Re: To build two?

[Raum Sariel]

Trish,
I have to admit rather reluctantly that went right over my head. :)
Love and Light,
Raum

On Jul 4, 8:06 am, Trish <thirteencopp...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Although I am only an outside voice, I do have a question, and I mean
> no offense to anyone.
>
> There is a place, in my opinion, where there is a cusp of duality, so
> finely merged, chimera form.
>
> As to atheism and the belief in a One, is this the place to build two?
>
> Or are you on the cusp?

[Raum Sariel]

Trish,
First of all that is a great question. Second of all that is not what
Atheism is, that
is a common misconception regarding atheism.

Sam Harris touches on this quite a bit, there are also books on
"spritual atheists."

Now, I am not aware of that many Atheists who state "there is no
God."
The offcial Atheist position would be "I see no reason to believe that
there
is a God."

How can we fault them for that? There is no reason.No real evidence.

I state as a Diest that I do not "believe" In God because belief for
me
is associated with fact. I.E. believe my Honda is Orange, because it
is. I do say however I have a "reasonable acceptance" that there is a
Creator.

I do not believe that the Creator would care about us as individuals.
We are just too small in the scope of things for that to be logical.
IMHO.

Back to Masonically speaking. I believe it is not up to us to judge
for
another. The Light from one end may be different form another.
Traditionally,
you will see two different viewpoints on this. The religious to
enclined glory
unto the G,A.O.T.U.

To the secular minded or atheist "towards the perfection of humanity:"

Now to Lodge Napoleon Bonaparte both directions are correct. It is not
upon us to decide for the individual.

Both schools are welcome here.

Love and Light,:
Raum

On Jul 5, 1:13 pm, Trish <thirteencopp...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Dear Raum,
>
> Atheism means belief in no god, no higher being, no designer, no
> deity, no supreme being.
>
> Now I understand that even those draped in dogma, doctrine, and
> religiosity, can also be, themselves, atheists.  They believe in the
> ritual, the "church", the book they carry and know word-for-word, but
> have no belief in God unless defined by man.
>
> So my question was...more of what I was wondering...
>
> How can an atheist build a temple of light, without being a vessel
> themselves carrying the light within them?
>
> I truly do not understand this.

> > > Or are you on the cusp?- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Jake Merricks]

The tenor of my life has been the opposite of everything that is vile, and no man can lay any such thing to my charge. I have reason to rejoice that these writings have appeared. They are a vindication of the order and of my conduct. I can and must declare to God, and I do it now in the most solemn manner, that in my whole life I never saw or heard of the so much condemned secret writings, and in particular, respecting these abominable means; such as poisoning, abortion etc. Was it ever known to me in any case that any of my friends or acquaintances ever even thought of them. I was indeed always a schemer and projector, but never could engage much in detail. My general plan is good, though in the detail there may be faults. I had myself to form. In another situation, and in an active station in life, I should have been keenly occupied, and the founding of an order would have never come into my head. But I would have executed much greater things, had not government always opposed my exertions, and placed others in situations which would have suited my talents. It was the full conviction of this, and of what could be done, if every man were placed in the office for which he was fitted by nature and a proper education, which first suggested to me the plan of Illumination. I did not bring Deism into Bavaria more than into Rome. I found it here, in great vigour, more abounding than in any of the neighboring Protestant States. I am proud to be known to the world as the founder of the Illuminati."
Adam Weishaupt

 

---

From: Raum Sariel <raums...@gmail.com>
To: The Outer Court <the-out...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, July 5, 2009 5:14:02 PM
Subject: Re: To build two?

[Jake Merricks]

Glory unto the Great architect of the Universe, Our creator which we are all one.

 

Jacob Merricks

---

From: Trish <thirtee...@yahoo.com>

To: The Outer Court <the-out...@googlegroups.com>

Sent: Sunday, July 5, 2009 7:01:56 PM

Subject: Re: To build two?

Raum,

We are all agnostic...no one can prove there is a God.

One is ordered, the other ordered...one is reflected, the other
directed...one through God, the other by man.

