What do you believe?

Behaviourists, behaviourism, but what does matter is that you wait for the justification of the faith. It shall be that you couldn't wait. Like 'Waiting for Godot'.

 

In my experience justifying is what you do when you don't feel it's right otherwise

 

Cognitive believing in the Bastard. But I must be honest; I didn't read that play. Shall we say good bye? I have faith that we won't just yet.

 

Your attempts at ambiguity has succeeded KUDOS

 

Belief in ambiguity: that was a topic for understanding the abstract thought existing because of Believing for the experience of Space and Time. Could we for instance prove that the Sun goes around the Earth that way? Because...

 

my man you are a deep son of a bitch may i bathe in you?

 

Yes, but strictly in the past like, like all so-called beliefs are, or well-received thoughts to reconsideration.

 

I was hoping you'd have explained this by now, What does it mean?

 

The 'outside' was often a social invention to scientology. There exists a sub-community of impersonal behaviour within an over-all national community with the impersonal civil defense. The outside community exists with the Soul the national deceipt. We are unhappy with a soul. The inner soul is the organized excitement of Engrams and phrase-ology.

 

Well, okay. I'll have to take your word for it. The only thing I know about scientology is what I learned watching South Park. Still not clear about what you're saying but I don't want to bug you. The thread is for posting what you believe even if I'm too dense to understand what it is.

 

If I believe I love; I believe I love someone. If I believe in God; then I believe that God will help avoid the Explaining, which is all according to the scriptures of L. Ron Hubbard. (n/t for Ethics and physical Pain).

 

Doesn't the preclusion of nonexistence demonstrate an eternally steady state?

 

The mind is naturally abstract. In terms of the absolute, everything else is abstraction, time borrowed from eternity.
What I think he means is that you include many aside references in your text without footnote. One often must do some research to apprehend the body of your statements.

 

The plan for the soul was a cycle of experience, unlimited in scope and duration, in which the new individual would come to know creation in all its aspects, at the discretion of will. The cycle would be completed when the desire of will was no longer different from the thought of God. The consciousness of the new individual would then merge with its spiritual consciousness of identity with God, and the soul would return to its source as the companion it was intended to be.

In this state the soul would retain its consciousness of a seperate individuality and would be aware that of its own free will it now acted as a part of God, not diverting mind force because it was in agreement with the action toward which this force was directed. Until this state was reached the soul would not be a companion in the true sense of the word.

(The idea that a return to God means a loss of individuality is paradoxical, since God is aware of everything that happens and must therefore be aware of the consciousness of each individual. Thus the return of the soul is the return of the image to that which imagined it, and the consciousness of an individual - its record, written in mind - could not be destroyed without destroying part of God Himself. When a soul returns to God it becomes aware of itself not only as a part of God, but as a part of every other soul, and everything. What is lost is the ego - the desire to do other than the will of God. When the soul returns to God the ego is voluntarily relinquished; this is the symbology of the crucifixion.)

 

In this state the soul would retain its consciousness of a seperate individuality and would be aware that of its own free will it now acted as a part of God, not diverting mind force because it was in agreement with the action toward which this force was directed. Until this state was reached the soul would not be a companion iin the true sense of the word.

And if I dont agree?

 

You believe that there exists an eternity without the proof for numerical development of unexpected contingency. How did the finite beginning and end of time occur? I'll tell You; you all, how. We are forlorn to perceive ourselves for a totality of imaginative self-deceit. The other side of condemnation is to concern ourselves that the universe exists without reason; and any reason for success or failure at Conscience is a deduction of the Law existing not the law itself for following our pretense at being accepted in the western world.:eggnog:

 

Not a problem. I'm not looking for agreement. Just posting this stuff for my own enjoyment. It's kind of a thumbnail view of the history of creation and purpose. Here's some more:


The plan for the soul included experience of all creation, but it did not necessarily mean identification with and participation in all forms and substance. Nor did it mean interference in creation by souls. It did not mean that they were to spin their own little worlds, twisting and bending laws to make images of their dreams.

But, these things could happen. The soul was the greatest thing that was made; it had free will. Once free will was given, God did nothing to curb it; however it acted, it had to act within Him; by whatever route, it had to return to Him.

(The fact that man's body is a speck of dust on a small planet leads to the illusion that man himself is a small creation. The measure of the soul is the limitless activity of mind and grandeur of imagination.)

At first there was little difference between the consciousness of the new individual and its consciousness of identity with God. Free will merely watched the flow of mind, somewhat as man watches his fancy disport in daydreams, marveling at its power and versatility. Then it began to exercise itself, imitating and paralleling what mind was doing. Gradually it acquired experience, becoming a complementary rather than an imitative force. It helped to extend, modify and regulate creation. It grew, as did Jesus, in "wisdom and beauty."

Certain souls became bemused with their own power and began to experiment with it. They mingled with the dust of the stars and the winds of the spheres, feeling them, becoming part of them. One result of this was an unbalancing of the positive-negative force, by accentuating one or the other; to feel things demanded the negative force; to express through things, and direct and manage them, required the positive force. Another result was the gradual weakening of the link between the two states of consciousness - that of the spirit and that of the individual. The individual became more concerned with, and aware of, his own creations than God's. This was the fall in spirit, or the revolt of the angels.

 

How can you screw a drop of dew?

 

I believe this was very well spoken..... and I agree with what you believe

 

not a static one. other then in the very limited sense of existence existing.

have you ever observed and equilibrium reaction.
there's nothing static about it at all.

of course i suppose most people haven't,
and even those who took high school,
or even college chemistry, have probably forgotten this.

this bouncing back and forth between which there is more of, matter or energy that is not bound in matter, or the form of matter, who's duration of 'bounce' is orders of magnitude greater then the the duration of existence of anything observable.