Status
MikeRyder
past few hours--more than there were in the previous three weeks plus.
Nothing new has been said. The ideas expressed are the same ideas that
have been expressed in this newsgroup for years. And the ideas posted
today ALL have a basis in conflict. This confirms my contention that
this newsgroup exists for and because of conflict. Correction: The
posts confirm ONCE AGAIN my contention that it's conflict that drives
this newsgroup. Things never change here. Nor will they ever change.
Question: Shall there be yet another war? That would certainly improve
the message count. Or, should the newsgroup be allowed to die by the
slience of the posters?
MikeRyder
13 minutes after the post of this massage count there are 12 more
posts counting this one. As always, the content of the messages is
conflict. The newsgroup of war is coming back to life!
Carrie
Conflict is in the mind of the one looking for it and seeing it.
Happy
again.
MikeRyder
<happyd...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Since conflict is not real. Thank God, we can always choose once
>again.
Of course conflict is real. Philosophical intellectualism doesnt cut
it. What brand of "tobacco" are you smoking? lol
Mike
Pieter
> On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 07:14:46 -0800 (PST), Happy
>
> >Since conflict is not real. Thank God, we can always choose once
> >again.
>
> Of course conflict is real.
There is no conflict between
the truth and illusions.
Illusions battle only with themselves.
Conflict only seems to be real
when it is NOT brought to truth.
> Philosophical intellectualism doesnt cut
> it.
Revelation does.
george
I'd say conflict is very real to people that don't understand that
it's not real in truth but only an illusion and can be looked at a
different way that shines away the illusion. Many people don't
understand yet and believe in all these evil things God didn't create.
The same goes for suffering, hate and tragedy. If it was actually real
in truth that would mean a loving God isn't loving but mean. That
makes no sense if one has faith. At least that's my opinion :)
MikeRyder
MikeRyder
wrote:
>On 11 nov, 23:06, MikeRyder <n...@nospam.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 07:14:46 -0800 (PST), Happy
>>
>> <happydrea...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >Since conflict is not real. Thank God, we can always choose once
>> >again.
>>
>> Of course conflict is real. �
>
>There is no conflict between
>the truth and illusions.
Balderdash. Of course there is.
>Illusions battle only with themselves.
>Conflict only seems to be real
>when it is NOT brought to truth.
Nice highfalutin' intellectual philosphy. But when you experience
conflict, conflict is real--no matter how you try to dodge and dart.
>
>> Philosophical intellectualism doesnt cut
>> it.
>
>Revelation does.
Revelation doesnt get rid of conflict. It shows conflict for what it
is.
End of philosophy lesson for today.
MikeRyder
<georgec...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Nov 11, 3:14�pm, Pieter <hrdou...@zonnet.nl> wrote:
>> On 11 nov, 23:06, MikeRyder <n...@nospam.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 07:14:46 -0800 (PST), Happy
>>
>> > <happydrea...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> > >Since conflict is not real. Thank God, we can always choose once
>> > >again.
>>
>> > Of course conflict is real. �
>>
>> There is no conflict between
>> the truth and illusions.
>> Illusions battle only with themselves.
>> Conflict only seems to be real
>> when it is NOT brought to truth.
>>
>> > Philosophical intellectualism doesnt cut
>> > it.
>>
>> Revelation does.
>
>I'd say conflict is very real to people that don't understand that
>it's not real in truth but only an illusion and can be looked at a
>different way that shines away the illusion.
Oh good grief! Conflict is real to people who experience it. You
really need to stop denying your emotions.
george
Emotions come from perceptions. Perceptions are a choice so it follows
that emotions are also. That's why it's impossible to be a victim
without wanting to be one. That's why it's impossible to suffer
without wanting to. I take complete responsibility for myself and my
emotions and perceptions as I believe that is the point of ACIM and
how I heal myself. My emotions have nothing to do with anyone else or
any outside things that happen to me. They are my choice and as ACIM
says, " I'm in control of the world I see."
Happy
Sorry its not. Stop denying that!
MikeRyder
Oh good gried! (again) lol
>That's why it's impossible to be a victim
>without wanting to be one.
'Victimhood' is an intellectual-based judgment. You do know you have
both thoughts and feelings, dont you? You havent gone so far off the
deep end that you're in denial of this too?? lol
>That's why it's impossible to suffer
>without wanting to. I take complete responsibility for myself and my
>emotions and perceptions as I believe that is the point of ACIM and
>how I heal myself. My emotions have nothing to do with anyone else or
>any outside things that happen to me.
Wow, talk about disconnection to an extreme!
>They are my choice and as ACIM
>says, " I'm in control of the world I see."
Clamping down on yourself with a vise is not controlling the world.
lol
MikeRyder
See, this is the problem with your intellectualized take on acim.
You've intellectualized your humanity right out of your world.
george
> On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 15:49:25 -0800 (PST), george
>
>
>
It's not hard. It's easy and it's fun and makes life fun and enjoyable
instead of hard and filled with suffering. I wouldn't want it any
other way and I'm glad I've been shown the light. All it takes is
willingness to let go of what God didn't create and what he did rushes
in.
MikeRyder
Your claim and a buck will get you a cup of coffee at your local
coffee shop. (Tip extra)
george
> On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 16:08:13 -0800 (PST), george
>
>
>
Lol No doubt. TTYL Mike.
Mike
> On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 15:06:11 -0800 (PST), Mike <gurustom...@yahoo.com>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Da
Mike
> On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 20:59:55 -0800 (PST), Mike <gurustom...@yahoo.com>
> disappointed in you Mike..
>
> Controversial topics arouse discussion but do not amount to
> "conflict". I've seen them happen here many many times.
>
> Deborah (BC)- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I am feeling misunderstood. I was merely overcoming inertia.
MikeRyder
>On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 20:59:55 -0800 (PST), Mike <gurus...@yahoo.com>
>wrote:
>
>So you also feel this ng only and always runs on conflict. I'm
>disappointed in you Mike..
>
>Controversial topics arouse discussion but do not amount to
>"conflict". I've seen them happen here many many times.
>
>Deborah (BC)
Go fuck yourself.
george
> On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 15:49:25 -0800 (PST), george
> saying that love comes from perception?
>
> Deborah (BC)
Love is always already here in everything and everyone. The question
is, do I want it. If I do, then I ask for perception from the Holy
Spirit that sees what is here already.
Pieter
Healed perception leads to the knowledge that
only love is real, and that we are love.
Carrie
> disappointed in you Mike..
>
> Controversial topics arouse discussion but do not amount to
> "conflict". I've seen them happen here many many times.
>
> Deborah (BC)
What seems like conflict can also be a chance to learn about oneself.
Pieter
> On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 15:14:54 -0800 (PST), Pieter <hrdou...@zonnet.nl>
> wrote:
>
> >On 11 nov, 23:06, MikeRyder <n...@nospam.com> wrote:
> >> On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 07:14:46 -0800 (PST), Happy
>
> >> <happydrea...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >Since conflict is not real. Thank God, we can always choose once
> >> >again.
>
> >> Of course conflict is real.
>
> >There is no conflict between
> >the truth and illusions.
>
> Balderdash. Of course there is.
Illusions brought to the truth
simply disappear in its light.
> >Illusions battle only with themselves.
> >Conflict only seems to be real
> >when it is NOT brought to truth.
>
> Nice highfalutin' intellectual philosphy. But when you experience
> conflict, conflict is real--no matter how you try to dodge and dart.
When you experience conflict,
then the truth must be revealed to you.
> >> Philosophical intellectualism doesnt cut
> >> it.
>
> >Revelation does.
>
> Revelation doesnt get rid of conflict. It shows conflict for what it
> is.
It shows that it is but
illusions conflicting with one another.
