How can he take the moral high ground and condemn the killing in Libya and then send the war machines in and make more killing in Libya. He's become the same as the people he's codemned. That seems to me the biggest failings of mankind. Instead of living their life, they want to tell everyone else how to live theres as well. What happened to live and let live?
     
  6. bob x

    bob x New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2003
    Messages:
    2,618
    Likes Received:
    1
    According to Vatican I, papal pronouncements are infallible when he is speaking ex cathedra on a duty of faith or morals. The language of Pope Alexander's Bull Speculores Domus, "In our apostolic capacity we enjoin on the community of the faithful the duty to abjure the pernicious Pythagorean doctrine that the Earth is subject to a double motion, a diurnal rotation about its axis and an annual revolution about the Sun", is precisely the phrasing of an "infallible" proclamation.
    Utterly false. The Wiki biography notes that Bruno "appealed in vain to Pope Clement VIII, hoping to save his life through a partial recantation. The Pope expressed himself in favor of a guilty verdict."
    That would have been quite astonishing, since the trial took place in Rome, where the Pope was the head of state.
     
  7. Quahom1

    Quahom1 What was the question?

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2003
    Messages:
    9,906
    Likes Received:
    5
    The Libyan leader has killed his own people, in order to retain power...isn't that enough for you?

    Damn, even I can figure out that one...
     
  8. peaceandkarma

    peaceandkarma New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2011
    Messages:
    63
    Likes Received:
    0
    Just because someone else has killed someone, it does'nt make it right to do the same. Or in a politician case, get someone else to do it for you.
    All their doing is making the problem worst.
     
  9. bob x

    bob x New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2003
    Messages:
    2,618
    Likes Received:
    1
    If this STOPS them from killing more, yes, that is indeed the right thing to do. Otherwise you are an accomplice to the murders you chose to permit.
    No, I think they are making the problem go away. There may be other problems that arise instead, but I doubt very much there will be another dictator anywhere near as bad, let alone "worse", than Qadhafi has been.
     
  10. peaceandkarma

    peaceandkarma New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2011
    Messages:
    63
    Likes Received:
    0
     
  11. taijasi

    taijasi GnĊthi seauton

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2004
    Messages:
    2,640
    Likes Received:
    6
    Consider from the perspective of Soul:

    If the physical body [and in fact, the entire personality] is the vehicle for the Soul, then we aren't actually killing anyone.

    This argument is NEVER used as justification for murder. What it does is remind us that in cases where a large number of people are dying, things may not be as bad as they appear. Yes, it does matter *why* people are dying, at whose hands, etc.

    Again, there is no justification ... but when the US, the UK or the UN, goes in to try and establish or keep the peace, I think we should remember why we're going in. The end may not justify the means in the sense that any number of civilian casualities become truly `acceptable,' yet we always need to consider the consequences (of inaction).
    "Inaction in a deed of mercy becomes an action in a deadly sin."
    - The Voice of the Silence
    United States, United Kingdom and United Nations ... that just hit me. Right now, it's the collective, UNITED spirit of the people of Libya that we're trying to protect and help liberate. We want to help move these people along in their political process, not from tyranny to absolute, perfect democracy [since this does not yet exist, anywhere] ... but at least in that general direction. The more UNITY we can bring, anywhere and everywhere around the world, the better.

    Unity, it should be pointed out, is Soulful; it is a quality of Soul Consciousness. And the Goal of the Soul, whether we are speaking of individuals, groups, nations or the planet, is Liberation. The people of Libya are not ready for national release in some ultimate, metaphysical sense any more than the rest of us. But Liberation is not achieved all at once, or overnight. Currently the struggle of the Libyan people most definitely centers upon their suffering at the hands of a tyrant; thus we *are* helping them, as a nation, in one step of the journey toward Liberation.

    Back to the idea that death is but a release, and therefore not something to become too disparaged about ...

    I think it's important to remember this. Although we do NOT want to force people out of the body before their time [as Qadhafi is glad to do], we should at least consider the difference between the circumstances under which deaths occur. From an outsider's perspective, death may simply appear to be death. And certainly many of the processes, on the inner side, remain the same. The ultimate result, as far as the Soul is concerned, is that the individual in question is temporarily denied its means of evolution ... or development in the physical world. It should be remembered that without incarnation, the Soul cannot progress. Thus, there is definitely a setback for those killed, regardless at whose hand it may occur. But there is all the difference in the world when civilian casualities occur during an operation to achieve Liberation from a Qadhafi, and I am quite certain that this is factored into things.

    Let's try to consider ... that surely there is a good deal more going on, even just `on the other side' of the veil of physical life & death. And that's still just barely scratching the surface. Thomas has spoken of lifting the veils, and these may be thought of as protecting us from too soon or too keen an encounter with what we're not quite ready to discover ~ all at once, or without proper context, proper framework, for understanding. That said, I'm pretty sure that a Libyan person who is killed in *error* [for that is truly what a `civilian casuality' is] will find it much easier to forgive the UK, US or UN forces responsible ... than Qadhafi and his loyalists. We tend to have a much, much broader vision in the after-death state, and this only increases as we move through the subtle world toward the Heaven-world. After all, God forgives ALL of us, and in order to draw near to Divine Presence, we too must learn to do likewise.

    I jumped into the current discussion, but I haven't kept up with the news. Someone may need to clue me in if I've missed something ... or I'll try to catch it on the tube. All I hear about these days is the situation in Japan and local plane crashes. I know things are moving forward in Libya, but the pundits are now trying to figure out what happens `the day after, the day after.' And that's only natural. What remains clear, as it seems to me, is that we need to get these folks away from Qadhafi ... and it ticks me off that we play the games we're playing. We could have had that monster gone from day 1 ... IF we had decided to. Some of us know that; but change [especially progress] is usually slow, if certain.

