Difference of Perspectives?

[darktemplarssj]

hello everyone, i wanted to get your opinions on this. for about a
year now me and one of my good friends have been fighting about
spiritual ideas.

my friend eric's idea of spirituality is that you should do good
works with no thought of the merit that they might portend. you
should not have a belief system because it is something that bogs
down and limits your good works, i.e. some traditional christians
might do good things so that they could "get into heaven".
(so he is saying any standardized religion that has restrictions
serves as bounding and limiting, this is his reasoning for being
basically atheistic)

my perspective is that you should be able to both do good works for
the moment and allow them to impact you in some spiritual way. for
example the idea of teach/learning that ra often uses. you may both
teach for the merit of teaching and allow it to enlighten you.

our debait rests on the fact that my friend can't see the posibility
of sharing the experience with anything but the experience itself.
he also thinks that to view the world as i do with the spiritual
overtone is to disregard or to denigrate the physical world in view
of a world that is less real to us right now.

so, any thoughts on this dillema? i know we both have positively
polarized intentions, but closing the schism between our oppinions
is not easy. my first impession is that it might be the gnosis
(intuitive/ inborn understanding) of a 4th density wanderer(him)
versus maybe a 5th(me? or at least i feel like i would be a upper
5th density wanderer if any).
good journey
-dave aka dmw

[bob_dunham]

--- in asc2k@yahoogroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postid=p_x7ls8gktxjlmkofp5i6okpzptcgyhdpowjqp lf6buyss-uljpuir1bndegckvlhvz08nq0ajdl8gum), "darktemplarssj" <whited4@r...> wrote:

> he also thinks that to view the world as i do with the spiritual
> overtone is to disregard or to denigrate the physical world in view
> of a world that is less real to us right now.
____________-
i agree with your friend on this one. but this is my goal, where as
your friend seems to think this is a bad thing. i believe the
physical world to be an illusion; therefore i practice disregarding
it intentionally i.e. acim.

[Lesley Schultz]

dear david, l/l & peace to all:

doing acts of love/charity/kindness/service is never
simply a momentary action. even something as simple
as helping a child down from a tree she climbed, and
couldn't get down, is an act that can color decades of
a person's life. kindness, great and small, can come
at moments of a person's life when things seem inches
from total desperation and despair. these acts can
literally save a person's life, or give them the
courage to go on, that life is worth living. it
sounds like erik hasn't had the priviledge of knowing
some of the outcomes of his acts of kindness. i have
had that priviledge, and never will i doubt that the
love we share reverberates upwards dimensionally and
sideways across the expanse of time/space and
space/time.

as, unfortunately, can negative actions. it's been
said that karen carpenter starved herself to death
because her parents told her she was a little too
plump, and because some tv camera operator told her
that the camera adds 30 lbs and she had to loose
weight. of course, the words themselves didn't do the
damage by themselves. anorexia nervosa is a mental
illness, but even a disease like the common cold
requires a weakness somewhere in the immmune system to
get a foothold. if you look back to your childhood
and remember a playground slur or insult, there is
proof right there that everyone one of us has been
affected by a small negative action.

in jewish philosophy, if you do an act of kindness and
there could be any kind of repayment, whether thanks
or other form of gratitude, then this diminishes the
gift. the finest form of mitzvah or kind/charitable
act is to give when no return at all is possible.
there is a custom that a dead jewish person is never
left alone during the time before he or she is buried.
there is a special group of people that do the
mitzvah of sitting with the deceased person, when the
family or friends cannot, and this is considered the
very highest kindness that can be done. certainly, in
christianity there is some slight mention that your
kindness [and your evil deeds] will come back to you
amplified. if you distort the intent of the message,
you could consider this is a form of payment, but that
doesn't mean that christianity or any religion is bad
because it encourages the idea of payment/transaction
for everything. true, jesus dying on the cross, to
remove our sins, is talked about as being payment for
the evil actions of all mankind, but if we look at it
from a loo perspective, it appears a little different.


i think jesus permitted himself to be crucified to
remove the guilt, shame, sorrow and despair of
ordinary people being unable to perfectly follow the
law [whether jewish law, ten commandments law or even
law of one.] i think he may have also wanted to kill
the idea of a messiah that would wipe away all
problems and bring perfect justice and peace to the
world, because we know that short of ascension to 4d,
this will not happen and would encourage people not to
live in the moment. i think he also wanted to find a
way to show perfect, unconditional love to this world,
that had probably never seen it before. if we think
about it from this perspective, this act of kindness
probably did change the whole history of western
civilization. did jesus get anything out of it? we
know he's uninterested in worship, honor, power, etc.
all he ever wanted was for us to love one another, and
to love god, and let's face it, we don't do this very
well, very often. sometimes we have utterly and
completely failed.

