Does anyone of you think the world can change?

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Pathfinder
 
Reply Wed 14 Oct, 2009 06:27 pm
@BeatsMeWhy,
Our Turn

The world is teetering on the brink of global massacre. All of humanity is well aware of this evolving crisis and yet the state of the world leaves us feeling isolated and unable to act against a foe of such immense stature. We find ourselves locked on course for a war of such proportion that few of us will survive, and those that do will wish they had not. It would seem that the troubles of humanity are too great and too complex to be tamed, and that any hope that some hero might appear as a savior is only dashed away by the continuing lack of integrity and resolve that we see in the usual characters who dare to step forward into positions of authority and power.

There is always the continuing baggage of ideology and culture that eventually weigh down any efforts, which ultimately end in stalemates. It seems impossible to please everyone without leaving out the needs of someone who will fight to the death for their right to exist.

The one thing that the world seeks in unison, no matter who you are, is hope that the world might someday be a better place in which to live. All of our great religions build their faith on such hope. Every nation in the world, no matter its size, would benefit from such hope being realized. We hope against all odds that mass influences can once and for all set aside the politics of old, that have only led to a cycle of division and war throughout history, and instead bear the burden of a new world order that has the soul of every peaceful intention on the planet at its core. Our politicians should stand up for those who rely on their place of opportunity and walk with others like themselves with similar opportunity, and set into motion a government for the world which will address the concerns and desires of all nations and peoples in one simultaneously aggressive effort to turn history on its axis; to set the world on a different path than this one we have traveled these thousands of years that have led to this brink of annihilation.

Care what your neighbor thinks, and listen to what he has to say. Act with compassion and understanding, considering the needs of all diversities. Forget wealth and superiority, and look forward to prosperity for all, instead of the few. Before we can ever find a home for ourselves free from needless suffering we will first have to consider the needs of our neighbor, for if they go ignored now, we will only face them later one way or another. We each have our own individually unique cultures and lifestyles. Many others will not choose to live as we do. Many will not want to live with us, or be exposed to our way of life at all. Humanity is a vast diversity of differences, many which are not compatible with another. This is natural fact.

It is a ridiculous delusion to think that the world will ever live together in harmony and accord. It will not happen. But this does not mean that we cannot live in tolerance and recognition of each others' rights, if our living conditions are arranged in such a way that we are not adversely affected by our neighbors choices of lifestyle, or forced to give up our own. Soundproof walls between duplex complexes is a perfect example of what I mean here. Why can't we accomplish such an environment of tolerance through some sort of a segregation that will satisfy everyone's lifestyle and culture. Not a segregation that divides humanity, but one that makes living together more accommodating for all, acknowledging our differences as natural, instead of unnatural. Treat the global problem the same way that you would a communal problem. Investigate the various issues within a community, and then address those concerns by reorganizing and restructuring the community in whatever way necessary to solve those concerns for all sides involved.

It would be a vast effort, and the participants would have to agree that compromises will have to be made. It will be an extreme measure, but it is not a hopeless ideal. The world is already, and always has been, segregated in such a way. The problems arise when these different factions clash over proximity, when tolerance is ended by invasion or corruption for various reasons. Expecting practitioners of extremely differing ideologies to be cohabitable with each other is not a solution of any permanence. Finding a way to keep them from intruding and imposing on each other is a solution, as long as it is enforced unbiasedly, so that troublemakers seeking personal benefit at everyone else's expense cannot create chaos where it otherwise wouldn't be.

An example of such technique, however flawed, would be the neutral zone between North and South Korea. Is it possible for the various factions of the world to cooperatively work toward determining zones between conflicting areas that can be aggressively managed by a world coalition in such a way that land disputes and religious or ideological disputes can be subdued by appeasing both sides? It has been tried, but always without actually settling the dispute, which only resulted in terrorism as a last straw by oppressed peoples.

Surely finding a means of bringing peace to a troubled area, saving countless lives as well as avoiding the destruction of treasured real estate, is a better situation than its opposite? War might achieve power for the victor, but never without continuing rebellion, and the victory is always temporary, for there is always another power going to replace it. War has never been a solution. At best it reaches a temporary stalemate for one side. No matter how powerful an army, it can never defeat the spirit of its enemy, and the security and well being of the victor's families will always be at risk of attack by the remnant of that enemy. Terrorist attacks are as much a continuation of a war as the main attack. War is not, has never, and never will be, a solution. Peace will never be the result of war. The two are complete opposites.

