Hello, Cy, hello, OMF II

dan wrote:
If the old guy is not playing a numbers game, is not playing right-to-life with the cosmos, then what is going on?

dan wrote:Bad seed......?

He and I seem to have a slight disagreement on this point.

But, Jake, I think maybe he was simply taking your earlier advice........

Two thousand years was a long way away...... And, as you just pointed out, we were going to need a whiff or two of Brimstone, if we were going to be kept to the grindstone, for all those years. So when is best time to reveal that we are all in the same boat, after all?

All we are already saved, from the very beginning. Maybe the Brimstone was a bit of hyperbole, but, hey, that Grindstone, that was no joke, at all!!

.... When I read about his widowed bride
But something touched me deep inside
The day the music died.... So.....

Bye, bye Miss American Pie
Drove my Chevy to the levee but the levee was dry
Them good ole boys were drinking whiskey in Rye
Singin' this'll be the day that I die
This'll be the day that I die.....

dan wrote:Now, I'm gathering, Cy, that your predilections lie closer to Jakianity than to Danianity. Is Cyrianity going to be introduced, here, into this discussion, at some point?

No Dan, it is not going to be introduced. My perception of reality does not need to be a religion, it simply is the way it is. My work does not require me to be any center of attention. But I can appreciate this long post of yours whose many assumptions are placed here as a form of baiting? You wish to understand my thinking and perceptions on these matters, am I correct here? You could have simply specified that is what you want rather than making baited assumptions.

Has it not already been addressed, by you, elsewhere?

No it hasn't. I've never specified any of it but many guesses and assumptions by others have been made.

Sardines......? Now there is some brutal honesty! I do have a hankering for brutal honesty, in case you hadn't noticed.

All I'm saying is that Earth is the #1 Sardine Can.

This is another assumption, Dan. You have never been offworld or explored the Universe to know one way or another. You are speaking in the manner of cargo cults here. This is my observation. You are not giving the broader scope of reality any opportunity to participate in your life. In this it seems to me you are rejecting an immense part of the Creative Source's reality or construct if you will. How can any formulation of the question WHY occur if you do not participate and gain experience in that greater narrative?


Where is #2? I'm saying that there is no #2, when it comes to the whole of Creation.

And in a void populated with only inexperience you can ascertain this how? You have no other planetary narratives from which to draw at this point. You have not visited so many boundaries and expressions of Creation it is phenomenal you can justify making such a statement!


But, nonetheless, there are many 'mansions', but not an infinity of mansions.

And where have I ever implied there is an "infinity" of mansions? Again insinuating things I have never said.

I strongly suspect that we are the Grand Central Station. Many of us, cosmic refugees, are camped out, here, in the Waiting Room. Many of us have been dying to grab a spot here, for a long time. Nay, for all of Eternity.

Who you calling a refugee, white man? Again insinuating assumed truths without experience! I will agree with you that this world is a favored experience. But the way you describe it gives a perception of reality that does not mesh with my own experience.


So why do I think that Earth is so special? That's because I'm a theist, and not a Deist or a pantheist.

You have called me by many easy terms in the past such as "pantheist" without knowing me or my personal experience at a depth necessary to really know if that is a true label. What I am point out to you here Dan has less to do with what is real or true of myself than what I am observing as problematic with your approach to interpersonal relations. You are making sweeping assumptions and basing your personal narrative upon them. This leaves you in a precarious position, particularly if you wish for your reconstructions to be taken seriously. Consider this only kindly constructive criticism offered for your private consideration.

Why am I a theist? Because, if we came from any source at all, it must have a personal aspect.

I would agree with you here on the detail "if we came from any source at all, it must have a personal aspect" Yes in my experience there is a personal aspect.


And I don't know of any person who does not like company. That is, after all, definitional of personhood.

But, by the same token, I don't know of any person who, generally speaking, prefers strangers over friends and relatives. Now, if there were an infinity of Sardines, then every one of us would feel alienated from the Cosmos/Creation. And that would not be a good thing, personally.

that "every one of us would feel alienated from the Cosmos/Creation..." Here again you are making a sweeping assumption about people and judging for the billions of individuals on this world what is a good thing personally for each of them without allowing them to decide what is personally good for theirselves nor allowing the Creative Source to express within that personal aspect to each individual what is good for each individual individually. Tis the very real problem I have with the current globalism acting upon unknowing masses their own assumption of individual life value in which the unknowing masses are considered as without value, to be sacrificed or destroyed for personal gain. And I can relay to you unequivocally that in my personal experience the Creative Source has expressed in not so many words its extreme displeasure with this and its intent to push the boundaries of respect to free will in opposition to this via intervention should it continue. Planet-cide is not acceptable to it.



