Re: Self Determination

[David Merrill]

DM, With all due respect to you, I would respond to this to ask "when did you create God?"

Because it is within your mind that he exists, else you would not share (perceived) experience/belief.

For me, when I discovered that the "God" I served was my own creation, I issued him the directive: "Ye must be born again."

My former statement is absent a claim that "there is no god." To the contrary, I believe the divine is in each of us. And even the bible verifies that we were given the power of god (read: creation and choice).

So the Fibonacci, Golden Ratio, the Rubedo of Alchemy, and the remote viewing of meditation are all miraculous and divine.

Me, I am aware for my connection with, and oneness with the divine.

Choose ye this day whom ye will serve. As for me and my house, we are Non Serviam, yet loving our fellow man as best we can.

Metheist.

With true respect back, I laughed out loud as I read:

For me, when I discovered that the "God" I served was my own creation, I issued him the directive: "Ye must be born again."

From the perspective you project upon me, you may have uttered the ultimate blasphemy.

Indeed I may have created God, as the God of my post is little more than an ability for thought to develop to an utterance and that to create a universe. The God of my post would be nothing without a Creation - He would die of boredom without experience. In my scenario/musings about the God of Creation, we literally live for God (God's amusement really).

This is not to belittle the emotions - especially of love and joy. Emotions are quite important in my portrait.



Regards,

David Merrill.

[Frederick Burrell]

Yes David, it would seem that We (god manifesting through forms) are here to experience something other than Self (God). Hence the need for the veil of forgetfulness. Funny how we all travel such different roads in our search for truth but seem to arrive at the same place. Frederick Burrell

[Metheist]

From the perspective you project upon me, you may have uttered the ultimate blasphemy. .

Perhaps, then, I have done at least one thing thoroughly and completely...

No offense taken. (I can't be blasphemed...)

[Michael Joseph]

self determination within what frame? Any one familiar with NLP is familiar with framing a reference. Therefore, that Right is equivalent to Property. And Property is a Ability to Use. Therefore Right implies a Trust. Therefore, one must ask who settled this word of art termed "The Right of Self Determination". This term is magick.

And if one were to Claim said Right [Property] is that one Benefiting from the Use of a Law? or Bylaw? Whose Trust was that Law settled? In other words who is the higher power? If we are talking about man's law then there must be a singularity a beginning. And the question begging to be answered is Who was the Creator? Or said another way, who first performed the first Trust Deed? Was it the Pope in 1302 - Unam Sanctum?

If the Pope in 1302 forms the basis of Trust law with the Trust Deed of Unam Sanctum, if I claim the "Right of Self Determination" do I come under the HIGH CONTRACTING PARTIES?

Yet, my Scripture and my heart tells me there seems to be two trusts here. One in the Creator God - the Self Existing One - YHVH and man's creation. My heart tells me to trust in man is to be cursed. To trust in God is to be blessed. Yet, societies form for the good of man and man enters into business relationships. How to do so is based on agreements. And effectively Trust. Therefore, will one be competent and Stand in and for his estate - Trustee; on behalf of his Posterity? In peace absent trespass beside or abutting or adjacent to other concurrent jurisdictions and venues.

Yet prior to Self Determination one must be able to effectively identify the Self, yes? Please with specificity identify the self? In reality it cannot be done. Therefore Trusts are created and sub-trusts are created and it is the sub-trust that is identified because it is absolutely Impossible to identify a living soul. The Self - the true me - with my Intellect [spirit] intact - is impossible to identify.

You say, absurdity, yes? Then please tell me how you will identify the Flesh? Everything about the Flesh can be manipulated. And if you consider the Thought process even that too can be erased. So now, I await the one who will step forward and solve the argument that has been the "CONTEMPT OF GENERATIONS" - how to identify the Self. Because before the Right of "Self" Determination can be Claimed one must be able to determine the identity of the Self.

Remember Right is equivalent to Property and Property goes to Trust and Trust goes to Uses and the Uses are Split into two titles in the Trust. And Property has nothing to do with the Form of Matter or Form of Thought. Property goes to Right of Use. I know circular, correct. But you get the point.