So, knowing war is not an option, what choices do we have to resolve our differences? The world cannot act as one unless it actively takes measures as one, and devises a system of establishing safe zones between areas of dispute that can be managed and protected by an unbiased force, whose sole responsibility is to enforce peace within that zone, and to separate the opposing cultures from imposing on each other. Zones that can be agreed upon by all factions involved, for the priority of preserving both life and treasure. An agreement that can be founded under the security of knowing that the enforcement and protection of such zones is governed by a force that is not biased to any ideology, and not able to be corrupted by any greed or corruption.

If disputing factions of the world could place trust in such an enforcement, and avoid the destruction of war, peace would soon follow on a worldwide scale. No nation would really want to suffer the crippling results of war when it might somehow be avoided. Holy sites could be visited by opposing factions, both trusting in the enforcement of their treasure's protection and welfare. People would be able to travel from one land to another without fear because they would know that the different cultures of these lands would have no reason to war with each other. Disputes would be settled peacefully by one unbiased government with the intention only to avoid war by being certain to appease both sides satisfactorily. And, in return, each faction will come to the mediation with the same desire to compromise for the goal of peace and prosperity instead of war and destruction, leading to poverty. Be aware however that we would not be here to appease or satisfy the desires of the bullies and greedy.

Every schoolyard need attentive and effective monitoring or else the bullies will rule. Every competition needs a referee to enforce the rules without any intention of pandering to either side. And social conflict, at its global extreme, now more than ever before, requires a global referee. It is the one and only solution to the planetary schoolyard of conflicting parties and bullies.

Someone must step in and use their body as a means to keep them from escalating to extremity. And any one of us would be compelled to do the same when we are faced with two people engaged in such combat that they become fatally dangerous to each other. We would intervene and attempt to ease the conflict by separating them from each other. This world needs its wise adults to go into the playground, remove the bullies, and take control of the unruly students. But where do we find these referees, and how do we bring them from around the world while avoiding the clash of cultures? We tried this in a fashion with the United Nations and it was made a mockery. Why? What happened?

The Un, with all of its good intentions, was simply a concentration and exaggeration of the same old diplomacy and politics that have always ruled our planet. There were as many extremists and despots sitting in the council as there were pacifists and capitalists. This is not the type of governmental system we are seeking here, and trying to define and describe. The UN was a pitbull with its teeth pulled. Sanctions and expecting diplomacy between nations that despise each other is foolhardy. How can you possibly lay down rules and expect them to be followed by a party that knows from the start that there will be be no ultimate enforcement of those rules? And starving someone might temper their energy but it only strengthens their resolve and fires their anger.

No! The Un was a pipe dream of diplomats believing in diplomacy. Unfortunately the world is not diplomatic at all.

The world is in reality filled with mothers and fathers, caring for their loved ones, and having to do so in an environment where a tiny percentage of the population of the planet will try to use force and riches to enslave them for their own greedy purposes. And because this tiny percentage is almost always corrupt and immoral it holds the upper hand because it does not care who it must trample to reach their goals, using the good-heartedness of the masses as a weapon against them. They will use their own children as human shields, take advantage of our distaste for torture, and use acts of terror against civilians to hold power. In many cases it is the religious belief of a people which causes them to war against another people in the name of their god or ideology, attempting to impose their beliefs on others who may be in the way of those beliefs somehow.

Whether it is for one's own greedy goals, or one's own personal philosophies, should humanity tolerate intolerance and greed when it escalates to slavery, war and genocide, involving the abuse of innocent bystanders?

I say that no human, sharing this planet with every other human born here, has the right to dictate how or where another human should live on this planet, unless it is for the overall welfare of the entire population of the planet, humanity as a whole. Than the priority stands clear. We cannot sacrifice our planet and humanity for the sake of individual rights. We do not have the right to adversely impose ourselves on others, but we doi have an obligation to humanity to survive as a species.

We all know our differences. They are as obvious as skin color. And we all discover as we mature, that sharing is never easy, and always requires compromise and tolerance. Greed emerges its ugly head when one person expects more than someone else has at that other persons expense. When there are 12 eggs available between two people and one person expects to have eight of them, knowing the other will only have four, that is greed. Does it matter if one person is willing to work harder to get more of the share, or that one person did not do their share of the work? Should the amount divided be according to how much effort one is willing to put out to acquire the goods? This is the basic root of capitalism is it not, and it may be something to consider when we are talking about the sharing of luxuries and excesses, but not when we are talking about the basic necessities of life, or a person's right to live in their own homeland with their ancestors. This is where capitalism fails utterly.