Truth never is on the battleground,
but above it.
MikeRyder
wrote:
>On 12 nov, 00:39, MikeRyder <n...@nospam.com> wrote:
Wow, you should have been around to lecture Hitler and the Dutch
freedom fighters.
MikeRyder
"Carrie" <starch...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:gqZKm.36171$gg6....@newsfe25.iad...
She's very cagey. She complains about the usual conflict and then adds to
it.
deb
"george" <georgec...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c8f57616-f183-4e0f...@y10g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
If Love is always already here, then the thought of whether you want it or
not is
just a game you are playing with yourself. That would be like saying you
want air.
Pieter
"MikeRyder" <no...@nospam.com> schreef in bericht
news:1f2pf5hk6uk4umbed...@4ax.com...
Do you think that someone
deliberately choosing for attack
is amenable to the truth?
Carrie
It's real to people who experience it, and not real to those who don't
want it.
Why would anyone want conflict, if they could feel peace instead?
george
You sound like me :)
Carrie
Would Hitler (etc) have been evil in the Presence of Jesus?
deb
Is it a matter of want? All things are contained in the whole.
Happy
Are you in my head?
I was just thinking the same thing about you.
Pieter
"Carrie" <starch...@charter.net> schreef in bericht
news:b2fLm.10387$ky1....@newsfe14.iad...
Evil cannot be seen; physical acts can, and they
can be judged to be evil. Attack can be seen and
felt. When one is aligned with truth, it is understood
as a call for love.
> Would Hitler (etc) have been evil in the Presence of Jesus?
Evil is only real in the absence of the light of truth.
Man is free to turn his back upon the light of truth.
The presence of Jesus or the Holy Spirit cannot
be forced upon someone. Man has to choose for
it himself.
george
> "Carrie" <starchild1...@charter.net> schreef in berichtnews:b2fLm.10387$ky1....@newsfe14.iad...
>
>
>
> > Pieter wrote:
> >> "MikeRyder" <n...@nospam.com> schreef in bericht
> >>news:1f2pf5hk6uk4umbed...@4ax.com...
> >>> On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 11:48:17 -0800 (PST), Pieter <hrdou...@zonnet.nl>
> >>> wrote:
>
> >>>> On 12 nov, 00:39, MikeRyder <n...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>> Revelation doesnt get rid of conflict. It shows conflict for what
> >>>>> it is.
>
> >>>> It shows that it is but
> >>>> illusions conflicting with one another.
> >>>> Truth never is on the battleground,
> >>>> but above it.
>
> >>> Wow, you should have been around to lecture Hitler
>
> >> Do you think that someone
> >> deliberately choosing for attack
> >> is amenable to the truth?
>
> > Do you think someone aligned with "Truth" would see evil and attack?
>
> Evil cannot be seen; physical acts can, and they
> can be judged to be evil.
And yet the same act that someone judges as evil someone else judges
it as good and exactly the way it should be. That in itself proves
that evil only exists in those that WANT it and that it isn't a fact.
Carrie
I'm not sure what you mean. If all things are in the whole, like
possible, then everyone observing anything has free will choice about what
and how they see it. They must want it, they aren't helpless victims of what
seems to happen to them (and their feelings).
MikeRyder
Well, i dont know. What exactly is IN your head?
lol
>I was just thinking the same thing about you.
Naw. Not even close.
MikeRyder
Of course!
> Why would anyone want conflict, if they could feel peace instead?
>
The ego works in many and mysterious ways.
MikeRyder
god forbid.
lol
MikeRyder
Pieter
> On Nov 13, 1:20 pm, "Pieter" <hrdou...@zonnet.nl> wrote:
> > Evil cannot be seen; physical acts can, and they
> > can be judged to be evil.
>
> And yet the same act that someone judges as evil someone else judges
> it as good and exactly the way it should be. That in itself proves
> that evil only exists in those that WANT it and that it isn't a fact.
Agreed.
The world of separation which was
made to "prove" that the separation is real,
can be used as a classroom for undoing
the belief in it. Same events, but now seen
with the Holy Spirit,instead of with the ego.
Pieter
It cannot be defined.
Words at best can only point to it.
Healed perception can be
translated in the knowledge of it.
Philomene
> And yet the same act that someone judges as evil someone else judges
> it as good and exactly the way it should be. That in itself proves
> that evil only exists in those that WANT it and that it isn't a fact.
So why wouldn't you harm a child?
Isn't it because you judge harming a child wrong, not right, or in other
words, an evil done to the child?
Or would you harm a child, and then argue that harming a child is good,
any disagreement about you harming a child is a matter of opinion, and
this is "just as it should be"?
You might get it if you started using the course-based notion of
wrong-mindedness or upside down thinking, instead of "evil."
In other words, in course-think, its wrong-minded and an example of
upside down thinking to harm a child. In fact,it is wrong minded to harm
or attack anyone. Wrong minded and judged wrong by a standard of
Absolute Truth beyond perception, perceptual interpretation and "opinion."
Upside down thinking, and wrong mindedness implies CORRECTION. The need
for Correction. Mental Correction, at the level of mind.
The fear based thoughts implied by harming a child are NOT corrected by
simple making "harming a child" a matter of opinion and an arbitrary
interpretation which can be magically reinterpreted as love while
leaving the underlying fear thoughts uncorrected and continuing to
cause/generate fear, illusion, wrong-mindedness and upside down thinking.
On the other hand, the fear based thoughts implied by seeing harm done
to a child as "evil," or uncorrectable "sin" is also an example of
wrong mindedness and upside down thinking.
In short then the idea is undoing the thought system of sin, guilt,
punishment, etc, by correction and miracles, not magically
reinterpreting fear, sin, guilt as an "opinion" or an interpretation.
MikeRyder
wrote:
>
>"MikeRyder" <no...@nospam.com> schreef in bericht
>news:ftlrf5p122q1hnmg7...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 11:07:37 +0100, "Pieter" <hrdo...@zonnet.nl>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"MikeRyder" <no...@nospam.com> schreef in bericht
>>>news:1f2pf5hk6uk4umbed...@4ax.com...
>>>> On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 11:48:17 -0800 (PST), Pieter <hrdo...@zonnet.nl>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On 12 nov, 00:39, MikeRyder <n...@nospam.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> Revelation doesnt get rid of conflict. It shows conflict for what it
>>>>>> is.
>>>>>
>>>>>It shows that it is but
>>>>>illusions conflicting with one another.
>>>>>Truth never is on the battleground,
>>>>>but above it.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Wow, you should have been around to lecture Hitler
>>>
>>>Do you think that someone
>>>deliberately choosing for attack
>>>is amenable to the truth?
>>>
>>
>> What is truth?
>
>It cannot be defined.
You sure are busting your hump trying, though, right?
Happy
> On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 11:58:51 -0800 (PST), Happy
>
>
>
>
>
Closer than you could imagine.
george
> george wrote:
> > And yet the same act that someone judges as evil someone else judges
> > it as good and exactly the way it should be. That in itself proves
> > that evil only exists in those that WANT it and that it isn't a fact.
>
> So why wouldn't you harm a child?
Why would I want to? To harm anyone is to harm me and that would be
insane.
>
> Isn't it because you judge harming a child wrong, not right, or in other
> words, an evil done to the child?
There is no evil except for those that want it.
>
> Or would you harm a child, and then argue that harming a child is good,
> any disagreement about you harming a child is a matter of opinion, and
> this is "just as it should be"?
Everything is ALWAYS as it should be. To think anything else IS to
play God and say what should and shouldn't happen instead of accepting
what has already happened and finding the truth that always lies
within everyone and every action. And the truth always points to love
because God made the truth and everything that is true. It never
points to hate, war or evil those are figments of the insane egos
imagination and don't actually exist in truth because God didn't make
them. A person could believe God did make them and that they are true
but then they would be believing a mean, hateful God instead of the
God of pure love.
