Conversations with God *an uncommon dialogue* book 1 Neale Donald Walsch
I bet any third grader could understand this. No, It's not written by a third grader. Read the book if it peaks your interest. My experience of Myself
In the beginning, that which Is is all there was, and there was nothing else. Yet All That Is could not know itself--because All That Is is all there was, and there was - nothing else. And so, All That Is... was not. For in the absence of something else, All That Is, is not.
This is the great Is/Not Is to which mystics have referred from the beginning of time.
Now All That Is knew it was all there was -- but this was not enough, for it could only know its utter magnificence conceptually, not experientially. Yet the experience of itself is that for which it longed, for it wanted to know what it felt like to be so magnificent. Still, this was impossible, because the very term "magnificent" is a relative term. All That Is could not know what it felt like to be magnificent unless - that which is not -- showed up. In the absence of -- that which is not, -- that which IS,is not.
----------------------Do you understand this?---------------------------
The one thing that All That Is knew is that there was - nothing else - . And so It could, and would, - never - know Itself from a reference point outside of Itself, Such a point did not exist. Only one reference point existed, and that was the single place within. The "Is-Not Is." The Am-Not Am.
Still, the All of Everything chose to know Itself experientially.
This energy--this pure, unseen, unheard, unobserved, and therefore unknown-by-anyone-else energy--chose to experience Itself as the utter magnificence It was. In order to do this, It realized It would have to use a reference point within.
It reasoned, quite correctly, that any portion of Itself would necessarily have to be less than the whole, and that if It thus simply divided Itself into portions, each portion, being less than the whole, could look back on the rest of Itself and see magnificence.
And so All That Is divided Itself--becoming, in one glorious moment, that which is..this, and that which is..that. For the first time, -this and -that existed, quite apart from each other. And still, both existed simultaneously. As did all that was -neither.
Thus, three elements suddenly existed: that which is here. That which is there. And that which is neither here nor there--but which must exist for here and there to exist.
It is the nothing which holds the everything, It is the non-space which holds the space. It is the all which hold the parts.
Now this nothing which holds the everything is what some people call God. Yet that is not accurate, either, for it suggests that there is something God is not--namely, everything that is not "nothing." But I am All Things--seen and unseen--so this description of Me as the Great Unseen--the No-Thing, or the Space Between, an essentially Eastern mystical definition of God, is no more accurate than the essentially Western practical description of God as all that is seen. Those who believe that God is All That Is and All That Is Not, are those whose understanding is correct.
Now in creating that which is "here" and that which is "there," God made it possible for God to know Itself. In the moment of this great explosion from within, God created relativity--the greatest gift God ever gave to Itself. Thus, relationship is the greatest gift God ever gave to you.
From the No-Thing thus sprang the Everything--a spiritual event entirely consistent, incidentally, with what your scientist call The Big Bang theory.
Free Trade v Fair Trade Alongside the clash of economic interests there was an ideological battle between the partisans of “free trade” and those of “fair trade”. In an article in the Times (14 December) journalist Carl Mortished admitted that free trade wouldn’t benefit the poorest states, but rather the emerging capitalist states: So was he, then, in favour of “fair trade” for the poorest states? Not at all, as the title of his article “Why ‘fair trade’ is bad for poor nations it seeks to help” proclaimed.
Preaching being cruel to be kind, he argued that farmers in these countries “don’t need favours, but fertiliser and equipment. In short, they need investment, and that means more open markets … Poor countries must reform if they are to compete. If we stopped throwing favours at them, the reforms might begin”.
I wonder where the thought originated that drugs, medicine, operations, doctors, hospitals, etc., were to benefit mankind? Or, was it invented by these little sparkling souls in the hearts of man (generic) that thought, "Maybe their/my faith isn't quite strong enough, anymore".
Carl Sagan is absolutely brilliant. Is his mind in perfect order? Do we really know that? I agree, nearly perfect.
I know we gleen progress from science. Our creative imaginations have given us all these wonderful inventions and ways to live in our world. Mix that with what God wanted us to experience for him and to create has been absolutely fascinating.
But, there is no end to this discussion. I will never convince you and you will never convince me.
It really, really, really matters not. I can see your point of view and it is almost convincing-- but something inside me says, "We are God". See, there is that God thing again.
quiescent Forum Posts (1,199)
TIME
Traumatic.
How are you FEELing?
Try letting it go.Relax
Rest
Lots of Love,
(what do I know...?)