Two builds.

Also, I do not know what this means:  The religious to enclined glory
unto the G,A.O.T.U.

[Javier Cola']

Peace, I dont think one needs to prove God, the burden is to prove there is not. When one decides to say there is, their reasons are their own. Arguments for or against can be made all of the time. Again I cant stress enough that emotion should not rule the day. Sobek.

Jake Merricks wrote:
> Glory unto the Great architect of the Universe, Our creator which we are all one.   Jacob Merricks From: Trish <thirtee...@yahoo.com> To: The Outer Court <the-out...@googlegroups.com> Sent: Sunday, July 5, 2009 7:01:56 PM Subject: Re: To build two?

[Khalil Allah]

Fraters/Sorors,

 

The term atheist has been stipulated, by religious association, to mean, that the individual does not believe, in a God; however the word actually in its etymological sense means “without God,” or without a God.” When we determine exactly what is someone’s definitive belief in a God; to what do we base our understanding from? Has this question been asserted since the ages of time? I sincerely doubt this. I believe that the so-called atheist actually declines to believe in a personal Deity, as defined and asserted by institutionalized religion; and in this sense   I agree. When one accepts the Religious definition of Deity, superstition, faith based initiatives; and fear of heaven and hells, which accompanies, the lost of freedom of thought.

It doesn’t matter if a God can be proved or not, because each individual must experience this in their own sphere of sensation, of being. God from the German word GUD, means good; as an acronym Gomer-Oz-Dabar etc. etc.  To the ancients especially in Egypt Neter not only represented a Deity, but also the natural forces of the universe, of which the priestly body was able to control etc.  Does it matter for a person to state I believe in God? Not to me, because each individual has their way of discovering this force. If an individual does good then he’s God, if he does wickedness he is then a devil. But then an understanding arises that all that exist, is the good, because every occurrence, is by permission of “WILL.” The Buddhist state that nothing occurs that is not invited. This is very interesting, because it places the power of every action, effect, and cause solely in the hands of man. Science is proving that everything exist, because man observes it, because man actually brings it into manifestation. For example when we embrace someone; shake their hands, are we really doing so, because it is actually not possible; because the molecules bend away from each other, therefore no one actually touches each other. When we look at someone or anything; isn’t true that our eyes actually take in light/energy and that we actually give form to this light/energy, by our very own consciousness? Definitely! Like can a wall be actually solid, when no molecule is actually touching?

Everything happens, because Man causes it too unknowingly or knowingly. The aim of magick is to make man a conscious participant in the act of ever creating. If the question arises is there a God the answer is simple is there Man/Woman? If the question arises does God exist, the answer is simple does Man/Woman exist.  A true atheist is anyone that defiles the essence of Man; that doubts the reality of Man. If one casts away the belief in God, as the world knows of it to be; can he/she casts away themselves. Even if man/woman commits suicide they are still left with themselves. How do we know such a subtler body exists? Close your eyes now visualize yourself standing before yourself. That is a form and it is made of subtler forms of energy. Those of us that do work in the astral realms consciously, is fully aware of this subtler body, and just how physical it is.

In all of Egyptian history and Mysteries we are faced with men and woman that by their goodness, virtuousness; and certain practices as taught in the mystery schools, ascended to reach perfection and mastery of themselves and the universe, as we know it, they were later termed as Gods. Every human being can consciously access this station. In other words every angel; God etc were first known to be human beings, and evolved to become more. This same teaching is now in the hands of the Rosicrucian’s etc.

Is there such thing as an atheist? I chuckle as I answer this question, NO ITS NOT! All that exist is what is. Let’s look closely at Descartes words “I think therefore I am;” however this is a phrase that was corrupted by the Greeks, from the earlier Egyptian phrase “I AM THEREFORE I THINK! What does it mean?

Note: When you have found a God outside of yourself, you have not found the true and Supreme God, but an imaginative and inferior one.