>
> You might get it if you started using the course-based notion of
> wrong-mindedness or upside down thinking, instead of "evil."
>
> In other words, in course-think, its wrong-minded and an example of
> upside down thinking to harm a child. In fact,it is wrong minded to harm
> or attack anyone. Wrong minded and judged wrong by a standard of
> Absolute Truth beyond perception, perceptual interpretation and "opinion."
>
> Upside down thinking, and wrong mindedness implies CORRECTION. The need
> for Correction. Mental Correction, at the level of mind.
>
> The fear based thoughts implied by harming a child are NOT corrected by
> simple making "harming a child" a matter of opinion and an arbitrary
> interpretation which can be magically reinterpreted as love while
> leaving the underlying fear thoughts uncorrected and continuing to
> cause/generate fear, illusion, wrong-mindedness and upside down thinking.
>
> On the other hand, the fear based thoughts implied by seeing harm done
> to a child as "evil," or uncorrectable "sin" is also an example of
> wrong mindedness and upside down thinking.
>
> In short then the idea is undoing the thought system of sin, guilt,
> punishment, etc, by correction and miracles, not magically
> reinterpreting fear, sin, guilt as an "opinion" or an interpretation.
Everything that happens is ALWAYS an interpretation of the thinker.
The question is who's interpretation does the thinker want. The one
that sees only goodness, truth and joy or the one that sees evil, hate
and war. It's always a choice and both options of interpretation are
always available. There is nothing magic about it as it only a choice
of how one WANTS to see the world. That's why I'm in control of the
world I see because I choose the interpretation of it.
Hi John it's been awhile :)
Philomene
> On Nov 13, 3:24 pm, Philomene <ph...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> george wrote:
>>> And yet the same act that someone judges as evil someone else judges
>>> it as good and exactly the way it should be. That in itself proves
>>> that evil only exists in those that WANT it and that it isn't a fact.
>> So why wouldn't you harm a child?
>
> Why would I want to? To harm anyone is to harm me and that would be
> insane.
Is "harming yourself" a fact or interpretation?
>> Isn't it because you judge harming a child wrong, not right, or in other
>> words, an evil done to the child?
>
> There is no evil except for those that want it.
Again -if you don't wish to harm a child then clearly its because you
don't wish to do evil, and recognize doing harm to a child is evil.
If you recognize you can harm yourself, then its stretches your argument
that by your actions you cannot harm a child.
>> Or would you harm a child, and then argue that harming a child is good,
>> any disagreement about you harming a child is a matter of opinion, and
>> this is "just as it should be"?
>
> Everything is ALWAYS as it should be.
That's a strange take when according to The Course dreaming and
perception is most definitely not how it "should be."
That's only so for a dreaming mind working from perception. The natural
state of knowledge does not involve interpretation at all.
> The question is who's interpretation does the thinker want. The one
> that sees only goodness, truth and joy or the one that sees evil, hate
> and war.
When asked about the Holocaust, the author did not see only goodness,
truth and joy, but upside down, wrong minded thinking which needed to be
corrected. What you miss is correction of mind/thought.
The thought system of fear is not changed/corrected by first accepting
fear,thinking fear and then "reinterpreting" the outcome of fear as
"love," but by not accepting fear thoughts and thinking fear thoughts at
all. The foundational thoughts of the thought system of fear/lack/lack
of love are undone or changed to change the results.
Clearly if you were not still accepting fear and thinking fear you
wouldn't be dreaming or perceiving or interpreting at all. You clearly
wouldn't have to reinterpreted anything if you weren't still thinking
fear thoughts. Hence the problem of the entire dream is NOT how to tweak
my mind so one can "see" upside down thinking as good and true and
joyful, (Which like a special romantic love relationship is only an
attempt to bring heaven to hell) rather correct the root fear thoughts
and give up dreaming, perception and the need to reinterpret evil into
goodness/truth.
It's always a choice and both options of interpretation are
> always available. There is nothing magic about it as it only a choice
> of how one WANTS to see the world. That's why I'm in control of the
> world I see because I choose the interpretation of it.
You are hardly in control of anything if you are still interpreting and
not knowing.
george
This correction is the giving up of the ego perception and the
acceptance of the Holy Spirit's perception. Like you said at the level
of the mind it is just a choice to see things differently.
>
> >> The fear based thoughts implied by harming a child are NOT corrected by
> >> simple making "harming a child" a matter of opinion and an arbitrary
> >> interpretation which can be magically reinterpreted as love while
> >> leaving the underlying fear thoughts uncorrected and continuing to
> >> cause/generate fear, illusion, wrong-mindedness and upside down thinking.
>
> >> On the other hand, the fear based thoughts implied by seeing harm done
> >> to a child as "evil," or uncorrectable "sin" is also an example of
> >> wrong mindedness and upside down thinking.
IMO it's an example of what doesn't actually exist in truth but only
exists in the mind of the thinker that wants to see evil and harm. God
didn't create these so they are not true but are only figments of the
egos insane imagination.
>
> >> In short then the idea is undoing the thought system of sin, guilt,
> >> punishment, etc, by correction and miracles, not magically
> >> reinterpreting fear, sin, guilt as an "opinion" or an interpretation.
The miracle is the wanting to see things differently as it is always a
choice. Magic has nothing to do with it as choice and free will come
directly from God and that is all I'm doing. I'm using the tools he
gave me to understand my true nature as he made it. It's the
recognition that only love exists and that if I feel anything except
love I must have seen things through the ego eyes instead of through
the Holy Spirit's vision and need to ask for help to see things
differently.
>
> > Everything that happens is ALWAYS an interpretation of the thinker.
>
> That's only so for a dreaming mind working from perception. The natural
> state of knowledge does not involve interpretation at all.
I live in the world of perception. It would make no sense to me to say
I KNOW any other world and live there. In time I hope to be shown that
but at the moment this is all I know and my interpretation of events
here is how I've been shown is my path back to my true nature. By my
choice of and power of perception I'm choosing over and over what I
believe to be true about God and myself. Do I believe in a pure loving
God. Then my CHOICE of perception HAS to see that. If I believe in the
Ego god of hate and war then my choice of perception has to see that
that. Either choice is ALWAYS available from all events so I'm only
aligning my thoughts to what I believe I am and what I WANT to be and
what I believe we all are in truth.
>
> > The question is who's interpretation does the thinker want. The one
> > that sees only goodness, truth and joy or the one that sees evil, hate
> > and war.
>
> When asked about the Holocaust, the author did not see only goodness,
> truth and joy, but upside down, wrong minded thinking which needed to be
> corrected. What you miss is correction of mind/thought.
Pure love CAN'T understand war because it isn't a part of love. It can
understand insane men screaming for help so to me it only makes sense
that the Holy Spirit sees it that way. Insane men screaming for help
calls for a loving response. The Holocaust if seen through the Ego's
perception calls for war, punishment and condemnation. Either choice
is available from the same event. Which do I want? One says I believe
I am love and one says I believe I am hate. Believing I'm hate only
makes it seem true to me as God KNOWS I'm love but I wouldn't.
>
> The thought system of fear is not changed/corrected by first accepting
> fear,thinking fear and then "reinterpreting" the outcome of fear as
> "love," but by not accepting fear thoughts and thinking fear thoughts at
> all.
Agreed but for me at this stage of my development on my Spiritual path
I do hear the ego and it screams first. Many times I listen to the ego
( I wish I didn't hear it at all and it is much quieter now. I also
follow the Spirit much more willingly) When I make a mistake I only
need to choose again to get back to the person God made me. The main
thing is I can't be willing to hold on to my unloving thoughts as they
are blocks to my true reality as God made me. I have to be willing to
let God take them from me and help me see things in a different light.
