Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Should God be replaced? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Frederick Smart who wrote (10074)	2/3/2002 1:46:24 PM
From: Bill Fischofer	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 28931

Love knows no limits. It is not possible to limit the reach of love or to say "this is of the mind, or of the ego and therefore not within the province of love". The truth (which is love) therefore always satisfies the whole man. To the extent that anything is "left behind" is the extent to which love/truth has been distorted. This really cuts to the heart of our disagreement. Because if there is only the divine then everything is a manifestation of the divine, including everything we are and everything we are not. CWG observes this as follows: People believe I am what they see Me as, rather than what they do not see. But I am the Great Unseen, not what I cause Myself to be in any particular moment. In a sense, I am what I am not. It is from the am-notness that I come, and to it I always return. This paradox is the Holy of Holies, the Great Mystery of the Infinite. For the All and the Void are the same. Therefore love all, and bless all, yes even all the "black holes" of our imaginings. For we are one.

To: Frederick Smart who wrote (10074)	2/3/2002 2:10:06 PM
From: Solon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 28931

Does he believe in the wonder of gamma rays, too? Where do you not get enough light in your life, Frederick? What is it you would do with more light? Is it Leukemia, you seek? Is it babies being born without heads? What is it? I am just attaching this to your last post for convenience. AS 99.9 % of your posts are about light, I felt excused from making an overt reference to a particular "light" post. So, I know you want for "light", and this seems to be the extent of your "spirituality". You want to fill "black holes" up with "light", and you want to be able to stop making "claims". Surely, there is a point and a justification somewhere in all of that? I have never heard you make a distinction between harmful light and light which is (relative to the the set and the setting) benign. It seems an enfeebled worldview which can merely pant for "light, light, light", but can only stare dumbly when asked to explain what it is that you actually want. The sun gives us a great deal of light. Most of it is very harmful. Still, you could easily leave artificial light sources on at all times to suit your craving for the stuff. Why do you continue to try to foist your obsession with light unto others who have a more balanced relationship with the elecgtromagnetic spectrum??