a thought provoking idea

[nparker]

Hi Natalia,

If I am hearing you correctly, what you are talking about is perspective.

IE: That God's perspective is infinite whereas our perspective is limited.

Is that correct?

Donald

Yes and No.

Obviously, a point of the table can only have conciousness of himself, but no more, unless technologically can link several mind-points. Under this viewpoint I'm limited.

But, by other way, I recognize that I'm a part of God and I can to participate although briefly (in time) and limited (in space) of their conciousness. Alone, I'm like a video camera that perceives reality from my viewpoint and sends images to him. My ears are like microphones. Too, God touches the sensible world through my hands, walks using my legs... etc.

But, if, in close agree with Monroe Institute research, there are a continuum of conciousness, then, my perspective has no limits and would be compatible with state related to an awaken Kundalini.

In such a state I would be indistinguishable of God, and my ability of to really love unconditionally will be realized.

Prior conclusion do not stands for: "to realize unconditional love Kundalini must be awaken". In a limited context all we can love unconditionally, and for such a enterprise we must to, first, are free of egoistic feelings, release attachments, be able of to see beyond and compassionate about the others who cannot be fee of themselves.

For such an enterprise is needed to go far of all the wordly things.

Natalia Parker

[nparker]

I believe that Love can just radiate into everything you do and be a natural part of your being.

In essence, I believe we can *be* Love.

Donald

LOVE is one of those words bad used and warped by our "civilization".

It depends on your concept of "radiate into everything". My concept about that between "" is that love are a natural force of the Universe, who purpose is tie all together, like force of gravity but more powerful.

Of course, love is part of our being. Since we are sons of God, something of God are part of us. Remember that God create us, to his form and resemblance. But this is only achievable (or comprehensible) is we think about us as a part of God. My thought is that all person, all animal, all things, all vegetable, the planets, the stars... the universe as a whole is GOD. If not, who more is all powerfull, who more know-it-all, who more is the source of all the wisdom, etc. etc..

ONLY THE UNIVERSE (TANGIBLE AND UNTANGIBLE) CAN TO DO AND MATCH ALL THAT.

[Donald McGlinn]

Do you believe that we can have unconditional Love?

Donald

[Rydel]

First I would have to love myself unconditionally. For the purpose of giving love to another person, this could be temporary unconditional love for the duration of getting the job done. The easiest way I can think of to do that would be to first connect myself with a source of that unconditional love. God, Angels, Buddhas, Bodhisattvas, etc. come to mind.

You stole the words from my mouth Tom.

[Tom]

There is a tendency to interact with ideas about people instead of with the actual people. By cultivating awareness and perceiving people the way they actually are, the sense of separation from other people can fade. This makes it possible to start to feel love, no matter how badly the label love has been distorted. I do not think that "unconditional" is the same as "unlimited". As long as there is even a tiny crack in the sense of separation from other people, I think that is the beginning of unconditional love.

[Diabolus]

Sorry to go off-topic here, but when someone mentions the word God, I have to say something.

First of all, what if you don't believe in God? I have to admit that I have never, and will never believe in God. That's purely of my own very strong beliefs. If there are Gods (note the plural), I think they would simply be highly spiritual entities. Which leads me to think that absolutely anyone could be these.

I suppose I'm almost going towards a Modern Satanist approach to things, where I could see everyone as being Gods. To say there's a single one just seems ridiculous to me.

I don't mean to offend anyone in saying this though, I'm just saying what I personally believe in.

Edit: Sorry about that! I was too caught up in what I was saying to go back on topic. I think that it is possible to love in this way, because I think I am feeling that right now for someone, but I'm not completely sure. What I am sure, though, is that there's no lust involved whatsoever.

Love is a complicated thing, in my opinion. There are so many different forms for it. I have love for my family. I have love for my friends. But then I have a certain love for someone that is totally different, but also completely the same. I do not completely know why I feel this for this person, but it's really strong for me at the moment, and it's affecting me a lot.

[Rydel]

First of all, what if you don't believe in God?

I was going to mention this myself. I personally do believe in SOME kinda of God. Not the traditional Christian view of God though. To me, for instance, it seems to take a LOT more faith to believe in evolution, than to believe something intelligent created it. I believe that the entire universe is part of this intelligence, therefore making it a "God" so to speak.

Also, if you are interested in modern satanism, I'm going to have to recommend http://www.regnumluciferi.org, a site on the subject that was recently created by a friend of mine. It also contains a lot of invaluable information on starting out with magic.

Happy reading!

[Diabolus]

Also, if you are interested in modern satanism, I'm going to have to recommend http://www.regnumluciferi.org, a site on the subject that was recently created by a friend of mine. It also contains a lot of invaluable information on starting out with magic.

Happy reading!

Thanks! I'll take a look.

I've been quite interested in it because when I first read about it, it seemed to be exactly how I felt towards things. Some things were a bit different, but most of it went along with what I think.

I've got The Satanic Bible and a few other satanic books, and they're pretty interesting. But I haven't had much time, or interest, in persuing this at the moment. I'm more concentrated upon psychic things, as these hold a VERY strong position in my life at the moment. I've always had an interest in esoteric matters, like magick and the likes, and am really determined to get as much out of it as possible.

[Rydel]

Satanism is probably one of THE most misunderstood philosophies in the world today. You have to keep in mind, that satanism actually has nothing to do with the Christian concept of Satan. The term Satanism was actually coined by the Roman Catholic Church hundreds of years ago, and it stuck. Satanism, is in essense, the philosophy of the self. While Anton LaVey is probably not the best source on the subject, it is a start, and I'm sure there are some gems. Always remember to "separate the wheat from the chaff" though.

[nparker]

Hi folks...!
Let's see. My unconditionallity concept matches very well with unselfish concept. It's closely related to Platonical love.
Logically love as I can feel is a limited feel since I'm limited.
Anyother question/though..?

Pd.: Has you previously heard about "mayeutics"..? It was a method used by Sócrates (469-399 B.C. / former greek philosopher) based on some he called irony.
The method of education that Sócrates was using was the mayéutica. It method based on the conversation based on questions. The truth has to be found by the dialogue or debate that can be found between two or more investigators, and even only one investigator who wonders to yes same and answers to its own interrogations. They find in this method two moments: in the first one, irony, one makes see in the speakers that the knowledge that earlier they believed true and undoubted they were not such. That's why Sócrates was going out for the ágora and there he was interrogating the teacher, the artist, to the general and with certain questions it was making them take conscience of his ignorance. In the second moment, as soon as the false opinions were eliminated, the proper speakers could find in themselves same the truth. That's why it is said that Sócrates did not teach so much a philosophy as to philosophizing.

By the way, are you Donald, using mayeutics with us..?
Sincerely,
Natalia Parker