I also have to be willing to accept his guidance that the loving way
to see things and people is the way I am in truth and there is
actually no other way to see things.
The foundational thoughts of the thought system of fear/lack/lack
> of love are undone or changed to change the results.
>
> Clearly if you were not still accepting fear and thinking fear you
> wouldn't be dreaming or perceiving or interpreting at all.
So true. I do still hear the ego and do believe I live in this world.
IMO ACIM and what I've been taught and what I've been show about how
to look at things and people is the way to reverse this and remove all
the blocks to love awareness. God has shown me it's working for me, as
I'm much happier and things and people rarely make me anything except
joyful.
.
You clearly
> wouldn't have to reinterpreted anything if you weren't still thinking
> fear thoughts. Hence the problem of the entire dream is NOT how to tweak
> my mind so one can "see" upside down thinking as good and true and
> joyful, (Which like a special romantic love relationship is only an
> attempt to bring heaven to hell) rather correct the root fear thoughts
> and give up dreaming, perception and the need to reinterpret evil into
> goodness/truth.
How would this be done except by choosing over and over I don't want
fear thoughts and I want loving thoughts instead? This is done by my
choice of perception.
>
> It's always a choice and both options of interpretation are
>
> > always available. There is nothing magic about it as it only a choice
> > of how one WANTS to see the world. That's why I'm in control of the
> > world I see because I choose the interpretation of it.
>
> You are hardly in control of anything if you are still interpreting and
> not knowing.
I'm in control of the world I see by my CHOICES of how I see it. There
are always two ways to see everything and in my choices lies the world
I see. So I am in complete control over the world by my choices of how
I want to see it.
george
> truth to illusion. He can't hear me. Could you perhaps explain what
> the course means by "bringing illusion to truth"?
>
> Deborah (BC)
The illusion is seeing what God knows is not true. Hate, evil war. The
truth is God is love and we are his children and must see everything
through his loving eyes that see only goodness, love and people trying
to understand their true natures. This is bringing truth to illusion
IMO
Philomene
> I've been telling George for a long time that he is tryiing to bring
> truth to illusion. He can't hear me. Could you perhaps explain what
> the course means by "bringing illusion to truth"?
>
> Deborah (BC)
Consider the course teaching that in any situation a person is either
giving love or calling for love.
Doesn't this imply an objective situation which can only be interpreted
one way correctly?
If someone is harming a child and thus in course-think, "calling for
love," wouldn't it have to be a mistake to choose to interpret the
situation as hunky dory, all light and roses, love and joy and peace,
"just as it should be," and by this willful misinterpretation refuse to
see the need of supplying the love this person is asking for and the
situation demands?
We are often asked to supply love, because we are healed as we learn to
heal. Despite popular sentiment to the contrary, one cannot just heal
oneself. After all its a great learning to supply love to someone
harming a child without numerous misconceptions and pre-conceptions
blocking the flow. So it not surprising that attempting to heal oneself
is just as confusing.
george
> Deborah wrote:
> > I've been telling George for a long time that he is tryiing to bring
> > truth to illusion. He can't hear me. Could you perhaps explain what
> > the course means by "bringing illusion to truth"?
>
> > Deborah (BC)
>
> Consider the course teaching that in any situation a person is either
> giving love or calling for love.
>
> Doesn't this imply an objective situation which can only be interpreted
> one way correctly?
>
> If someone is harming a child and thus in course-think, "calling for
> love," wouldn't it have to be a mistake to choose to interpret the
> situation as hunky dory, all light and roses, love and joy and peace,
> "just as it should be," and by this willful misinterpretation refuse to
> see the need of supplying the love this person is asking for and the
> situation demands?
This is why it's important for me to remember nothing here on this
earth means anything. In a billion years no one will remember anything
about us or care in the least. Nothing here is eternal and thus makes
no difference except in the way I choose to see it.
Bodies aren't us and a child CAN'T be harmed.
I've been told that type of thinking and my ideas reject humanity. IMO
it only rejects the ego insanity and the way it see things. To believe
AFTER something has happened that it was bad or a tragedy or that it
shouldn't have happened is to play God and not accept his will as the
past CAN'T be changed all that can be done is it can be reinterpreted
into the truth.
Lesson 72 ALL grievances are an ATTACK on Gods plan of salvation. Why?
Because God has a different way to look at everything that will NEVER
result in a grievance. If I'm condemning anyone or anything I'm
attacking God's plan of salvation and hurting myself.
Lesson 101 God's will for me is perfect happiness. How can I have
perfect happiness if I choose to see a child getting harmed? There
must be a different way to look at it or this lesson wouldn't be true.
There ALWAYS is.
> We are often asked to supply love, because we are healed as we learn to
> heal. Despite popular sentiment to the contrary, one cannot just heal
> oneself. After all its a great learning to supply love to someone
> harming a child without numerous misconceptions and pre-conceptions
> blocking the flow.
The healing is done by understanding that the child can't be harmed.
The body sure but that isn't the child that's the point. It's the
perception that the child CAN be harmed that hold me to this world and
hurt both me and the child because I'm strengthening both our beliefs
in what isn't true. That we are bodies and not Spirit.
It's ALWAYS about my thoughts and never has anything to do with the
outside world. That only makes sense to me as it puts me in control of
the world I see as I can't control things outside of me but I can
choose how I want to see them. Through the ego's condemning eyes or
through the Holy Spirit's loving ones.
MikeRyder
Wow, how...spiritual...you sound.
lol
Philomene
>> I've been telling George for a long time that he is tryiing to bring
>> truth to illusion. He can't hear me. Could you perhaps explain what
>> the course means by "bringing illusion to truth"?
>>
>> Deborah (BC)
>
> The illusion is seeing what God knows is not true. Hate, evil war.
The illusion is seeing/perceiving at all. God does not perceive.
If you are seeing/perceiving at all then you must see hate, evil and war
because perception is based on the same belief of lack and lack of love
or fear as belief in hate, evil and war.
In other words the mind gave up its natural state of knowledge for the
unnatural state of seeing/perception because of its choice to believe in
lack and fear. Nor can perception be long maintained without the belief
in lack or fear. The paradox then is reinterpreting the result and
effects of believing in and mis-creating through belief in fear is
pretty much like putting lip stick on a pig and calling her lovely. You
still got the pig and still got the dream.
Give up the idea that your reinterpretation--no matter how good and holy
and noble means anything. You can't heal yourself by your own efforts.
Your decent from the magnitude of knowledge and sonship to perception
and littleness was not accomplished in a day, nor will it be corrected
in a day just because you are in a hurry to be holy. It will be
accomplished incrementally as you allow the Holy Spirit through miracles
to heal your fear thoughts and supply the love the fear thoughts lack.
There is a big difference between attempting to heal yourself by your
own efforts at reinterpreting what you have already created in terms of
what your error-filled mind believes must be loving and holy and
God-like, and the gentle, incremental healing of fear thoughts by the
Holy Spirit whose only purpose is healing your mind.
MikeRyder
Nice try, but you're beating your head against the wall with george.
He's locked up in a cage of his own perceived "knowledge". Anything
you say will be interpreted by him according to his own invented
spiritual dogma.
Philomene
> On Nov 13, 10:45 pm, Philomene <ph...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Deborah wrote:
>>> I've been telling George for a long time that he is tryiing to bring
>>> truth to illusion. He can't hear me. Could you perhaps explain what
>>> the course means by "bringing illusion to truth"?
>>> Deborah (BC)
>> Consider the course teaching that in any situation a person is either
>> giving love or calling for love.