No ideology, greed or capitalistic venture has the right to gain momentum at the expense of leaving poverty and war in its wake, regardless of how hard it strives to get ahead of everyone else. You cannot have a nation without a population to make it function, and a few rich people do not make a nation and can not even survive without the working class. How can humanity tolerate one man living lavishly in a a castle surrounded by a starving population that provides him with all of his luxury in the first place. Without the farmers, bricklayers, bakers, carpenters, etc. etc., the rich man would not be able to live as he does.

The first bankers came to the people begging for patronage of their entrepreneurial idea. And now, after making themselves rich by manipulating us, they will take our home from us and leave us in the street without batting an eyelash. All in the name of profit. The same with insurance vendors. They sought after our business and then stab us in the backs through loopholes at every chance they get. They spend more money on trying to avoid settling with us than they ever pay out in claims. And just to add to the hypocrisy the government steps in and allows them to take advantage of mandatory laws that require us to do business with them under penalty of law, for things like vehicle and property insurance. And where can one get a mortgage, or even a job anymore, without having a bank account and life insurance? And yet this scenario takes place in many similar forms all around the planet, where the rich and powerful few live off the backs of the poorer majority.

I am not promoting the elimination altogether of the opportunity for people to acquire wealth and luxury. I am suggesting that we eliminate the elements that allow for greed to acquire these things while doing harm in the process. Look what a global affect the greedy heads of corporate America had on the world economy as they bailed out of their positions when the people they scammed out of their money ran out of money. I am simply talking about narrowing the extremes. There should not be an extreme right or extreme left of anything in a world of differences. This doesn't mean that everything has to meet in the middle, it just means that cooperation and compromise must be constantly mediated between two opposing factors so that neither extreme can impose adversely on the other without consequence. There is no way that the executive rich of this world should have such power as to be able to topple the economy of the entire planet by making bad decisions.

Take, for example, the bicyclist driving on the busy city streets.In most cities they are considered vehicles and expected to adhere to the rules of the road like any other vehicle. And yet, most cyclists ride their bikes in total disregard for the rules of the road because, in most cases, they are not enforced, and their negligence, disobedience and disconcern for the traffic is tolerated. Therefore you have the cyclist carelessly driving up on the inside of a line of traffic waiting at a traffic light, and placing their bikes in front of that line of cars, and then selfishly expecting the traffic to follow them the rest of the way up the road at bicycle speed.

This is the mindset of that small percentage of the population of our planet, who selfishly walk past the masses and place themselves in position at the head of the pack, while the rest must tread along behind them. From their positions of luxury they do not look back to see that long lineup behind them.

Whether that person worked hard to acquire his bicycle or not, an inconsiderate position that disregards the state of everyone else in his environment is the attitude that has the world in the state that it is. No one man should control one tenth of the worlds wealth, while 80 percent of the world lives below poverty level.

For people to have millions of dollars more than they could ever personally spend in one lifetime is nothing less than shameless greed, and is totally inappropriate in a world where he is one extreme and the other is so poor it is starving to death in the street. Especially when the starving outnumber the rich elite by the billions, and are the ones that keep the rich provided with their luxuries in the first place. A multibillionaire that gives one million dollars to charity is like a person that makes fifty thousand a year giving ten cents to charity. Those ratios may be off a bit but you get the gist of my intent.

I am not saying that the rich are obligated to solve the world's problems, but I am suggesting that they are a considerable part of the world's problem. We may not owe our neighbor next door anything but simple courtesy, but we do owe humanity as a whole our utmost consideration and concern. It is a sad thing to acknowledge that far too often man must be somehow forcibly compelled to actually consider how his actions may affect someone else. Without a reason to be considerate we are often inconsiderate, and this is precisely why that small percentage is able to carelessly get ahead of the traffic and impede its progress. The inconsideracy of a very small few is impeding the progress of humanity.