life is a free gift; it cannot be bought or sold or
traded or given away. in the final analysis, all
other gifts are reflections or refractions of the gift
of life in some form. they all decend or ascend from
a giving of a life-form, to a life-form. if you give
a rose to a loved one, eat a sandwich for lunch, give
a pigeon a snack or even put money in a bank, there is
a life present somewhere in the chain. if all are
one, and we know that all is one, then the one only
gives to itself. it is not possible for the one to
make a transaction of the giving of a gift, or the
recieving of a gift. giving and receiving are
distortions, driven by separation. the closer you are
to the one, the less need there is for anything and
the more needs there is to share what there is.

the present is the very moment where time touches
eternity, where all dimensions are touchable, all time
reachable, the origin of all there will be and the end
point of that which was. your friend erik is right
about this, but we can grasp the present moment and
move to affect it. to fully accept this is to fully
acknowledge that we are part of the divine one, to own
our sovereignty. the physical world is the way we can
affect our present moment, our scope of activity, or
area of working. the two worlds are not separate,
even though here in 3d they appear to be. to deny the
present moment is to deny infinite possibility, and i
think erik doesn't want to do that.

i don't know. does this help one bit?

blessings,
~lesley





__________________________________
do you yahoo!?
yahoo! small business $15k web design giveaway
http://promotions.yahoo.com/design_giveaway/

[Detlef]

hello everyone, i wanted to get your opinions on this. for about a
year now me and one of my good friends have been fighting about
spiritual ideas

dg:
should one fight over spirituality?


you
should not have a belief system because it is something that bogs
down and limits your good works,

dg:
i don't think it is possible not to have a belief system. beliefs through
parents
and social conditioning, friends, make up our belief system.
and who desides what is good work? duality at work?


is not easy. my first impession is that it might be the gnosis
(intuitive/ inborn understanding) of a 4th density wanderer(him)
versus maybe a 5th(me? or at least i feel like i would be a upper
5th density wanderer if any).

dg:
it is my understanding trough my divine self, there is no 4d wanderer.

regards detlef


[non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[mawk]

hi all and one

the metaphysical and the physical world aren't mutually exclusive, one seeps
into the other and in essence it is our focus which determines what we
perceive. further and probably more importantly, it is our filters that
determine what we don't perceive. it is important to realise that these
filters also take the form of both physical and mental limitations.

our senses are only capable of perceive a small percentage of the
electromagnetic spectrum, and whose to say there aren't an infinite number
of spectrums that have yet to make it to mankind's attention, or have faded
from the memory of our collective conscious. even within the parameters of
our perception much is denied from explicit memory, and further, much is
taken for granted in implicit memory. alternately, to entertain that one
view point is more important than another is to exercise a judgement. being
from the realm of not knowing, any judgement is a brave move imho. hence,
the notion of seeking balance and experience to temper judgement.

yours entertaining potentials,

mawk

ps if anyone from l/l research gets an opportunity i would love to know what
the avalon project is all about. avalon in my own little world is a place
close to my heart and hence the curiosity.

[shemayet_3]

good morning lesley, group :o)

--- in asc2k@yahoogroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postid=00bvmjdlq5gtyhvyrhlrgxlr81fe1ven5kui5g cv11w5tkxc8e6bpcdi82ydrqfkb7zjxsy0g596mqhix-_ybg), lesley schultz <msthoth@y...> wrote:

in jewish philosophy, if you do an act of kindness and there could
be any kind of repayment, whether thanks or other form of gratitude,
then this diminishes the gift. the finest form of mitzvah or
kind/charitable act is to give when no return at all is possible.
there is a custom that a dead jewish person is neverleft alone
during the time before he or she is buried.

me: i am sorry lesley, but i am going to have to respectfully
disagree with your statement about the jewish. i am of the opinion
that the only people that they do this for is other jews. that
religion to me is not very kind. i have also heard that they, try to
be the one's who give the most money, in any situation, because if
they do, they will be blessed by god, which to them means "wealth".
i am surprized that you would compare judaism, with christianity.
judaism is about law. christianity is about love.

lesley: there is a special group of people that do the mitzvah of
sitting with the deceased person, when the family or friends cannot,
and this is considered the very highest kindness that can be done.