HOMO EST DEUS,

Khalil

[Jake Merricks]

I do not know where you come off saying that we are all agnostic because i am not. And there is absolutely a higher power whom i call to and is apart of us all. The Great architect of the Universe made us all and we are all connected. And i can prove there is a Gaotu because of ow many times i have had divine intervention. May love, Light, and wisdom bless you.

 

Jacob Merricks

---

From: Trish <thirtee...@yahoo.com>
To: The Outer Court <the-out...@googlegroups.com>

Sent: Monday, July 6, 2009 4:40:10 AM

Subject: Re: To build two?

Dear Javier Cola,

Emotion is an aspect of man* in his earthly form.  All that goes with
being human, existing in the body human, relies on biological
chemicals.  This is dust, all that plagues man with urges, desire,
ego, and all that goes with being weak to the form we are given, is
mere dust.  It is a darkening veil we have to throw to the side to see
that no man should be defined by this cloak, because it is a skin, a
vessel of flesh and is worthless.  There are those, Buddhist monks,
for example, who have mastered this annoyance (flesh) so they can
freely be.

We are all agnostic because we do not KNOW there is a God.  No one can
prove to anyone there is a God.  But this does not mean one exists,
nor does it mean one does not exist.  In fact, you cannot prove
something does not exist, so there is cannot be, as  you say "burden
to prove there is not".

Intellect vs Enlightenment

Intellectual choices (for man) would cause man to be
things...perfecting the vessel.  This would mean the sciences could be
used (genome research, etc) to perfect man and make choices with only
that in focus.  For instance, there is current study of gamma
information gotten by EEG for approximately six month old children.
What this information indicates is the potential for intellect in the
child.  It is proven to be accurate.  Therefore, would this mean the
"intellectual choice" to perfect man's vessel would indicate that
destroying potentially low intellectual children from the gene pool
would be justified?    There is also the ability being researched to
embed nanobots which will enhance man's intellect--although tethered,
not to "light", but to a distant technology which will feed facts and
information on request.

Is knowledge knowing what others know and reciting it?  Isn't this,
too, agnostic?

If an atheist can be a man draped with dogma and doctrine, knowing
what man has defined as god, then so too, can an intellectual be
draped with knowledge, knowing what man has defined as knowledge.

Enlightenment...it doesn't have a physical existence, although it
cries out to us in ancient symbols scratched in stone.


* humanity, all types

On Jul 5, 10:35 pm, Javier Cola' <shafiqn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Peace,  I dont think one needs to prove God, the burden is to prove there is not. When one decides to say there is, their reasons are their own. Arguments for or against can be made all of the time. Again I cant stress enough that emotion should not rule the day.               Sobek.
>
>
>
> Jake Merricks wrote:

> > Glory unto the Great architect of the Universe, Our creator which we are all one.   Jacob Merricks From: Trish <thirteencopp...@yahoo.com> To: The Outer Court <the-out...@googlegroups.com> Sent: Sunday, July 5, 2009 7:01:56 PM Subject: Re: To build two?