Let's face it, we have all done it. Littered in the park because we didn't see any rangers watching. Tossed our cigarette out the car window into the dry grass on the roadside. Impeded traffic during the rush period with our bikes. Got on a crowded bus with a hot coffee in our hands. And yet, if there had been a police car behind you, that cigarette would have gone into the ashtray, and the forest fire would not have burned all of those homes. Had the bus driver insisted you leave the coffee behind, that other passenger would never have been severely scalded.

Had there been a police officer directing traffic at the lights, the cyclist would not have snuck up and placed himself ahead of the traffic so callously.

The world needs to have courteous consideration enforced. The world needs to be incited into courtesy. The world needs a reason to have to walk to the garbage can with their trash, instead of tossing it anywhere. We need to be forced into peace.

But who will set the rules? Where will this body of enforcement come from? How can such a grand gesture ever be implemented?

Our politicians and world leaders are just another part of the same problem. We cannot look to them. Most of the rich are too concerned with their riches, living a lifestyle that is surreal to the majority of the planet. We cannot expect them to give up everything for us.

Is it possible? Is it too much to expect?

We are the vast majority! Those who are creating these problems are a tiny minority. This is very attainable. It will simply take a movement of influential people of opportunity. If people of opportunity would exercise their options, what I propose here could easily be realized in this generation. People are always ready to follow a leader that impresses them. People are always looking for a better life, and their eyes and ears are usually accepting those who bear glad tidings. Many religions prophesy messiahs and saviors. I do not argue those possibilities. But I would say with more confidence that these messiahs are more of an idea than a person, ideologies of hope. And an idea's fruition and culmination is just as possible as its origin. It just requires the right components coming together and moving forward in a particular way. Should someone of some notoriety or prominence step up to bat, the hope grows a little more. And should one successful step lead to another through communication and cooperation those baby steps can culminate in a march of progress.

Will humanity ever succeed in finding peace? I believe it is closer than we realize. I believe that this planet will soon succeed in overcoming that small percentage of greed that has kept us from our dreams, and recently almost caused the bankruptcy of the entire planet's economy. I believe that the government that will finally fall into place to lead the world into this new era will consist of a coming together of global influences with one common goal of world peace, supported by a vast majority of people of every race and culture of like mind, and enabled by technological opportunities never before offered for such an accomplishment. Instant communication and a mass following across the planet of people who are determined to put an end to war, poverty, tyranny and oppression will be the final blow to injustice and inequity forever. Our turn is coming is at hand.

What the catalyst of this turnaround will be is probably not going to be something that we would wish upon ourselves, but will likely be the only thing that will fuel the massive protest which will be necessary to begin this movement.
 
Arjuna
 
Reply Wed 14 Oct, 2009 08:21 pm
@Pathfinder,
I think you're calling for a global government. There is already a widespread perception that such a thing exists. Historically, economic unity preceeds political unity. There is a global economy, so it would appear the stage is set for a global government.

I think though, that some of the turmoil we see in the world is reflecting the stress of globalization.

A lesson from the USSR: whatever happens next must grow naturally. The world of the future has to develop logically from where we are.

Some would say the best thing to do is have faith in people.

And as for segregating the world: I have long believed that if the people of the world would gather together and figure out how to shoot all Americans into outer space, many problems would be solved.
 
Richardgrant
 
Reply Thu 15 Oct, 2009 01:13 am
@Arjuna,
The only way that man can find peace and happiness is to discover his unity with his Creator. The greatest miracle which can happen to any man is the discovery of his Self,and his oneness with all other men.

Man must learn to look upon matter as a transient motion - picture record of the idea which it simulates. For that is what it really is - a Cosmic cinema thrown upon the majestic screen of space.

Nothing real is ever created, only the idea is created, this body of Richard's is only an idea of who I am. The universe is within man himself, so to heal the universe man must first heal himself. Richard
 
Caroline
 
Reply Thu 15 Oct, 2009 01:42 am
@TickTockMan,
Richardgrant;97565 wrote:
The only way that man can find peace and happiness is to discover his unity with his Creator. The greatest miracle which can happen to any man is the discovery of his Self,and his oneness with all other men.

Man must learn to look upon matter as a transient motion - picture record of the idea which it simulates. For that is what it really is - a Cosmic cinema thrown upon the majestic screen of space.

Nothing real is ever created, only the idea is created, this body of Richard's is only an idea of who I am. The universe is within man himself, so to heal the universe man must first heal himself. Richard

Brilliant.

Pathfinder;97514 wrote:
Caroline why don't you let me make my popst before u jump to conclusions, u may be surprised.
I don't have a lot of time to read your other post, (op), but will do later, ok.
Thanks.