me: this is not extraordinary, lesley. i can think of a lot of
people who would do this if asked. (see i just don't understand, why
you would use, "religions", to compare "peoples", good deeds) good
deeds are performed by the non-jew, just out of the kindness and
love in their hearts, not because it's a "mitsvah", and makes
them "special".

lesley: certainly, in christianity there is some slight mention that
your kindness [and your evil deeds] will come back to you amplified.

me: actually, that is not true. in christianity, you find favor with
god, because you loved, not because you sacrificed. there is no
actual karma involved in christianity. that is more like a
rosacrucian idea.

lesley: if you distort the intent of the message, you could consider
this is a form of payment, but that doesn't mean that christianity
or any religion is bad because it encourages the idea of
payment/transaction for everything.

me: where are you getting this information??? (true) christians
don't have a "form of payment" for their good deeds! as a matter of
fact, most christians do "good deeds", because it's "who they are".
they are kind, forgiving, loving, etc., and they do all of this
because it is what they "choose" to do. it is not written anywhere,
a christian must do anything for anybody. the only thing they must
do in my opinion is "love themselves". we all know the possibilities
of people who loves themselves right?

lesley: true, jesus dying on the cross, to remove our sins, is
talked about as being payment for the evil actions of all mankind,
but if we look at it from a loo perspective, it appears a little
different.

me: no, imo, he did it because it was what his "god/higher self"
wanted him to do. he wanted to show the world "how much he loved
them!!!" whether it was "not loving himself" is irrelevant. there
was absolutely nothing "in" this world, he wanted or needed. it was
not a form of payment. jesus, *was not, to me, a martyr* (although
people see it that way). he was killed because people dont like the
truth.

lesley: i think jesus permitted himself to be crucified to remove
the guilt, shame, sorrow and despair of ordinary people being unable
to perfectly follow the law [whether jewish law, ten commandments
law or even law of one.]

me: actually, i am of the opinion, that the effect would be the
opposite. he died for what he believed in. and he certainly did not
believe in the jewish faith.(i actually think he was a protestor
against money and money lenders, and would have had to completely
renounce judaism, to do that) and they killed him for trying to tell
them they were wrong. i don't believe it had anything to do
with "law or religion", it had to do with "principal".

he didn't protest his death sentence (and i think the movement
shows) because he thought it was the only, act, that would get their
attention. you have to remember, jesus was "beloved" by many. he, by
dying, then implied that his movement was worth dying for. (jesus
was not just some poor guy, he was a "prominent member" of society,
who had a lot to lose for doing what he did) not somehting a normal
jewish person would do, let alone do it for people that are not
jewish.

imo he didn't do it because he thought he would receive some kind of
good karma from doing it. all he wanted in return for his death, was
for them to realise that all they needed to get by in the world
was "love" not money.

i believe that people saw him as a "savior" because he gave
people the "courage" to do "what is right", or to say it even
better. he showed them how to "love", and in the process, saved
them, from self-loathing.

i don't mean to create a stir or anything, but this is only my
opinion, and i am not trying to push it down anyones throat. this
is just "my truth".

with love

shemayet~*

[Jeremy Weiland]

> our debait rests on the fact that my friend can't
> see the posibility of sharing the experience with
> anything but the experience itself. he also thinks
> that to view the world as i do with the spiritual
> overtone is to disregard or to denigrate the
> physical world in view of a world that is less real
> to us right now.

you know what i think? you're both right. if i
understand him correctly, he is arguing that you value
an experience that is not real to him. so he values
what is real to him (only physical reality) and you
value what is real to you (physical + spiritual
reality).

the point of contention, i would think, would be
whether you can respect the opinion of somebody who
has a different view of reality than you do. to me,
it has to do with honoring experience as the primary
instructor. it's like when i was arguing with an
objectivist once (they believe only in the existence
of physical reality) and said, y'know, if you had not
had the experience of a reality greater than the one
you know, then i wouldn't *expect* you to believe in
anything greater. i genuinely feel that way - i don't
expect anybody to accept a higher reality based on
faith alone. there has to be something - a feeling,
an intuition, a sense of rightness, direct experience
- backing up any model of reality you have.

it comes down to realizing that we don't know
everything, and we form the best explanation we can
from the available data. it's just that that data is
not always available to everybody - sometimes it
presents itself on an individual basis. respect then
comes from a trust in the character of another, as it
really always should.

hope that helps,

jeremy

__________________________________
do you yahoo!?
yahoo! small business $15k web design giveaway
http://promotions.yahoo.com/design_giveaway/

[Jeremy Weiland]

acim doesn't say disregard the physical world - it
just teaches that it is an illusion useful for
learning. the practice that acim encourages helps one
to unlearn one's own unconscious value judgements that
give the physical world power of the self, but as i
see it, the goal is not to ignore physical reality.