>>
>> Doesn't this imply an objective situation which can only be interpreted
>> one way correctly?
>>
>> If someone is harming a child and thus in course-think, "calling for
>> love," wouldn't it have to be a mistake to choose to interpret the
>> situation as hunky dory, all light and roses, love and joy and peace,
>> "just as it should be," and by this willful misinterpretation refuse to
>> see the need of supplying the love this person is asking for and the
>> situation demands?
>
> This is why it's important for me to remember nothing here on this
> earth means anything. In a billion years no one will remember anything
> about us or care in the least. Nothing here is eternal and thus makes
> no difference except in the way I choose to see it.
How do these sentiments jive with the author's call to be a miracle
worker? You are asked to heal others and supply love. That's part of the
curriculum necessary to reach the knowledge of, not the intellectual
concept that the the dream is ultimately meaningless except for those
blessed love thoughts where love was actually shared in the "dream."
Love is always real and always meaningful --even on "earth."
>
> Bodies aren't us and a child CAN'T be harmed.
So what? Your brothers in the dream still believe in bodies and believe
they can be harmed. The truth is you believe in bodies and harm, though
you might also hold the intellectual concept that perhaps you are not a
body and cannot be harmed. Metaphysically a hungry child cannot be
harmed. But a hungry child needs a meal not a lecture on metaphysics.
>
> I've been told that type of thinking and my ideas reject humanity. IMO
> it only rejects the ego insanity and the way it see things. To believe
> AFTER something has happened that it was bad or a tragedy or that it
> shouldn't have happened is to play God and not accept his will as the
> past CAN'T be changed all that can be done is it can be reinterpreted
> into the truth.
Why think in terms of "bad" or tragedy or shouldn't have happened when
all that is asked is to supply love when love needs supplying?
You feed a hungry child because that is what the situation demands. Your
perfect happiness isn't a concern. The welfare of the child is the
only concern.
>
> Lesson 72 ALL grievances are an ATTACK on Gods plan of salvation. Why?
> Because God has a different way to look at everything that will NEVER
> result in a grievance. If I'm condemning anyone or anything I'm
> attacking God's plan of salvation and hurting myself.
>
> Lesson 101 God's will for me is perfect happiness. How can I have
> perfect happiness if I choose to see a child getting harmed? There
> must be a different way to look at it or this lesson wouldn't be true.
> There ALWAYS is.
A better question is how you can have "perfect happiness" if you ignore
a child being harmed?
Pieter
"Deborah" <deb...@anywhere.ca> schreef in bericht
news:jkhsf5p4psmnbr88p...@4ax.com...
> I've been telling George for a long time that he is tryiing to bring
> truth to illusion. He can't hear me. Could you perhaps explain what
> the course means by "bringing illusion to truth"?
"Unshaken does the Holy Spirit look
on what you see; on sin and pain and death,
on grief and separation and on loss.
Yet does He know one thing must still be true;
God still is Love, and this is not His Will."
I suppose you will agree that George
embraces this. The text proceeds:
"This is the Thought Which brings illusions to
the truth, and sees them as appearances
behind which is the changeless and the sure.
This is the Thought which saves and which forgives,
because It lays no faith in what is not
created by the only Source It knows."
(Lesson 99.5:4 - 6:2)
The point is that illusions must not be kept
apart from the truth, since in that case their
true nature cannot be seen.
Another passage:
"Think you that you can bring truth to fantasy, and learn
what truth means from the perspective of illusions?"
(T-17.I.5:1)
This certainly is not what George means.
He always wants to embrace the perspective
of the Holy Spirit, and when He looks at illusions,
He always sees them for what they are: mere illusions.
I suppose the following is what you warn George for:
"Truth HAS no meaning in illusion.The frame of reference
for its meaning must be ITSELF.When you try to bring truth
to illusions, you are trying to make illusions REAL, and keep
them by JUSTIFYING your belief in them. But to give
illusions to truth is to enable truth to teach that the
ILLUSIONS are unreal, and thus enable you to escape
from them. Reserve not one idea aside from truth, or you
establish orders of reality which must imprison you.There
IS no order in reality because EVERYTHING there is true."
(T-17.I.5:2-7)
What George states is completely in line with this:
"The illusion is seeing what God knows is not true. Hate, evil war. The
truth is God is love and we are his children and must see everything
through his loving eyes that see only goodness, love and people trying
to understand their true natures."
He calls this "bringing truth to illusion", while
in fact he means looking at illusions from the
perspective of truth. A better wording
therefore would be, imo:
"approaching illusions with the light of truth."
The Course stresses that opposites must be brought together
(T-14.VI.4:2, VII.1:2,3, VII.4:3,4, VIII.5:5, T-15.XI.1:5,6,
T-26.III.2:3, III.3:4,5, Lesson 79.8:4, 80.4:1). THAT is
the point. One example:
"What do you WANT? Light or darkness, knowledge
or ignorance are yours, but not both. Opposites must
be brought together, and not kept apart. For their
separation is only in your mind, and they are reconciled
by union as YOU are. In union, everything that is not
real MUST disappear, for truth IS union. As darkness
disappears in light, so ignorance fades away when
knowledge dawns. Perception is the medium by which
ignorance is brought to knowledge. Yet the perception
must be without deceit, for otherwise it becomes the
messenger of ignorance rather than a helper in the search
for truth." (T-14.VII.1)
The Course does speak of bringing light to darkness:
". . . . truth IS true.What else could ever be, or ever was?
This simple lesson holds the key to the dark door which
you believe is locked forever.You MADE this door of
nothing, and behind it IS nothing.The key is only the light
which shines away the shapes and forms and fears of
nothing. Accept this key to freedom from the hands of
Christ Who gives it to you, that you may join Him in the
holy task of bringing light to darkness." (T-14.II.7:3-8.
-Curious that in WSV "to darkness" is left out.)
"The Holy Spirit asks of you but this; bring to Him every
secret you have locked away from Him. Open every
door to Him, and bid Him enter the darkness and lighten
it away. At your request He enters gladly. He brings the
light to darkness if you make the darkness OPEN to Him.
But what you hide He cannot look upon. For He sees for
YOU, and unless you look WITH Him He cannot see. The
vision of Christ is not for Him alone, but for Him with YOU."
(T-14.VII.6:1-7)
"You who are now the bringers of salvation have the function
of bringing light to darkness.The darkness in you HAS been
brought to light. Carry it back to darkness, from the holy
instant to which you brought it.We are made whole in our
desire to make whole." (T-18.III.7:1-4)
>
> Deborah (BC)
>
Carrie
> truth to illusion. He can't hear me. Could you perhaps explain what
> the course means by "bringing illusion to truth"?
>
I think you already explained it. The idea of trying to tell someone
something.
You see George as wrong, which is illusion, and try and bring it/him to
truth, as you see it.
When you could simply see it as "that's how George sees it". And know
"Truth" yourself, without having to correct and make someone else wrong (in
your opinion of them)
george
> george wrote:
> >> I've been telling George for a long time that he is tryiing to bring
> >> truth to illusion. He can't hear me. Could you perhaps explain what
> >> the course means by "bringing illusion to truth"?
>
> >> Deborah (BC)
>
> > The illusion is seeing what God knows is not true. Hate, evil war.
>
> The illusion is seeing/perceiving at all. God does not perceive.
>
> If you are seeing/perceiving at all then you must see hate, evil and war
> because perception is based on the same belief of lack and lack of love
> or fear as belief in hate, evil and war.
The EGO must see hate war and evil. The ego is not me, that's the
point. I, Spirit, can ask for a different way to see hate, evil and
war and I'm given a different perception that shines them all away
because in truth they don't exist and all that does exist in truth is
insane men are screaming out for help.
