dan wrote:Cy,
>>> By my understanding (memory), material/technological progress is not a matter of perpetual. It is a matter of being relative to the spiritual development process. The definition of what is ascribed to being material or technological adapts continuously as the collective group evolves depending greatly on circumstance, need, and imagination. <<<
Ok, this is an interesting statement, and I agree with it, in part.
But, still, Cy, is there no end to Evolution, spiritual or otherwise?
Again relative to position of the percipience. What is evolutionary by our terms is not yet the same as that defined by elder races nor beyond them by the Source. What is the extent of spiritual evolution is defined differently by the Source than it is by ourselves. The time frame of the Universe is not necessarily the time frame of a specie. Purposes and potential varies between species.
Make enough mistakes in Being and yes there is an end to evolution. Even the Soul can be nixed if you're that rotten to want it done.
Come to hate life enough and yes there is an end possible to evolution, Being, and Soul.
Do you hate life and thereby Creation to that extent Dan?
dan wrote:Your main problem here is that you bend your knee to an abstract concept of an Absolute time.
I don't bend knee to anything or anyone Dan. I do however respect a good number of things with humble regard.
dan wrote:This, Cy, is precisely the dis-ease of the modern mind.
I don't have the use of language that would suit to describe my perception of time Dan, so I simply don't do it. I'm not here to hash out mechanics. If I was I'd have taken physics in an attempt to establish a good enough grasp of such language. Why would I spend time on that when there are plenty of theoretical physicists to hash away at it?
dan wrote:In short, have you no concept of Eternity? When, pray tell, does temporality give way to Eternity? If you can answer me that, then our conversation may wax productive.
Actually I do have concept of Eternity. But I'm not equipped to describe it.
dan wrote:And then about Oath Keepers........
In this regard, you sound to me rather like my fundamentalist interlocutors at Grace Fellowship Church, with the caveat that they have a much more solid ground to stand on.
That's nice Dan. You don't understand the spirituality in the concepts of natural rights? Or the value of the alternative track to Globalism?
dan wrote:You would swear allegiance to the Constitution. There are many Christians who refuse to do that, and for good reason. The Constitution is a castle built in the sands of time.
I have sworn allegiance to it Dan. But that Oath was made to the original form and intent. The current effort at adulteration is not in that Oath. The Constitution is a representation of the principles and collective soul construct which was spelled out and recognized as being inherent - natural within all mankind.
It's not my problem that many Christians are too busy arguing over inane details of this scripture or that scripture to understand the very gemstone that was placed in their care. They have access to the materials to understand but some of them do not seem to care. Their focus is their selves same as with more than a few of the technocratic and non-denominational political persuasion.
I will agree with you that the Constitution is an archetype. But rather than the Castle it is more clearly seen as the proverbial sword in the stone. That sword has a name and a heart and a battle cry. And it has a geis to protect those under its care; to ensure pursuit of happiness; the nurture their potential.
dan wrote:The Constitution can and is being amended and interpreted as we speak, by politicians, whose credibility is sinking into the single digits, as we speak.
Yes it is. But that does not lessen what it is or what it stands for. The corruption in the hearts and minds of politicians is something else entirely. And they would be well advised to be mindful of that sinking.
dan wrote:No, I would not swear on that Constitution. Nor would I swear on a bible.
That is your prerogative Dan. I merely have a unique view of what the whole founding of this nation is and what was imbued in it. The Constitution is the culmination of that creation. Those who hate mankind hate the Constitution for good reason. Because it stands between them and the destruction of man's potential.
dan wrote:I place my trust only in love. I would not trust anyone who would place any trust anywhere else.
Dan the path that was created, represented by the Constitution
WAS one of love. It was a human choice supported by the Source through Synchronicity. A choice that had never been made on this world before in quite this manner.
dan wrote:Where do you place your trust?
I trust the Source believing in mankind and its Potential. I trust the acts I see IT do in uplifting those working toward preserving and making that choice more real for everyone on this world and for spreading the understanding of those principles and acting in ways that embody it and for IT moving/supporting those fighting against the corruption and adulteration of that path. The roots of those abstract
ideas were confirmed as Soul Path by the one you call Jesus many centuries before.
You can choose to ignore that bit of history or not. Can your ideas of truth adapt to acknowledge it and work with it? Or do you insist on continuing to portray IT, IT's Works, and IT's Creation as vermin on this planet?
Cy
[/quote]
Today at 3:02 pm by Big Bunny Love
» Why are we here?
Today at 7:13 am by dan
» What Music Are You Listening To ?
Today at 2:41 am by Mr. Janus
» WRATH OF THE GODS/TITANS
Today at 2:26 am by Mr. Janus
» Uanon's Majikal Misery Tour "it's all smiles on the magic school bus"
Fri Apr 19, 2024 1:13 am by Mr. Janus
» CockaWHO!?
Tue Apr 02, 2024 10:41 pm by Mr. Janus
» Scientists plan DNA hunt for Loch Ness monster next month
Sat Mar 23, 2024 1:32 am by Mr. Janus
» OMF STATE OF THE UNION
Sat Mar 16, 2024 12:01 am by Mr. Janus
» Earth Intelligence
Mon Mar 04, 2024 1:04 am by Mr. Janus