> i agree with your friend on this one. but this is
> my goal, where as your friend seems to think this is

> a bad thing. i believe the physical world to be an
> illusion; therefore i practice disregarding it
> intentionally i.e. acim.

__________________________________
do you yahoo!?
yahoo! small business $15k web design giveaway
http://promotions.yahoo.com/design_giveaway/

[Sal Rachele]

--- darktemplarssj <whited4@... (/group/asc2k/post?postid=k9j2fvnnkv1uuni8kplku2zowjgeef85lwwwoy goamzuystu9lhmzcva5yzpg4q6cd-ddbfi85ulva)> wrote:
> hello everyone, i wanted to get your opinions on
> this. for about a
> year now me and one of my good friends have been
> fighting about
> spiritual ideas.
>
sal here:
it sounds like you and your friend are not that far
apart in your perceptions. the main difference i see
is that your friend apparently does not believe both
sts and sto can co-exist peacefully and help each
other evolve, while you see sts as an integral part of
sto.

iow, if i do not help myself and give myself what i
need to be happy, then i cannot do much for others. i
certainly agree with your friend that if the primary
motivation for doing 'good' is to reap rewards for
self, then this is exclusively sts and will probably
hinder one's evolution. but where's the balance?

there's a lot of do-goody-good christians out there
that believe in sacrifice. the only sacrifice
required, imho, is the giving up of illusions,
whatever they be, and one illusion is that we must
forego our own desires in order to serve the greater
good. since all of us are a part of the infinite one,
denying any part of the infinite (ourselves) is
denying the whole, since wholeness includes everyone.

obviously, this does not mean we have to give energy
to parts of the infinite that vibrate in lower 3d, but
we must see them as part of the whole and just as
deserving of love as anyone else. otherwise, we lower
ourselves to their vibration. discernment, not
judgment.

--sal

__________________________________
do you yahoo!?
yahoo! small business $15k web design giveaway
http://promotions.yahoo.com/design_giveaway/

[bob_dunham]

--- in asc2k@yahoogroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postid=jblsqldpum4be1fat7dsefql9u0jqqmh1t3lg8 kah-zhdoxnk0_b_n-dnh0lx4rfftrkgmb3aukw1a6bhe71nw), jeremy weiland <greenlantern113@y...>
wrote:
it's like when i was arguing with an
> objectivist once (they believe only in the existence
> of physical reality) and said, y'know, if you had not
> had the experience of a reality greater than the one
> you know, then i wouldn't *expect* you to believe in
> anything greater. i genuinely feel that way - i don't
> expect anybody to accept a higher reality based on
> faith alone.
_________________
ok, what were you arguing about then?

[Lori Zatz]

greetings all --
religious differences, humn.... touchy subject.

being brought up jewish, i have only recently begun to to understand the deal
with jesus. he was a great man.

the idea, in my opinion of course, but gathered from a course in miracles, is
that jesus allowed himself to be crucified to show that: we are not our bodies,
death doesn't exist, and love is all there is. an extreem example yes?





[non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Lesley Schultz]

dear shemayet:


--- shemayet_3 <shemayet@... (/group/asc2k/post?postid=wccsm0jeabojf010shlqwfnsy1h4rsvdp00qdq bb1nnwnufxibnvoeiyqfjbq2g6qnatdg7mza)> wrote:
>
>>ls: i don't mean to create a stir or anything, but
this is only my opinion, and i am not trying to push
it down anyones throat. this is just "my truth".
>
ls: yes it is, and as with all differences, i respect
and honor your viewpoint.

i could answer your arguments with scriptural
references to bolster my points, but such a thing
would not be in keeping with either the goals or
spirit of this list.

those of ra told me in my reading with dw last year
that a belief system, any belief system, that teaches
and nourishes is a very important thing-- and no
belief system [i.e. religion] does those things
perfectly for everyone. to make a spiritual journey
towards understanding, peace, etc. one has to start
somewhere. christianity is a fine place to start, as
is judaism, buddhism, hinduism, islam, etc. some
people can continue to find nourishment and solace in
their religion as they get older. some cannot, and
begin to search along different lines, such as dw's
work in clarifying and combining the scientific works
that give a physical grounding to the
metaphysical/spiritual. there is nothing wrong with
any practice or seeking that works for you, so long as
it doesn't harm anyone else. and of course, as a
manifestation of the one yourself, it shouldn't harm
you either.

i think we must agree to disagree on christ and
christianity, but happily, it is not a very important
topic. in the end, we are all one anyway.