I'm also saying that small is beautiful....... I'm reminded of the Biggest Little Whorehouse in Texas (BLWT). If you will pardon my french, we are that, carnally speaking. Is this not almost the definition of the GCS. If I were you, sports fans, I would enter BLWT, into the BPWH lexicon. We are the Restaurant at the End of the Universe. We are the lizards in the Cosmic Lounge (Star Wars), if you will.

It is our onerous challenge to jump into the Cosmic Gene Pool (CGP). At least we need to get our toes wet. If this is a little bit too much shoulder rubbing, for you, then do keep in mind that there will need to be some segregation, on the twelve Noah's Arks that are due back to our twelve Megalithic Gardens of Eden (MGE's), 4004 BCE.


The only people who are afraid of the Eschaton are the ones who are afraid of Eternity. Sometimes, please forgive me, but I do have a hard time grasping this very widespread fear of Eternity. Well, obviously, it is closely connected with our 'genetic' fear of Death.

Your perception of reality departs from mine right here. I have not genetic fear of Death and I do not perceive your "Eternity" in the context which you use it. And as far as Eschaton goes, what I wholly oppose and what others wholly oppose is a man-made destruction by those who think it will gain them an evolutionary leap they have not earned. For starters, death and destruction is not how it is done.

But, what I'm trying to say is that Eternity is not all that different from the GCS/BLWT/BPWH, in that a lot of folks are dying to get in. I'm only suggesting that, in the grand finale, 144 million of us will not have to die to get to Eternity. This is called the Rapture.

Ok, on this we're on the same page. But what has been expressed and relayed repeatedly is that humanity will not be limited to only 144 million achieving this, AND that such achievement is still very very far off. Kindergarteners don't get free passes to College. Humanity is well loved but it still has to go through the learning process same as everyone else.

And it's like when God eats succotash, we all end up in the same place. In the belly of the Beast? Well, my job is to reassure you that this Disturbing Message is the best possible Disturbing Message that has ever been offered to us mortals. And, no, you will not have to buy a pig in the poke. You will have plenty of opportunity to kick the tires of Eternity...... 200 years of tire kicking, to be almost precise.

Do either Jake or Cy have a better offer for us?

Why do you or anyone else require an offer from either I or Jake when each is a thinking, reasoning, and potentially a loving being with a personal relationship with the Creative Source? Seems to me that people thinking they need someone else's path would be better advised to improve their own listening skills/powers of observation wrt the Source. For it is their own they should be seeking. You wished for my opinion and here it is. This is based on my own experience. And no I'm not going to expound upon that experience other than one small mention, I've been in some respects where others would like to go. And I'm saying you cannot get there by stealing life, opportunity, and free will from others. Each journey is individual to the one concerned. You cannot get there by dictating to others their value to the Source or their value in the greater narrative! This is the message in the bottle. You cannot induce planet-cide and expect to get there. You will instead return to square one.

I'm still waiting to hear how their offers are any better than the offer of Chicken Little. The only way that I can understand Cy and Jake is to suppose that they have a fear of Eternity. That is quite understandable. It is a big unknown, even, or especially, to Chicken Little. I do only have my allotted mustard seed of faith.

It has nothing to do with fear of this, that, or whatever, Dan. It is not my place to make any "offers". You are to explore and discern your own path within acceptable parameters. Thus the message in the bottle for your upline. See it gets passed on. End of discussion on the matter.

P.S. Please cease making assumptions about me. If you have a question simply ask. Thx. - back to your regularly scheduled programming.....Cy

Because they have a fear of Eternity, they are wont to juxtapose an infinite Creation between themselves and It. They like Creation, and they are in no hurry for themselves, or their progeny, to have to leave Creation. On behalf of God, may I express my gratitude for your gratitude. I'm very glad to know that you have grown so attached to my Creation. And it is so calming to sit here and watch the woods fill up with snow, but we all know that we have many miles to travel before we sleep. Time is finite. Is that so hard to appreciate? After all, what would be the purpose of time, were it not finite?