>
> In other words the mind gave up its natural state of knowledge for the
> unnatural state of seeing/perception because of its choice to believe in
> lack and fear. Nor can perception be long maintained without the belief
> in lack or fear.
How would the belief in lack and fear be healed? It seems reasonable
that the way to heal it would be to reject lack and fear in all forms
and instead look at it from a different perspective that doesn't even
see it. In this way I'm training my mind to see what God created and
to not see what he didn't.
The paradox then is reinterpreting the result and
> effects of believing in and mis-creating through belief in fear is
> pretty much like putting lip stick on a pig and calling her lovely. You
> still got the pig and still got the dream.
No doubt but this is the goal of ACIM to get to the happy dream so God
can take the final step in my healing.
>
> Give up the idea that your reinterpretation--no matter how good and holy
> and noble means anything. You can't heal yourself by your own efforts.
Of course my will and my mind play a HUGE roll in my own healing. To
depreciate the value of that is to depreciate my own value and that is
to not understand what God made perfect. God gave me the means to heal
myself by listening to the Holy Spirit with in me. Of course all I'm
doing is being wiling to let him do the work by stepping back and by
CHOOSING over and over again to see through his loving eyes instead of
the egos condemning ones.
> Your decent from the magnitude of knowledge and sonship to perception
> and littleness was not accomplished in a day, nor will it be corrected
> in a day just because you are in a hurry to be holy.
That's why is a Spiritual path that takes both time and effort.
It will be
> accomplished incrementally as you allow the Holy Spirit through miracles
> to heal your fear thoughts and supply the love the fear thoughts lack.
>
> There is a big difference between attempting to heal yourself by your
> own efforts at reinterpreting what you have already created in terms of
> what your error-filled mind believes must be loving and holy and
> God-like, and the gentle, incremental healing of fear thoughts by the
> Holy Spirit whose only purpose is healing your mind.
God does the healing, all I do is be willing to let go of all he
didn't create and choose to see all he did. This makes perfect sense
to me. It's easy to understand so anyone could do it if they tried. In
the trying is the meaning and the proof that it works, as my entire
world HAS changed.
george
> george wrote:
> > On Nov 13, 10:45 pm, Philomene <ph...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Deborah wrote:
> >>> I've been telling George for a long time that he is tryiing to bring
> >>> truth to illusion. He can't hear me. Could you perhaps explain what
> >>> the course means by "bringing illusion to truth"?
> >>> Deborah (BC)
> >> Consider the course teaching that in any situation a person is either
> >> giving love or calling for love.
>
> >> Doesn't this imply an objective situation which can only be interpreted
> >> one way correctly?
>
> >> If someone is harming a child and thus in course-think, "calling for
> >> love," wouldn't it have to be a mistake to choose to interpret the
> >> situation as hunky dory, all light and roses, love and joy and peace,
> >> "just as it should be," and by this willful misinterpretation refuse to
> >> see the need of supplying the love this person is asking for and the
> >> situation demands?
>
> > This is why it's important for me to remember nothing here on this
> > earth means anything. In a billion years no one will remember anything
> > about us or care in the least. Nothing here is eternal and thus makes
> > no difference except in the way I choose to see it.
>
> How do these sentiments jive with the author's call to be a miracle
> worker?
They jive perfectly with the call for love. Because love is all there
is and to see anything else is to not understand the truth. So when I
see something else I know I'm deceiving myself. That's why I remember
nothing here means anything and makes any difference except what I
want it to.
You are asked to heal others and supply love.
Here IS the healing. By CHOOSING to see what God created and by
choosing to reject what he didn't. Do you think God chooses to harm a
child? That makes no sense from a loving God does it? Then it can't be
true can it? If it's not true there MUST be a different way to look at
it right, if God is love?
That's part of the
> curriculum necessary to reach the knowledge of, not the intellectual
> concept that the the dream is ultimately meaningless except for those
> blessed love thoughts where love was actually shared in the "dream."
> Love is always real and always meaningful --even on "earth."
>
>
>
> > Bodies aren't us and a child CAN'T be harmed.
>
> So what? Your brothers in the dream still believe in bodies and believe
> they can be harmed.
Because they believe it MEANS they need healing. To heal is to bring
truth to illusion. To share their mistaken belief that they can be
harmed is to hurt them and myself and to understand that they can't be
harmed because they aren't bodies is to heal them and myself because
its recognizing the truth about both of us. This is how healing is
accomplished. Letting go of what God didn't create and seeing what he
did.
The truth is you believe in bodies and harm, though
> you might also hold the intellectual concept that perhaps you are not a
> body and cannot be harmed. Metaphysically a hungry child cannot be
> harmed. But a hungry child needs a meal not a lecture on metaphysics.
Never did I say don't feed a child. Or hold a hand or give a hug.
These are natural actions that come from within as an expression of
the love that abides in everyone.
All I've ever talked about was how to see the past and all past
events. That I can and MUST choose how to perceive them and in my
choice of perception is my choice of what I believe about myself. If
I'm holding onto evil, hate and tragedy in my perceptions I'm choosing
to see illusions that never were real as God didn't create them. I
could see them in a different light so I understand the truth about
what God did create and this IS healing. Healing is not some magic
that comes from beyond but a choice within myself about myself.
>
>
>
> > I've been told that type of thinking and my ideas reject humanity. IMO
> > it only rejects the ego insanity and the way it see things. To believe
> > AFTER something has happened that it was bad or a tragedy or that it
> > shouldn't have happened is to play God and not accept his will as the
> > past CAN'T be changed all that can be done is it can be reinterpreted
> > into the truth.
>
> Why think in terms of "bad" or tragedy or shouldn't have happened when
> all that is asked is to supply love when love needs supplying?
>
> You feed a hungry child because that is what the situation demands. Your
> perfect happiness isn't a concern. The welfare of the child is the
> only concern.
>
>
>
> > Lesson 72 ALL grievances are an ATTACK on Gods plan of salvation. Why?
> > Because God has a different way to look at everything that will NEVER
> > result in a grievance. If I'm condemning anyone or anything I'm
> > attacking God's plan of salvation and hurting myself.
>
> > Lesson 101 God's will for me is perfect happiness. How can I have
> > perfect happiness if I choose to see a child getting harmed? There
> > must be a different way to look at it or this lesson wouldn't be true.
> > There ALWAYS is.
>
> A better question is how you can have "perfect happiness" if you ignore
> a child being harmed?
Like I've said a child can't be harmed and that's why I can have
perfect happiness. If I believe a child can be harmed, it's impossible
to have perfect happiness.
>
>
>
> >> We are often asked to supply love, because we are healed as we learn to
> >> heal. Despite popular sentiment to the contrary, one cannot just heal
> >> oneself. After all its a great learning to supply love to someone
> >> harming a child without numerous misconceptions and pre-conceptions
> >> blocking the flow.
The misperception is the child can be harmed at all. No one can be
harmed. We are not bodies. The belief in harm, tragedy, evil and hate
is all that is keeping any of us on this plane. All of us are only
here to understand that what God didn't create isn't real and can
never be created except in our own mind.
Pieter
> On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 23:39:00 +0100, "Pieter" <hrdou...@zonnet.nl>
> wrote:
> >"MikeRyder" <n...@nospam.com> schreef in bericht
> >news:ftlrf5p122q1hnmg7...@4ax.com...
> >> What is truth?
>
> >It cannot be defined.
>
> You sure are busting your hump trying, though, right?
Sorry, I do not understand your question.
Even when looking up the words, I cannot
make anything of it (maybe because I am
not a native English speaker). Could you
please say it in other words?
Thanks in advance!
Happy
Thank you. You sound very spiritual yourself, but not in an
intellectual way at all.