~lesley

__________________________________
do you yahoo!?
yahoo! small business $15k web design giveaway
http://promotions.yahoo.com/design_giveaway/

[bitsmart]

--- lesley schultz <msthoth@... (/group/asc2k/post?postid=h-wilbr4ml0caazoxrodumzpksmg7kqycuaod2d_7rdcvcmgxuls ukz8zo06ozp5tjopnd-wwjxf)> wrote:
> the present is the very moment where time touches
> eternity, where all dimensions are touchable, all
> time
> reachable, the origin of all there will be and the
> end
> point of that which was. your friend erik is right
> about this, but we can grasp the present moment and
> move to affect it. to fully accept this is to fully
> acknowledge that we are part of the divine one, to
> own
> our sovereignty. the physical world is the way we
> can
> affect our present moment, our scope of activity, or
> area of working. the two worlds are not separate,
> even though here in 3d they appear to be. to deny
> the
> present moment is to deny infinite possibility

hmmmmmm...

> i don't know. does this help one bit?

more than you'll ever know, my dearest lesley. i've
been thinking a lot lately (who hasn't?) and your
whole response to jennifer, of which the above quote
is only a small piece, struck many deep chords me.

as i stumble through this dark time and place, shining
my light to and fro, your words assisted me to be that
much more ok with the good work i'm doing.

thank you so much to lesley and all.

l&l,

-drew

__________________________________
do you yahoo!?
yahoo! small business $15k web design giveaway
http://promotions.yahoo.com/design_giveaway/

[Tony P.]

1) i don't know where i read this, but i heard 4th density will be an
opportunity to change the past. look at it this way. time is an
illusion, a big illusion for us in 3d. moving to 4d, we get closer to
the source, hopefully "wiser" in all ways. being more wise, we are
given an opportunity to "fix" the past in ways.

2) here's my understanding of what happened to jesus, and i'm not
sure if i'm way off or close. judas tried getting jesus to use
his "powers" for negativity, i.e. control purposes. for jesus to
prevent his own death, i think it could have caused massive fear. but
in the act of dying, he not only prevented that, but it helped spread
it's teachings, despite being corrupted over the centuries
denomination-wise.

[Gerardus]

message: 1
date: sat, 10 apr 2004 02:55:13 -0000
from: "tony p." <doomstars@... (/group/asc2k/post?postid=etbk7okl0x5kjsklwwko4lc_j92pzyyghbe_ew v5qfi-9va_kx2uxzvwh4bgijgz24hlsrmj5-bfcdy)>
subject: re: difference of perspectives?

1) i don't know where i read this, but i heard 4th density will be an
opportunity to change the past. look at it this way. time is an
illusion, a big illusion for us in 3d. moving to 4d, we get closer to
the source, hopefully "wiser" in all ways. being more wise, we are
given an opportunity to "fix" the past in ways.

2) here's my understanding of what happened to jesus, and i'm not
sure if i'm way off or close. judas tried getting jesus to use
his "powers" for negativity, i.e. control purposes. for jesus to
prevent his own death, i think it could have caused massive fear. but
in the act of dying, he not only prevented that, but it helped spread
it's teachings, despite being corrupted over the centuries
denomination-wise.

--------

hello tony - gerardus here:
hanging onto stories that were spon in the past is an attachment i figure.
who needs them? then, i feel that all of us are 'a' jesus carrying our
matter cross. living in matter is the cross. my view is this - for
whatever it is worth:

cosmic cookie

millions and millions of years ago
when we as spirits decided
to create and enter
- our thoughts in physical form -
we accepted
what is called... the matter cross.

the matter cross then
is the actual experience of living
in a self created matter or physical reality.

all human souls on this earth accepted
the nature and conditions of living in matter
as an experience to enrich their understanding.

the story of jesus and his cross
is
- a symbolic reality -
for all human souls on earth.

we all carry our own matter cross
by living in
our self created physical environment.

some self made crosses are heavier than others


the above is one of my 700 cosmic cookies - gerardus









[non-text portions of this message have been removed]