OTOH, Jake continues to equivocate on whether Creation should be finite or infinite. This equivocation strongly suggests that he is unwilling to face up to the question of how immortality might differ from mortality. And, hey, I'm not totally sure that I understand that distinction, myself. Nay, I know that I don't understand. But I do lean heavily upon my mustard seed. It has not let me down, yet.


5:45-----------

And, yes, I do believe that, when it comes to personhood, small is beautiful. How can we embrace each other, if we are too distant? Can all 10^10 of us embrace each other, right here, on Earth?

I know, absolutely for sure, that the vast majority of my fellow Creatures, including Cy and Jake, are not prepared to embrace humanity. This was especially true of Louise and my dad. Allow me, please, to tell you my dad's apocalyptic fantasy...... He would be positioned on the portico of his parents' mansion, with a machine gun, and he would be defending their 'castle' against the hordes, with his dying breath. I can understand that. Have I ever experienced it? Well, not TBMK. I prefer to press the flesh. Louise? She was the hermit on the mountain that you see in the picture. She defended her Forest Gate, to her dying breath. Saint Peter had nothing up on Louise and my dad!

My question to Cy and Jake is...... how can you embrace Creation, if you cannot embrace the Earth? How, even, can you hug a tree, if you cannot hug your neighbor?

I say this to you....... Our ultimate challenge is just to embrace each other, here and now. If we can accomplish that, then we will have earned Eternity. Nothing more. Nothing less. Yes, this is our ultimate historical challenge. If you are trying to keep your powder dry, for a bigger challenge, then you are very liable to be left standing, when the music stops. It will be bye-bye........

.... When I read about his widowed bride
But something touched me deep inside
The day the music died.... So.....

Bye, bye Miss American Pie
Drove my Chevy to the levee but the levee was dry
Them good ole boys were drinking whiskey in Rye
Singin' this'll be the day that I die
This'll be the day that I die.....

(cont.)

dan wrote:Cy,

I apologize for having been overly polemical with you. Jake and I are a bit more used to a no holds barred melee, and you just kinda got swept into that melee, purely through my own in-caution. I will strive to draw a greater distinction between my separate reactions, in the future.
------------

Occasionalism (Latin occasio) is the metaphysical theory which maintains that finite things have no efficient causality of their own, but that whatever happens in the world is caused by God, creatures being merely the occasions of the Divine activity. The occasion is that which by its presence brings about the action of the efficient cause. This it can do as final cause by alluring the efficiency, cause to act, or as secondary efficient cause by impelling the primary cause to do what would otherwise be left undone. Occasionalism was foreshadowed in Greek philosophy in the doctrine of the Stoics who regarded God as pervading nature and determining the actions of all beings through the fundamental instinct of self-preservation.

If man is composed of two absolutely distinct substances that have nothing in common, then the conclusion of the Occasionalists is logically necessary and there is no interaction between body and mind. What appears to be such must be due to the efficient causality of some external being. This difficulty was not felt so keenly in Scholastic philosophy because of the doctrine of matter and form, which explains the relation of body and soul as that of two incomplete but complementary substances. Very soon, too, it began to lose its hold upon modern thought. For Cartesianism led, on the one hand, to a Monistic Spiritualism and, on the other, to Materialism. In either case the very foundations of Occasionalism were undermined.........

dan wrote:Jake,

Does an infinite Creation abrogate transcendence?

God's self-defined intent is to redeem Creation.

'Jesus' and I disagree with you. G-d's self-defined intent is to plant seeds to produce a family of G-d. Earth is a part of Creation, but it is not all. Redemption is not the intent, it simply is. And the conception and understanding of Redemption is merely a required soul development process toward the achievement of G-d's greater intent.

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Skeptics say Ryan owes his superwonk standing as much to comparisons with his colleagues than to any great knowledge or depth. In a recent profile of Ryan by Alec McGillis in The New Republic, Barney Frank dismissed his colleague’s brainy reputation as being relative to that of other House Republicans, some of whom had just been implicated in a late-night escapade during a Congressional trip to Israel last summer. “He is being graded on a curve,” Frank said of Ryan, “with a bunch of guys who jump into the Sea of Galilee because they want to be closer to God.”