TickTockMan;97516 wrote:
I can't seem to locate the example you provided. Can you refresh my memory?

The team of moderators I was on, we maintained balance. Justin is very good at picking his mods.

Thanks.

---------- Post added 10-15-2009 at 02:49 AM ----------

Pathfinder;97526 wrote:
Our Turn

Eh?

Pathfinder;97526 wrote:
It is a ridiculous delusion to think that the world will ever live together in harmony and accord. It will not happen.
Forever the pessimist aren't you. I think we can change and I ask you Pathfinder why on earth can't we? Please keep it brief as I can't read very very long posts.
 
Pathfinder
 
Reply Thu 15 Oct, 2009 02:23 am
@Caroline,
Caroline;97574 wrote:
Brilliant.

I don't have a lot of time to read your other post, (op), but will do later, ok.
Thanks.


The team of moderators I was on, we maintained balance. Justin is very good at picking his mods.

Thanks.

---------- Post added 10-15-2009 at 02:49 AM ----------


Eh?

Forever the pessimist aren't you. I think we can change and I ask you Pathfinder why on earth can't we? Please keep it brief as I can't read very very long posts.




Pessimist? I guess you didn't read the post then Caroline. Its there if you're interested, if you're not, well, the post speaks to that as well.

There is no pessimism in it. It states that man will be able to accomplish world peace and elaborately lays out one possible way of achieving that. And if you only read the first paragraph you rob yourself of the rest of the insight.

It's there for all. The rest is up to those who either choose to read it or choose to ignore it. There is only one way to know what you're missing.

Richard Grant,

I thought you said you were God.

---------- Post added 10-15-2009 at 03:26 AM ----------

Arjuna;97542 wrote:
I think you're calling for a global government. There is already a widespread perception that such a thing exists. Historically, economic unity preceeds political unity. There is a global economy, so it would appear the stage is set for a global government.

I think though, that some of the turmoil we see in the world is reflecting the stress of globalization.

A lesson from the USSR: whatever happens next must grow naturally. The world of the future has to develop logically from where we are.

Some would say the best thing to do is have faith in people.

And as for segregating the world: I have long believed that if the people of the world would gather together and figure out how to shoot all Americans into outer space, many problems would be solved.



What I have speculated is very different than the Un or world economy of today.

And I think the last few thousand years are a pretty good indicator of what grows naturally. That we need to do something differently is obvious. To have faith in people is obviously not working at all.
 
Caroline
 
Reply Thu 15 Oct, 2009 02:32 am
@BeatsMeWhy,
I'm sorry Pathfinder but that particular line is pessimistic, therefore I question it. I don't have time sorry, like I don't have all day thanks, I have things to do like life! Are you going to answer my question or just continue to rob yourself of a potential discussion.:poke-eye:
Thanks.


Pathfinder;97581 wrote:
P
Richard Grant,

I thought you said you were God.
No don't think so, I think someone else is not reading posts eh Pathfinder?
 
Pathfinder
 
Reply Thu 15 Oct, 2009 03:02 am
@Caroline,
Caroline;97585 wrote:
I'm sorry Pathfinder but that particular line is pessimistic, therefore I question it. I don't have time sorry, like I don't have all day thanks, I have things to do like life! Are you going to answer my question or just continue to rob yourself of a potential discussion.:poke-eye:
Thanks.


No don't think so, I think someone else is not reading posts eh Pathfinder?



Than don't bother!

And if you read Grant's posts he clearly states that he he is God. Ask him.
 
Caroline
 
Reply Thu 15 Oct, 2009 03:08 am
@BeatsMeWhy,
I will bother when I have the time. It looks very interesting. And I hope I will be nicely surprised like you say, but for now I have to get on with my day maybe a bit of late night reading.
I think Richard means the essence of God, I agree, but he's not The God.
Thanks.
 
Pathfinder
 
Reply Thu 15 Oct, 2009 03:21 am
@Caroline,
Caroline;97593 wrote:
I will bother when I have the time. It looks very interesting. And I hope I will be nicely surprised like you say, but for now I have to get on with my day maybe a bit of late night reading.
I think Richard means the essences of God, I agree, but he's not The God.
Thanks.


Have a great day in the meantime.

With regard to Richard, in every post he has made that I have read I believe he clearly states that he is the creator of his reality.
 