> >  Raum, We are all agnostic...no one can prove there is a God. One is ordered, the other ordered...one is reflected, the other directed...one through God, the other by man. Two builds. Also, I do not know what this means:  The religious to enclined glory unto the G,A.O.T.U. On Jul 5, 5:14 pm, Raum Sariel < raumsar...@gmail.com > wrote: > Trish, > First of all that is a great question. Second of all that is not what > Atheism is, that > is a common misconception regarding atheism. > > Sam Harris touches on this quite a bit, there are also books on > "spritual atheists." > > Now, I am not aware of that many Atheists who state "there is no > God." > The offcial Atheist position would be "I see no reason to believe that > there > is a
> >  God." > > How can we fault them for that? There is no reason.No real evidence. > > I state as a Diest that I do not "believe" In God because belief for > me > is associated with fact. I.E. believe my Honda is Orange, because it > is. I do say however I have a "reasonable acceptance" that there is a > Creator. > > I do not believe that the Creator would care about us as individuals. > We are just too small in the scope of things for that to be logical. > IMHO. > > Back to Masonically speaking. I believe it is not up to us to judge > for > another. The Light from one end may be different form another. > Traditionally, > you will see two different viewpoints on this. The religious to > enclined glory > unto the G,A.O.T.U. > > To the secular minded or atheist "towards the perfection of humanity:" > > Now to Lodge
> >  Napoleon Bonaparte both directions are correct. It is not > upon us to decide for the individual. > > Both schools are welcome here. > > Love and Light,: >  Raum > > On Jul 5, 1:13 pm, Trish < thirteencopp...@yahoo.com > wrote: > > > > > Dear Raum, > > > Atheism means belief in no god, no higher being, no designer, no > > deity, no supreme being. > > > Now I understand that even those draped in dogma, doctrine, and > > religiosity, can also be, themselves, atheists.  They believe in the > > ritual, the "church", the book they carry and know word-for-word, but > > have no belief in God unless defined by man. > > > So my question was...more of what I was wondering... > > > How can
> >  an atheist build a temple of light, without being a vessel > > themselves carrying the light within them? > > > I truly do not understand this. > > > On Jul 5, 3:15 pm, Raum Sariel < raumsar...@gmail.com > wrote: > > > > Trish, > > > I have to admit rather reluctantly that went right over my head. :) > > > Love and Light, > > > Raum > > > > On Jul 4, 8:06 am, Trish < thirteencopp...@yahoo.com > wrote: > > > > > Hello, > > > > > Although I am only an outside voice, I do have a question, and I mean > > > > no offense to anyone. > > > > > There is a place, in my opinion, where there is

> >  a cusp of duality, so > > > > finely merged, chimera form. > > > > > As to atheism and the belief in a One, is this the place to build two? > > > > > Or are you on the cusp?- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Lance Watkins]

"Emotion is an aspect of man* in his earthly form. All that goes with
being human, existing in the body human, relies on biological
chemicals. This is dust, all that plagues man with urges, desire,
ego, and all that goes with being weak to the form we are given, is
mere dust. "

Strange, this view is Gnostic, not agnostic. To claim that the physical form is a blight, states a belief in it being impure. What causes you to make this assumption if not a moral code based on a belief? Having any belief means that you are not agnostic. 

"We are all agnostic because we do not KNOW there is a God."

This perspective is only true if you assume that God is seperate from you. "Cognito ergo sum", I think therefore I am. I KNOW, I am. By knowing myself, I know God, because God and I am are identical in kind, but different in degree.

"Enlightenment...it doesn't have a physical existence, although it
cries out to us in ancient symbols scratched in stone."

This doesn't seem to make any sense to me. It's poetic, but I need you to expalain the substance of what you mean here.

L.V.X.7777777

---

From: Trish <thirtee...@yahoo.com>
Sent: Monday, July 06, 2009 1:40 AM

To: The Outer Court <the-out...@googlegroups.com>

On Jul 5, 10:35 pm, Javier Cola' wrote:
> Peace,  I dont think one needs to prove God, the burden is to prove there is not. When one decides to say there is, their reasons are their own. Arguments for or against can be made all of the time. Again I cant stress enough that emotion should not rule the day.               Sobek.
>
>
>
> Jake Merricks wrote:

> > Glory unto the Great architect of the Universe, Our creator which we are all one.   Jacob Merricks From: Trish To: The Outer Court Sent: Sunday, July 5, 2009 7:01:56 PM Subject: Re: To build two?