Carrie
You can choose to stop someone from harming a child, and remain loving (to
all involved).
Happy
> Nice try, but you're beating your head against the wall with george.
> He's locked up in a cage of his own perceived "knowledge". Anything
> you say will be interpreted by him according to his own invented
> spiritual dogma.
Is this one of your teachings in the unintellectualized program?
george
> On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 02:20:19 -0600, Philomene <ph...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > and noble means anything. You can't heal yourself by your own efforts.
> >Your decent from the magnitude of knowledge and sonship to perception
> >and littleness was not accomplished in a day, nor will it be corrected
> >in a day just because you are in a hurry to be holy. It will be
> >accomplished incrementally as you allow the Holy Spirit through miracles
> >to heal your fear thoughts and supply the love the fear thoughts lack.
>
It's not hard to see the truth of the Holy Spirit and let go of the
false witness of the ego because its a joyful journey. It is hard to
hold onto condemnation hate and evil because those feel horrible and
twist reality into what it isn't. All I have is the willingness to let
God show me his ideas and accept those and the willingness to let go
of the insanity I let myself hold sometimes. Nothing is easier than to
let truth be true because it already is.
We are only
> asked to be willing to allow ourselves to BE healed. We don't heal
> ourselves.
I must choose to align my thoughts with my creator or I'm choosing not
to be healed that's all I talk about doing. The healing is automatic
once I'm willing to align my thoughts with his but the alignment and
the choice of when to do that are completely up to me as I have free
will that was given me in my creation. I can choose to stay in hell
and see war, evil and hate but that will never make any of them true
as God didn't create them. They will only SEEM true to me as I've
chosen I want them and my power of choice makes my reality as I
understand it. In God's eternal reality they will never be as he knows
nothing of them.
Still there are some things I can do to make my tour
> through this life a little more enjoyable I can focus on the love
> that people do show one another. (Not necessarily me at all - a
> parent and a child in a restaurant. Friends hugging each other.
> Altruism in the community.) And when I perceive lacks of love I can
> write it off as "nothing", because that's what the course says it is.
>
> I do not try to reinterpret it so that shit smells like roses.
Only the ego can see any shit so it will never exist in truth. To let
go of the shit I ask to see it a different way. Just because the ego
screams, "it's wrong, it's not fair, they shouldn't do that, that's
wrong" doesn't make it any less insane, all it does is make me insane
if I choose to listen to it INSTEAD of the truth. Either choice is
always available.
It is
> just an absence of love and therefore nothing.
You just said it was shit and that choice of perception dictates the
response because the choice of perception IS the choice of response.
>
> I have nothing against intervention when someone is deliberately
> trying to increase fear in others. I have nothing against law and
> order, and nothing against war where it is truly necessary. None of
> that is up to me anyway.
>
> Deborah (BC)
ellie
lol
MikeRyder
Well thank you. I prefer the experience over intellectual rumination,
pondering, theorizing, blah blah blah.
MikeRyder
I'm not teaching. But...what have you learned from me?
Carrie
>> holy and noble means anything. You can't heal yourself by your own
>> efforts. Your decent from the magnitude of knowledge and sonship to
>> perception and littleness was not accomplished in a day, nor will it
>> be corrected in a day just because you are in a hurry to be holy. It
>> will be accomplished incrementally as you allow the Holy Spirit
>> through miracles to heal your fear thoughts and supply the love the
>> fear thoughts lack.
>
> asked to be willing to allow ourselves to BE healed. We don't heal
> through this life a little more enjoyable I can focus on the love
> that people do show one another. (Not necessarily me at all - a
> parent and a child in a restaurant. Friends hugging each other.
> Altruism in the community.) And when I perceive lacks of love I can
> write it off as "nothing", because that's what the course says it is.
>
> just an absence of love and therefore nothing.
Absence of love in who? The one seeing the absence of love (in someone
else) or the absence of love in the someone else?
MikeRyder
<starch...@charter.net> wrote:
>Deborah wrote:
>> On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 02:20:19 -0600, Philomene <ph...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Give up the idea that your reinterpretation--no matter how good and
>>> holy and noble means anything. You can't heal yourself by your own
>>> efforts. Your decent from the magnitude of knowledge and sonship to
>>> perception and littleness was not accomplished in a day, nor will it
>>> be corrected in a day just because you are in a hurry to be holy. It
>>> will be accomplished incrementally as you allow the Holy Spirit
>>> through miracles to heal your fear thoughts and supply the love the
>>> fear thoughts lack.
>>
>> Yes, I agree. George makes hard work of an easy task. We are only
>> asked to be willing to allow ourselves to BE healed. We don't heal
>> ourselves. Still there are some things I can do to make my tour
>> through this life a little more enjoyable I can focus on the love
>> that people do show one another. (Not necessarily me at all - a
>> parent and a child in a restaurant. Friends hugging each other.
>> Altruism in the community.) And when I perceive lacks of love I can
>> write it off as "nothing", because that's what the course says it is.
>>
>> I do not try to reinterpret it so that shit smells like roses. It is
>> just an absence of love and therefore nothing.
>
> Absence of love in who? The one seeing the absence of love (in someone
>else) or the absence of love in the someone else?
>
How you see it is how it is for you.
lol
Carrie
I'm not sure how I see it.
george
> On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 14:11:14 -0800 (PST), george
>
> <georgeculol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> just an absence of love and therefore nothing.
>
> >You just said it was shit and that choice of perception dictates the
> >response because the choice of perception IS the choice of response.
>
> things differently when you haven't seen something you don't like in
> the first place?
>
> You already told me the answer, btw. Just a couple of days ago.
>
> Deborah (BC)
Then why are you asking again?
george
> On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 19:44:12 -0800 (PST), george
>
>
>
> <georgeculol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >On Nov 14, 7:34 pm, Deborah <debo...@anywhere.ca> wrote:
> >> On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 14:11:14 -0800 (PST), george
>
> >> <georgeculol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> just an absence of love and therefore nothing.
>
> >> >You just said it was shit and that choice of perception dictates the
> >> >response because the choice of perception IS the choice of response.
>
> >> How do you do it any differently, George? How do you ask to see
> >> things differently when you haven't seen something you don't like in
> >> the first place?
>
> >> You already told me the answer, btw. Just a couple of days ago.
>
> >> Deborah (BC)
>
> >Then why are you asking again?
>
>
> Deborah (BC)
I have an ego that see many things. I also have a Spirit that knows
the truth about whatever I see. When I see the shit. I recognize
within myself that I'm not feeling good because I've seen the poop and
because I'm not feeling the peace of God that is always here I know
I've made a mistake. So then I ask for a different perception from the
one that knows there is no poop but only fertilizer that helps things
grow. :)
The key to my growth is I never want to hold onto what isn't there in
truth like evil and hate but ask for what is. In this way I'm choosing
to side with my Spirit and I'm remembering God and my true nature as
he created it. When I'm seeing poop, I'm forgetting my true nature as
God created it because I've chosen a perception that isn't true.
Pieter
> I see a world of brothers who are as capable of
> wrong-mindedness as I am.
- What do you mean to say with that;
what are the practical consequences of your view?
Since to me this statement is a clich� and
even George would agree with it. :-)
george
> On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 20:47:19 -0800 (PST), george
> you see it. I see a world of brothers who are as capable of
> wrong-mindedness as I am.
>
> Deborah (BC)
How I see it is all that matters. How could anyone else's view make a
difference? I can't choose for them, I can only choose for myself.
If my salvation was predicated on how others choose to live their
lives and see the world, I would be lost because many others are lost.
That's why my salvation depends completely on me and my willingness to
see through the Holy Spirit's loving eyes and follow his guidance.