Caroline
 
Reply Thu 15 Oct, 2009 03:45 am
@Pathfinder,
Pathfinder;97603 wrote:
Have a great day in the meantime.

With regard to Richard, in every post he has made that I have read I believe he clearly states that he is the creator of his reality.

Thanks.
My mistake then, yes we do create our reality, he is quite right.
Thanks.

---------- Post added 10-15-2009 at 04:46 AM ----------

God is within us and everywhere too, so yes he is God.
Ta.
 
YoungSocrates
 
Reply Thu 15 Oct, 2009 06:13 am
@BeatsMeWhy,
BMW;89964 wrote:
I mean, of course, if there is anyone in here that thinks that thinking is the way to discover how to redirect society to improve it..


Of course thinking is the way to improve society, it is the only possible way to do it. We live our lives everyday doing the same actions repeated over and over until one of us questions our actions. That question is a form of thinking and sparks change. This is how every social improvement has happened for the human race for a long time. "Hey, that guy is killing Jews, we should probably stop that." and "Dude, Britain is abusing it's control and overtaxing us, we should probably start an independant government." are just two thoughts in history that have changed and improved society forever. If thoughts could not change the world, then instead of typing this response, I'd probably be beating someone over the head with a rock and stealing their food to bring back to my cave. But remember, a thought kept in the mind is an unheard and a useless thought. That is what is great about this forum. If we find a problem and it's solution, surely we can make change for the world.
 
Arjuna
 
Reply Thu 15 Oct, 2009 08:42 am
@YoungSocrates,
I understood Richard to be saying that we have always been creating our world. Look at the world as it is, and you'll see the outward manifestation of our desires and assumptions.

Without any mysticism, I think that's pretty obvious: war and genocide don't come from outer space... they come from us. We're always doing what we love. Beyond that, I think he's saying that consciousness is god... in the same way an artist is the god of her painting. The world we see is our painting: taking shape from the invisable form.

The point I'm throwing out is that any artist is like a mother. The artist passively gives the creation what it needs to grow. If you try too hard to dictate the nature of the creation, it's like a mother who tries too hard to tell her child what to be. So you can say: change who you are and the world will change. Yes. And we are changing inside. That's the nature of life. We all learn and grow according to a natural evolution that has its own inner logic. Realizing that we are creating our world, we have the opportunity to choose better paths for expression. We can avoid repeating the same mistakes. We can drop out of tangles that aren't producing anything meaningful. What we create is also alive, though. You can say it's not real... because it's only a flickering light show. No. The light show is alive. It has its own awareness. It's not right to say that it's nothing. It has the potential to grow into something just as wonderful as you. You were once just dust from someone's point of view.

The same applies to the creation of our world. Pathfinder, you might not have had the idea of global government in mind, but there still has to be some mechanism by which the will of the people can express itself. If controlled buffer zones is what we want, there's going to have to be an organization that administers that. It will have to have the recognized authority to maintain those zones. That administrator would also have to answer to a counter authority so that grievances could be addressed. In other words: there would have to be a government conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.
 
Dustin phil
 
Reply Thu 15 Oct, 2009 02:26 pm
@Arjuna,
Perhaps it's the earth we live on that is changing already, and we must change with it. That is, if it's true the earth is moving from the third density to the fourth, and in that dimension, it's impossible that there be not change.
 
Richardgrant
 
Reply Thu 15 Oct, 2009 02:33 pm
@Dustin phil,
As I have released all judgement, which gets rid of all blame my life has taken on a new direction, when I am very honest with myself knowing I create all there is, everything starts with me and finishes with me.

I know I can change the world from within my own consciousness, by he way I express that consciousness. There are no two things in the universe, all is ONE. Nothing real is ever created, it's only our ego that convinces us that what we see is real. Richard
 
Caroline
 
Reply Thu 15 Oct, 2009 02:35 pm
@BeatsMeWhy,
BMW;89964 wrote:
I mean, of course, if there is anyone in here that thinks that thinking is the way to discover how to redirect society to improve it.

Or if you think that philosophy's goal is just to understand what happens, not to modify it.

I say it's all of our responsibilty to change it. Dont you think?
Thanks.
 
Dustin phil
 
Reply Thu 15 Oct, 2009 02:41 pm
@Caroline,
Caroline;97728 wrote:
I say it's all of our responsibilty to change it. Dont you think?
Thanks.