[Raum Sariel]

Bro.Khalil,
This is a fantastic post. Thank you for this insight.
Love and Light,
Raum

[Raum Sariel]

Great to see you jumping in on the conversation Lance. Don't be shy :)
Love and Light,
Raum

On Jul 6, 10:29 am, "Lance Watkins" <la...@hypatialake.com> wrote:
> "Emotion is an aspect of man* in his earthly form. All that goes with
> being human, existing in the body human, relies on biological
> chemicals. This is dust, all that plagues man with urges, desire,
> ego, and all that goes with being weak to the form we are given, is
> mere dust. "
>
> Strange, this view is Gnostic, not agnostic. To claim that the physical form is a blight, states a belief in it being impure. What causes you to make this assumption if not a moral code based on a belief? Having any belief means that you are not agnostic.
>
> "We are all agnostic because we do not KNOW there is a God."
>
> This perspective is only true if you assume that God is seperate from you. "Cognito ergo sum", I think therefore I am. I KNOW, I am. By knowing myself, I know God, because God and I am are identical in kind, but different in degree.
>
> "Enlightenment...it doesn't have a physical existence, although it
> cries out to us in ancient symbols scratched in stone."
>
> This doesn't seem to make any sense to me. It's poetic, but I need you to expalain the substance of what you mean here.
>
> L.V.X.7777777
>

> ----------------------------------------

[Khalil Allah]

Trish,

 

SIMPLY BEAUTIFUL!

On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 7:43 AM, Trish <thirtee...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Dear Jake Merricks,

There is no intent, on my part, whatsoever, to suggest there is no
God, no Supreme Being, no Great Architect.  And forgive me if this is
what you sensed I was trying to do by putting everyone under the word
"agnostic".   It was not.   Every cell in my body, physically,
believes there is a Supreme Being--and only One Supreme Being.  Every
part of my intangible self (which is a part of One), knows there is
One.

Agnostic means, without the knowledge of the ability to show, to
others or ourselves, there is this One.   In other words, as if a
science project, some demand PROOF positive there is this existence
known as God.   There is no scientific method to do so.  This
frustrated those, such as Newton, who tried to find a way to display
the Great Architect's works for others.  How profound his notes were,
his studies of many sacred texts in pursuit of this endeavor.  But
mortal man can only see with mortal eyes...and this is man's limited
prism.  That prism is man's concept of knowledge...based on limited
spectrums of "light".  Is physical knowledge based on another mortal
man's concept of phsical knowledge, knowledge at all?   Newton was
venturing outside the physical...and this is why we see, in his notes,
his findings of gravity, spectrums of light, alchemy etc...but still,
his explorations, however profound they were then, and now, only open
the physical eyes to so much more.

There are many atheists who state, almost proudly, that they are, in
fact atheists (based on interaction in my personal life with self-
proclaimed atheists).   But in fact, they too, are agnostic.  They
state they want proof there is a God.   When I say to them, "Why do
you want proof of something you do not believe exists?".   They say,
in so many words, that lack of proof, to them, means there is no God--
therefore, they are atheists (for lack of proof).  If an atheist
believes there is a God and seeks proof of such Supreme Being, they
are agnostic.

Agnostics cannot know, through man's limited ability of knowledge
(prism), there is a God.  Someone who wants proof of God, so-named an
atheist (in some cases so-named "intellectuals"), will not grasp this
simple concept:   If you fill a glass with water, there is water in
that glass.  Water does, in fact, exist in this glass.  If you put
this glass of water in the noon-day sun and come back to it in late
afternoon, the water is still there--but the glass is empty (due to
evaporation).  The atheist, the intellectual, will want proof the
water exists--and it does exist, although in another form.   Now this
can be proved by scientific method...and this proof must be SEEN by
the mortal eyes of the atheist and the intellectual in order for them
to satisfy their REASONING of an ordered and viewable existence.
These proofs are based on earthly concepts, based on matter and the
transformations of matter.   But in truth, we are all holding that
empty glass, without the knowledge of how to show water does in fact
exist--agnostic (of course water in this case, means God).

Gnostic and Agnostic

Can one be agnostic (without knowledge) and gnostic (with knowledge)
at the same time.  Yes, to me this is the place where ONE build should
exist.  Gnostic means one is with knowledge of a Supreme Being.   One
can know there is a God, but also realizes the problem of not being
able to tangibly demonstrate God's existence to others to satisfy
those who reason that only things within their scope of their five
senses exists.   Gnostic individuals live as agnostics in the physical
world--they know God exists but have  no knowledge of how to
demonstrate it outright in a lab, so to speak.