The salvation of my brothers comes from me following the light that
was given me. It becomes obvious to those that choose to look and they
can choose to change their own minds of their own free will. It comes
from me having faith in the truth, that the light that is in me, is in
them and that no matter what they say or do the light is whispering in
their ear just as it whispers in mine and when the time is right, they
will listen. God's faith in my brothers is their salvation just as it
is mine and it's his job to do the saving not mine.
Happy
Then that's how it is!... at least for you.
george
> On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 07:49:54 -0800 (PST), george
>
> <georgeculol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >If my salvation was predicated on how others choose to live their
> >lives and see the world, I would be lost because many others are lost.
>
>
> Deborah (BC)
I can only be sure that I'm lost and need salvation.
Happy
> On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 11:22:44 -0800 (PST), Happy
>
>
> >> Nice try, but you're beating your head against the wall with george.
> >> He's locked up in a cage of his own perceived "knowledge". Anything
> >> you say will be interpreted by him according to his own invented
> >> spiritual dogma.
>
> >Is this one of your teachings in the unintellectualized program?
>
> I'm not teaching. But...what have you learned from me?
I'm learning that you don't think your teaching.
george
> On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 12:31:37 -0800 (PST), Happy
> person or not. What I'm dismissing when I perceive an absence of love
> as "nothing" is the perception.
>
> Obviously.
>
> Deborah (BC)
The question would be have I decided to let go of my ego's perception
of some kind of evil, hate or tragedy and accepted that it is nothing.
My response shows what I've done and what I believe.
Do I want the offender punished? Should they be condemned for their
action? If the answer to either of these questions is yes then I
haven't perceived nothing and I'm choosing to hold onto what doesn't
exist in truth.
Carrie
Yes. How could how someone else sees something/believes it also be true for
me, and everyone else?
Unless maybe we totally agree. Not sure how that could be proven.
Carrie
> On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 12:31:37 -0800 (PST), Happy
> person or not. What I'm dismissing when I perceive an absence of love
> as "nothing" is the perception.
>
> Obviously.
>
> Deborah (BC)
Not quite sure I understand this (the words) but I believe you are
correct.
Something like when we aren't coming from love, we are coming from
illusion and it's not real.
MikeRyder
Ya think? Go back to the drawing board.
george
> On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 13:02:02 -0800 (PST), george
> to find some compromise between truth and illusion, where you live in
> an illusory world but see only parts of it as illusory, and other
> parts as real?
This world doesn't exist in truth because it will all fade away in
time. For right now I experience only this world. There is no
compromise between truth and illusion. The truth is the Holy Spirit's
loving perceptions are as true as this world can know because they
come from God.
>
> In this world we have to take consequences for things we do and that's
> the way it is. Those consequences may be delivered by societal
> mechanisms or natural mechanisms. Use up all the water and you die.
The body may die but I'm not going to.
>
> That's the way it is and it applies to me as to everyone.
>
> I accept it. Whether you do or not is up to you.
One can accept the Ego's world as it is seen by the ego or one can
choose to see beyond it to what the Holy Spirit sees. The goal of ACIM
is to move past the ego's world to see what is actually there through
the Holy Spirit's eyes. Only love exists in truth EVERYWHERE. The
truth is true here on earth just as it is everywhere. It isn't seen by
those that choose not to open their eyes because the ego screams it's
not true even though it is. I don't have to listen. I'm not the ego.
>
> Deborah (BC)
george
> On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 14:50:38 -0800 (PST), george
I haven't talked about you in anyway. I didn't use your name or said
you in my writing. I talk about myself and what I've learned and why
I've learned it and apply it so I can share what has improved my life.
That's the way to extend thoughts instead of projecting them by
saying, " you should do this or think that" IMO I try not to do that
nor do I believe anyone is doing what they shouldn't be. Everyone
learns their own lessons in their own time.
> And if so, may I say it is extremely presumptuous. The difference
> between us is that, (if you will please kindly read this the way it is
> intended) I seek to have my head in the clouds and my feet on the
> ground while you seem to seek to have both your head and your feet in
> the clouds.
I don't believe in the egos perceptions of the world because I CHOOSE
not to for what are IMO very good reasons that I've outlined before.
The ego isn't me and because I've learned not listening to the ego and
listening to the Holy Spirit has improved my life.
>
> Deborah (BC)
MikeRyder
Contrary to what you like to believe, you are now in conflict with
deborah.
But, hey, it helps the message count.
lol
george
> On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 15:31:20 -0800 (PST), george
>
>
>
She could be in conflict with me but I'm not in conflict with her.
Because I believe what she says and does is right for HER no matter
what she says or does so I have no conflict. I don't ask anyone to
believe what I do nor do I care if they do. All I know is what's right
for me at this moment.
MikeRyder
Of course you're in conflict with her. You are the Queen of Denial.
lol
>Because I believe what she says and does is right for HER no matter
>what she says or does so I have no conflict. I don't ask anyone to
>believe what I do nor do I care if they do. All I know is what's right
>for me at this moment.
Spiritual psychobabble.
Philomene
So how is this anything more than elementary and insufficient
explanation for course-based mental correction?
Strictly speaking you don't "have an ego," in the sense of an
unfortunate condition somehow beyond your control.
YOU made the ego.
Get this. YOU made the ego. At the level of the Kingdom of Heaven,
through God-given free will, YOU first accepted the concept of lack.
This in turn created an intolerable condition where the
mind seemed to split and the mind became a perceiver rather than a
knower. In turn, this initial acceptance of lack created a world of
bodies where perception was possible and created an alternative
identity(ego)which operates from and believes in the thought system
predicated on lack, fear, sin, guilt,punishment and death.
You, George, are creator of the ego. The ego is not the devil. The ego
is your baby. Your creation. If your ego appears separate from you, at
war with you or counter to your true, God-given nature, or sees a world
predicated on lack, this is how you created it and even now your ego is
still fulfilling the function you gave it of maintaining the dream of death.
Hence speaking of the ego at all in terms of course based mental
correction is beginning level course study, elementary and insufficient,
especially when "the ego," is spoken about as though separate,
autonomous, and the source of all evil and sin which somehow blocks your
straight shot to the Kingdom of Heaven. What can more obvious when a
course students projects on "the ego" all evil and sin, that the student
must still be believing in evil and sin and fear and must still be
maintaining the core mistake/belief in lack?
Only the ego sees shit? How pompous, delusional and self-deceiving! YOU
see shit.
You are the creator. You created your ego. The ego didn't create you.
You are the one with the mind that makes perception and seeing shit even
possible. Since when and in what possible sense can a false identity
"see"? And if the ego is more, ie, a false creation, then clearly YOU
created it to see shit and see shit for you.
Re-interpreting in a Pollyannaish manner what the ego sees and makes is
not mental correction.
How can seeing shit as fertilizer resolve the core belief in lack when
the notion of fertilizer is itself permeated and completely dependent on
the notion of lack?
In fact everything you see or possibly imagine seeing, despite any
interpretation, is permeated with and completely dependent on the belief
in lack --because perception is only possible and only desirable because
of a belief in lack. That would include the most holy perception you
could ever dream up --and I would argue also include the holy, forgiven
perception of the Holy Spirit.
That is why I don't trust Pollyannaish, everything is roses, everything
is love interpretations of what has been mis-created through belief in
lack. It also why I reject gratuitous claims that Jesus, or the Holy
Spirit, or a healed mind or George could look upon a child bombed and
burned with white phosphorous and "see only love," as new age bullshit.
From my reading of the course, what a completely enlightened, healed
mind would see instead is stalk raving insanity and minds need of
healing while perceiving this from an emotional state of perfect peace.
Happy
The drawing board teaches me that this is true.