    Peace
     
  12. Nick the Pilot

    Nick the Pilot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2007
    Messages:
    3,833
    Likes Received:
    68
    Hi everybody!

    There are two sides to the question.

    One is: Do people have the right to kill in self-defense? Does one person have the right to kill in order to save a third person?

    The other is: At what point is too much? When is it wrong to invade a country, both from our view and the view of country we invade? If Pres. Bush had seen how long and drawn out the wars in Iraq and Afganistan would be, how costly they would be, and how quickly and easily the American-supported governments will undoubtedly fall once the Americans leave (and if so, all that money and American soldier's lives will have been wasted), would he have done it? Will Obama's Libya be Bush's Iraq and Afganistan?

    Why didn't Bush learn from the total failure of the Russian invasion of Afganistan?

    By golly, this thread must have broken some kind of record for going off-topic!
     
  13. Quahom1

    Quahom1 What was the question?

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2003
    Messages:
    9,906
    Likes Received:
    5
    Yeah, not our way, but the precipice of their own UNITY, that they will have to forge, overcome and accomplish ultimately, without the haranging of a tyrant. But right now, they are asking (pleading) that "someone", cover their backside while they do the grunt work.

    Funny, but France did the exact same for the fledgling United States a couple of hundred years ago...and we are still grateful...

    The US did the same for the UK and others 65 years ago, and they still appear grateful...

    Now the "Uniteds" are offering the same...to the Libyans.

    The attitude is the same now as it was then "don't take me over, just cover my 'six'. I'll do the rest." :eek:

    That is a true ally, who simply backs another, for peace and soluability for a nation seeking freedom.
     
  14. peaceandkarma

    peaceandkarma New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2011
    Messages:
    63
    Likes Received:
    0
    I personally people should live their own lifes and let everyone else live theirs. Its the control thing all over again.
     
  15. Quahom1

    Quahom1 What was the question?

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2003
    Messages:
    9,906
    Likes Received:
    5
    Ok, so here is what we do. We pull back to the border (we who can help a people regain their dignity in their own way), and let the country implode.

    And we say "Just as long as you do not export your troubles outside your borders, live or die as you can make or break it".

    I'm sorry, that is so cold hearted I can't even conceive of it but for an outside influence, who has nothing to lose.

    When asked for help, we are (or should be) obligated to assist, exactly as per their request (but within perameters). "Aid us, cover our backs, let us fight our own battles, but help us lick our wounds"...

    We are "FREE", and they want to be. Now when the dust settles, here is the question...do they know what "FREEDOM" is? Now who shows them what that means? Us? Someone else? Who? They figure it out on their own?

    Are you sure that is the best way to go?
     
  16. Nick the Pilot

    Nick the Pilot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2007
    Messages:
    3,833
    Likes Received:
    68
    Peaceandkarma,

    If a thief broke into your house, had a gun, and was about to shoot your husband or wife, would you refuse to use a gun to shoot the thief?
     
  17. peaceandkarma

    peaceandkarma New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2011
    Messages:
    63
    Likes Received:
    0
    What I do with my life is my choice, but I haven't got a gun. But why do you want to interfer with other peoples lives for? Why do you want to control other people for? If a policeman says something to you that you don't like, if you ignore him he goes away. If you provoke him you'll get into a conflict. Why do you want to get into a conflict for? Why don't you live your life and let other people live theirs? Why do the people of Libya want to get into a conflict for? Are we really free?, we all seem to be working to pay the banks the money we owe and the goverment the money we have that they seem to decide belongs to them. We're all in serfitude to some degree but why fight about it?
     
  18. Quahom1

    Quahom1 What was the question?

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2003
    Messages:
    9,906
    Likes Received:
    5
    We are not in servetude. I am free. I choose my way in life. I pay the price for my choices but non the less the choises are mine.

    Case in point: I drive quite slowly to work (Petrol costs). Then the price jumps 30 cents per gallon in a two day period. I take my motorcycle. Then the cost jumps 15 cents more in a day...

    I decide to ride a bycicle...

    Who is winning in the battle of the soul here?

    I am.

    I've discovered if I time it right, I can walk to work on time and not pay a dime for gasoline, or any other energy producer. I also get healthy by walking or bike riding...

    What is the trade off? Time...But is that really a trade off?

    I get to think, and to ponder, and when I arrive at work, I'm ready for the day.

    Isn't that what the soul needs?
     
  19. Nick the Pilot

    Nick the Pilot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2007
    Messages:
    3,833
    Likes Received:
    68
    Peaceandkarma,

    You haven't answered my question. I guess we just have to agree to disagree on this.
     
  20. luecy7

    luecy7 New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2011
    Messages:
    892
    Likes Received:
    0
    That would depend on whether or not you wish to be evil. Sure, you could love only those who love you, like every other evil degenerate on the face of the planet. The lowest of the low are capable of that. Or, you could try loving those who do not love you. You could try not hating those that appear to hate you. Minimally, if you really cared about your wife rather than viewing her as a precious object, then you could try asking her what she would want to do. Hand her the weapon... does she want to shoot the thief? If you are not selfish, I bet you could defuse the situation. If the two of you are selfish, then the thief came to his own house.

    If you believe in Jesus, you might want to review where he says, "Forgive, and you will be forgiven". If you solve your problems with weapons, are you being forgiving?
     

Share This Page