ICURBlessings

What book are you saying you read, ACIM or "The disappearance of the universe"?

Lila9 I can see you are struggling to make sense or figure out a reasoning that holds from words such as "... rape is an absolute aspect of Infinity..." It is impossible to come-up with a sound reasoning because first of all 'rape' is not an absolute - period. This kind of statement, if it was coming from a member of this forum, I would not even give it a second thought. It is only because Leo is the 'author' of this forum that I reflected on this statement. Before 2 days ago I did not even know how Leo conceive of Reality. I came to this forum knowing nothing of Leo's teachings. So I had to look for some of his videos to find out. he appear to believe that, all experiences of perception, that they be of torture or rape or pleasures of the flesh or anything that has occurred within the human field of perception ...is an absolute aspect of Infinity... therefore is an absolute aspect of God... My spiritual experiences have brought me to a fundamentally different conception of the human experience and of the process of Self-Realization.

...God induced itself in a dream of its own making, dreaming a human reality with all the backstories to sustain the dream as it is, a body moving in its own bubble of dreamscape. ... This statement for one thing - is ONLY valid within a Duality-base context. Statements such as "God is Absolute but became Duality so that he could experience awakening..." and many others are all variations of a mistake made at the most fundamental level. The mistake is one of precision and accuracy. In a very coarse and crude way these claims have a thread of Truth BUT it is a twisted thread. The details that are missing are completely rendered unavailable by other crude and coarse concepts such as "I am God". This claim has a thread that leads to Truth but again this thread must be TWISTED to keep the concept "I am God" valid. There is a a consequence to these crude and coarse concepts undressed of nuances and there is a cost to twisting facts to make them work. 100% of us - we must cope with our bodies, with our experience of perception, and from there we Self-Realize. The appearance of a "short-cut" that such statements seam to impart is generally deceptive, and not helpful - in my opinion base on experience.

I recommend you put a link to the Video you are referring to

One of the most powerful way of learning Jesus true teachings in far more details than the Bible: Spend a few years studying A Course in Miracles Here is the first Page: 1. This is a course in miracles. ²It is a required course. ³Only the time you take it is voluntary. ⁴Free will does not mean that you can establish the curriculum. ⁵It means only that you can elect what you want to take at a given time. ⁶The course does not aim at teaching the meaning of love, for that is beyond what can be taught. ⁷It does aim, however, at removing the blocks to the awareness of love’s presence, which is your natural inheritance. ⁸The opposite of love is fear, but what is all-encompassing can have no opposite. 2. This course can therefore be summed up very simply in this way: Nothing real can be threatened. Nothing unreal exists. Herein lies the peace of God.

Here is a more in depth analysis: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evil/

What you are bringing up here is called the "Problem of evil" There are many theories that stands as 'solutions' or 'answers'. On this Wikipedia page is a list of them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_evil

gettoefl - I don't think I ever responded to your posts - because I don't have to add anything to them. I just want to say thank you for your posts. Your wording is in a different ballpark than most users of this forum (like me on that point ). However I believe I do understand your gist. I can see you are not raising the fundamental postulate that "Evil Exist therefore It is Created by God" - I appreciate that you know how to make a distinction where many here throwing everything in the same pot as if everything was on the same order of reality. It is in my opinion such an obtuse solution to the problem of evil.

Therefore before habits can easily be changed - one has to become more conscious

Every habit, wanted or unwanted, destructive or not, are driven by a belief. 99% of the time these beliefs are kept unconscious, as a form of protection, because they are valued. Here is a simplistic example: A common belief that is unconsciously driving humanity is the belief that "Change is bad". Such a belief will not help the desire to change a habit. Of course any actual case is more complex than this. Other problematic beleifs may include: I am not capable of achieving anything good I am not worth it Something is fundamentally wrong with me I don't have enough energy I don't have enough time in my life for creating a change ... remember these beliefs abides unconsciously which does not make them any less efficient.

Tell me puporing, "Grandeur, golden/white rays, mechanoid, holiness, glory, perfect Love, protection, perfection" - How do you experience such Vision? In a meditation? ....during a psychedelic experience? ... do you have such Vision on a regular basis, or on rare occasion? Are you interested in sharing more about this?

YES!

First we are talking about a state that can be defined as Physicality - which is simply what some like to call the Physical-World. We could update this term to the Physical-Universe but I prefer the term Physicality because under this term there could be other Universes that are operating under the same laws - The Laws of Physics. By definition Physicality is separate at least in some ways from Non-Physical States - such as the states of the After-Life - Out-of-Body Experiences - and any other. Second - the BigBang could be a physical phenomenon that is not the beginning of Spacetime - but within a wider context - something like the other side of a Black-Hole . Which is also the Inside of the Black Hole. A Black Hole in theory could be like a doorway to a Universe within a Universe which would begin with a Big Bang. ...However this does not really matter as we can also consider the Big Bang as proposed here: The Birth of Spacetime/Gravity. I have wondered about the concept of a transition from Non-Physicality to Physicality. I also came across this idea when exploring the nature of the field that has been called 'Quantum Field' or other - the field where sub-particles seem to become almost immaterial. However I question very seriously the possible nature of a transition between Physicality and Non-Physicality and come to the understanding that it is like understanding how a dream is formed when we fall asleep. Where the dream represent Physicality. Interestingly is that we are asking these questions and looking at what we would see from within Physicality as we look on the edge where it vanishes... which would be like being in a dream and looking at the point where the dream ends... I appologize for trying to say alot in a minimum amount of words...