One build is for those who reason all existence is proved by using
"mortal man-devised" tools (the five senses receive).  One build is
for those who cannot prove God's existence to mortal man, but who
gives outwardly (intangibly).

This is why I asked, "To build two"?  This would be polarization--no
cusp.  A place of physical walls and division.

Mortal man is limited by sensing existence through RECEIVING
information via the five senses...not one sense gives, but receives
data for the "knowledge" base of the individual (inward).  Smelling.
Seeing.   Hearing.  Tasting.  Touching.

Could one "know" there is a taste, without inward thought and
confirmation within?  Could one "know" there is an atom to see,
without inward thought and confirmation within?  Could one "know" the
bell has rung, without inward thought and confirmation within?

To prove there is a One to mortal man's five senses is similar to
proving light is eternal.  Mortal man exists in a limited vessel using
data for a limited science--this limited science requires only what
mortal man is limited to see and therefore proves mortal man's
"sight".  What of things OUTSIDE mortal man's "intellectual" grasp?
Beyond the scope of mortal man's sight?

The Egyptians sailed the cosmos on ships.   What would a tangible sail
be without the invisible nature of  air that pushes against it?    The
Egyptians knew the two...the mortal existence and the intangible
existence.   One is stone, the other the energy to build.

There were two builds in Egypt, Upper and Lower--but the wearing of
the two crowns is what built the pyramids.



On Jul 6, 12:57 pm, Jake Merricks <jaccobmerri...@rocketmail.com>

wrote:

> I do not know where you come off saying that we are all agnostic because i am not. And there is absolutely a higher power whom i call to and is apart of us all. The Great architect of the Universe made us all and we are all connected. And i can prove there is a Gaotu because of ow many times i have had divine intervention. May love, Light, and wisdom bless you.
>
>  Jacob Merricks
>
> ________________________________

[Raum Sariel]

I agree that this has become a very rich dialog. We are so glad to
have so many join in the conversation.
This is what the Outer Court is all about.
Love and Light,
Raum

On Jul 7, 11:49 am, Trish <thirteencopp...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Thank you, Khalil Allah, for your kind words.

>
> On Jul 7, 1:56 pm, Khalil Allah <freemaso...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Trish,
>
> > SIMPLY BEAUTIFUL!
>

> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -

[Jake Merricks]

Trish,
This is very good and i am sorry if I came off in any way disrespectful as I equated agnostic with atheist. But i just want to say the proof is there of God just Look with your Eye.

 

Jacob Merricks

---

From: Trish <thirtee...@yahoo.com>
To: The Outer Court <the-out...@googlegroups.com>

Sent: Tuesday, July 7, 2009 7:43:11 AM

Subject: Re: To build two?

> I do not know where you come off saying that we are all agnostic because i am not. And there is absolutely a higher power whom i call to and is apart of us all. The Great architect of the Universe made us all and we are all connected. And i can prove there is a Gaotu because of ow many times i have had divine intervention. May love, Light, and wisdom bless you.
>
>  Jacob Merricks
>
> ________________________________

[Nicola (Nee-ca-la)]

Dear Trish,

As I mentioned in another post, putting definitions out there to
explain one's self or perspective is reasonable. "Belief" and "faith"
have been put out there for folks to respond to, and now you have
introduced the term "hope." I do not agree with your assertion on how
limited hope is, but I know what it means to me as an internal truth
for myself and am at peace with that, and do not require defining it
here. I will take these to be your impressions of these words, rather
than the tone of proofing their meanings as come across on occasion.
But everyone needs to keep in mind the possibility that the only true
meanings of these words are within yourselves.

I feel as though I am missing something in these posts... the sense
that a question was asked, but then when a response or many were
gathered, those responses were debated, from the asker. So, I'm
curious to ask, with all humility in tact, to what end are these
discussions for you? Are you seeking answers outside yourself, or to
confirm or find the answers within yourself?

And to everyone who has followed this thread, I ask you, what are your
thoughts regarding Compassion?

In light always,
Niki