Maybe changing is just realizing of what is already. Can we do that?
 
TickTockMan
 
Reply Thu 15 Oct, 2009 02:49 pm
@Dustin phil,
Dustin;97722 wrote:
Perhaps it's the earth we live on that is changing already, and we must change with it. That is, if it's true the earth is moving from the third density to the fourth, and in that dimension, it's impossible that there be not change.


There is no perhaps about it. Of course the earth is changing, or more accurately, the features of the earth are changing.

Many billions of years ago the features of the earth were much different than they are now, although it was then, and still is today, the earth. Even a rudimentary understanding of geology reveals that fact. Naturally, species that inhabit the earth must adapt to its physical changes, or risk extinction.

What are you referring to when you talk about a third and fourth "density"?
 
Bhaktajan
 
Reply Thu 15 Oct, 2009 02:54 pm
@BeatsMeWhy,
1] As long as the cows are killed & eaten by humans ---there cannot be world peace.

The cow is sacred solely because aesthetically the cow is
Mother of agrarian culture. The Bull is the oxen power best suited for plowing fields.

The Mother supplies milk-based foodstuffs and the ox plows the fields.

Aside from these priorities all sorts of enterprises may be pursued ---but any & all such supra-mundane priorities have & will again lead to confligations.

The last century is a text-book study of this maxim.

2] Substitute the above word 'cow' and substitute it with the word Flesh.

3] Substitute the above word 'cow' and substitute it with *Human sacrifice.

*A broken wood chair, or, a soiled loaf of bread will be replaced cheaply ---but the a dead animal carcass is a commodity that is beyond human currency.

Karma means action. Karma-phala means fruits-of-one's-actions IOW Karmic-reaction.

After so many generations of organised animal slaughter as a Way-of-Life ---there are those who would be born to experience the same anguish and taste for blood, sweat and tears in a most practical & pragmatic way so as to reconcile one's actions.

With all your fancy flowery words the posters here are overlooking the fact that Human's are also hapless Beasts.

The Latin Word for 'Soul' is 'anima' the basis for the word 'animate'.

I animate therefore I am a self conscious animal.

All knowledge is derived from above. All knowledge is derived from a higher more intelligent, more powerfull, wealthier source. All knowledge is imparted from those who know to those who do not know. Patent Rights & Copywright Laws uphold this.

BTW, crime infested neighborhoods are infested with flesh-to-eat- purveyors. Criminals & specifically rapists are 99.99% meat eaters.

Remember? . . . The Orphanage headmaster says to the foster parents of Oliver Twist as he is being retrived to be returned to the orphanage, "I told you not to feed the boy meat".

Remember thinking? . . . "If she eats that oyster and crabs along with some yeast fermented rye malt . . . wath else would she do?"

BTW, is it wrong to eat flesh from animals that are sub-par? Is it wrong to eat flesh from animals that are retarded or crippled or deformed or elderly or male or female? I guess it is universally accepted as the standard to eat the flesh of the young and robust breasts et al.


be seeing you,
Hare Krishna Bhaktajan

PS: From my experience there is only one sure way to avoid flesh products [and thus the concominant bad-Karmic reactions] is to eat first rate veggy cuisine with ghee etc etc etc. The replace a lower taste ---one must substitute it with a Higher Taste.
 
Dustin phil
 
Reply Thu 15 Oct, 2009 03:01 pm
@TickTockMan,
TickTockMan;97737 wrote:
There is no perhaps about it. Of course the earth is changing, or more accurately, the features of the earth are changing.

Many billions of years ago the features of the earth were much different than they are now, although it was then, and still is today, the earth. Even a rudimentary understanding of geology reveals that fact. Naturally, species that inhabit the earth must adapt to its physical changes, or risk extinction.


It's true, and scientists have discovered many things about how the earth changes over billions of years. What they know very little about, is how celestial objects and energies effect the earth beyond what we currently know.

TickTockMan;97737 wrote:
What are you referring to when you talk about a third and fourth "density"?


A dimension that rather adds to the five senses in which we presently perceive things. We currently are aware through the third density.
 
Caroline
 
Reply Thu 15 Oct, 2009 03:13 pm
@Dustin phil,
Dustin;97733 wrote:
Maybe changing is just realizing of what is already. Can we do that?
I think we have to act.
Thanks.
 
 

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 07/24/2024 at 04:22:58