...it just makes this forum tiresome because it's so unnecessary ... Agoy you are hitting something right-on here. Its refreshing to hear it. there is so much of cheap-use of the non-dualistic concepts in this forum. Very sloppy, impossible to have a half decent conversation at times... Ego trashing passive-aggressive behaviors all dress up in non-dualistic concepts. It reminds me of pool halls and boxing rings ....mmmm more like wrestling rings were its all fake. Sorry for the rant, but I just can't get use to this. I appreciate your post, and your question. I will follow with some comments, bellow.

A Unified One-Will to be what It is - its function and purpose would be of Creating Reality. Here it is ESSENTIAL to not associate the meaning of Reality to what human thinks reality is. What human collectively think Reality is, for now, and at best, is only an ASSUMPTION of WHAT Reality is. BUT a True Unified Will would represent the POWER of CREATING True Reality - in other words what Reality truly is, and NOT what humans collectively assume what Reality is. That is a basic premise that needs to be established - so that we can explore the meaning of an Unopposed-Will. Also we need to associate this One-Will to a Source - a Center-like from which it extend Itself. I know that this sounds like I am speaking in a Spacetime context - BUT not only it is not necessarily in Spacetime - It is factually beyond Spacetime. To explain why is it beyond Spacetime is important but here it would be too much, I will save such an explanation for another time (pun not intended ). In traditional terminology we have established God (the Source), His Will (One and Unified Will), His Power to Create, and Reality which is here by premise unknown to humans. Humans see themselves as physical bodies living on Planet Earth, which is part of a Solar System, which is part of a Galaxy, which is part of a Universe. Traditionally and since ancient times the Universe was called the 'World'. Humans look at the World and they see themselves as a passing (mortal) tiny object in a gigantic world - and when they look at the world they think that it is Reality, that is God's Creation. Yet in the living forms they see that were somehow produced out of matter - they see that they are driven by 'separate' wills, and wills that MUST conflict with each other. Here in our basic premise what the humans see as the world and define as reality is not the Reality Created by the One-Will. We don't know yet what that True-Reality is. One thing we can be fully certain is that the Source of the One-Will would never produce another Will for such a Will would have to differ from the One-Will. And this level of Reality to 'differ' means only one thing which is to oppose. To oppose the Will which Creates True-Reality would mean that True-Reality would be destroyed or simply collapse completely. This maybe not obvious at first, and certainly maybe difficult to understand as fundamentally factual - but it really is impossible for the Source of One-Will to also effect another Will of any kind.

Darkness is a lack of Light. There is Light or No-Light. Darkness is the word for No-Light.

Ok Leo - I will call on the projection of your statement - by "mental acrobatics" you are also inferring these words which you stated: 1) God exists 2) Child rape exists 3) God is Creator of the Universe Conclusion: God created child rape. I see this as an oversimplified mental acrobatic leaving out fundamental factors. There is many ways to overthrow the seeming validity of this black and white line of logic - if you introduce specific factors to terms such as God - Exist - Creation/Creator - and Universe. All those term's meaning are ASSUMED to be as you see them only by you. I am not stupid - I know exactly how you define these terms - HOWEVER the error lies in assuming I agree that these 'meanings' are valid. Are you so convinced that you have the only possible right view - or that you believe you have seen everything - that you have completely loss the sense of exploring a different point of view?

Here, you are exploring in the right direction as I see it...

If God didn't create evil, who did? The full answer to that requires too much for a post in a thread that is flying all over the place. I will only say that if one agree that the word CREATE or CREATION can only be attributed to REALITY than "creating evil" is fundamentally invalid - a type of oxymoron.

The content of an illusion or a dream exist to the dreamer. In the dream the city, the car, the chair does exist for the dreamer. You can even state that the dream exist. But God's Creation by definition is what Reality means. And by definition an Illusion or a Dream are not Reality.

The only thing you can do ... is realize the Universe as defined in the statement is not God's Creation.

I rather Leo speaks for himself. And I will give you two observation of your response. You seem to possibly confuse 'Minor' with 'Children' or vice versa You also seem to look at sexual intercourse from one side only - although it is a 2 way street. And you clearly did not understand my point. But I figure Leo might.

Is this a twisted way of making a point... I can't tell if you are saying that sex with adult is NOT love or that sex with children is love? But you say 'everything is love' so you must mean "sex with children is love"? What do you call children - is it any age under 12? Are you seriously talking about sexuality with 3 years old or 5 or 6 as being love? I get that probably the point might be that anything is love - and therefore torture, and cruelty itself... I think this kind of philosophical reasoning is playing with fire...

Are you saying that you rather keep your options open to multiple answers, perhaps choose an answer under a certain context but not lock-in to it, and be able to change it as needed, or as necessary as circumstances changes? Or - do you mean you rather have no answers attached to these questions at all time?