[Metheist]

self determination within what frame?

I would imagine that frame being the frame that one is aware of.

And if one were to Claim said Right [Property] is that one Benefiting from the Use of a Law? or Bylaw? Whose Trust was that Law settled? In other words who is the higher power? If we are talking about man's law then there must be a singularity a beginning. And the question begging to be answered is Who was the Creator? Or said another way, who first performed the first Trust Deed? Was it the Pope in 1302 - Unam Sanctum?

If the Pope in 1302 forms the basis of Trust law with the Trust Deed of Unam Sanctum, if I claim the "Right of Self Determination" do I come under the HIGH CONTRACTING PARTIES?

Conversely, if one is aware, should one also be aware of "HIGH CONTRACTING PARTIES" of awareness?

Perhaps I've blasphemed again...

[Michael Joseph]

Exactly my point. If a living soul should DECIDE to lower himself [masculine = femine for the purposes of this writing] into a lower estate by claiming UNDER a deficient status or estate, then that is the self realization or aware choice that has been made. But to be fully with the cognizance of choice one with the awareness would be sure to know the obligations of his choice, yes?

Is it the duty of an other man to make another aware? I say emphatically No. If one chooses to be ignorant, then let him be ignorant. Let him complain and writhe in the mire. When he stops complaining and pointing outward, then perhaps he can be helped to look inward to resolve his issues. Until then, let him eat the food with the hogs. Yet, if he will return to the Father's house he will be received with great joy.

If one with the aware condition decides to enjoin or engage a lower condition, then, yes, that one should be with the cognizance of the higher powers of that condition. This conversation of course goes to man wants a leader that he can see. A leader that will go before him and fight his battles for him and do all of the dirty repugnant work for him. That way man will be with a clean conscious and the dirty work is left to mans representative.

Man wants his delicious chicken sandwich, yet he does not want to engage his mind to realize the manner in which that sandwich is made ready for his consumption - to see the chicken farms where they are bred by the hundreds of thousands in horrific conditions - is not expedient to enjoying the delicious sandwich. Therefore, we shall leave that task to our representative, yes? So that we with the choice can enjoy the byproduct of our intention - the delicious sandwich - and our conscious remains clear. Is that being aware?

Yet, this model is impossible in a society because the so called representative comes "out of" the Society to lead a repugnant ignorant public. Therefore the representative lies to the Public feeding back to the Public the impossibility of solving all of their problems. An irrational game, yet the public has been controlled for a little over a Century with Irrational Thought patterns. Feed the Self whatever it wants is the irrational thought of this day - it promotes peace. What then when the candy store runs out of candy?

Aware of what? My being? Do my thoughts ripple thru your mind like the waves on a pond caused by a singular pebble dropped within it? No, then don't respond. Yes, then engage and prove my point. We are ALL aware and we all are like little pebbles being dropped into a pond and our actions are as the waves and those waves "interact" with each other to change the pre-existing condition.

So what then of choice? Choice framed when and where? Of course you and I are both aware beings. With the Choice to decide - how will we shape our destinies. We shape our destinies by our singular choice. Our Choice to do or not to do a thing impacts others.

I choose, therefore I am aware. I choose, therefore I am with the responsibility and obligation.

I reject the notion that the frame is conditional to ones awareness. Is a 16 year old aware of the ramifications of endorsing the Federal Reserve System? Yet he chooses to work and get a paycheck and have a banking account and endorse the Federal Reserve System and thusly he is with the Responsibility and the Obligation of that Choice - even though said choice was made in ignorance. The boy Acted and implied his trust. The boy is aware that he is getting some increase; yet, he is unaware of the nature of the trust he has enjoined.

As to your blasphemy, you take that up with your Creator. Even if I could Judge you, what then? Am I with the Power to effect my judgment?

We are informed that the Kingdom of Heaven is within and without. I change myself by my choice and I impact others by my change. Self awareness of the realization that I indeed need to change. Where said change is realized within the construct of my conscious thought.

I now await all of the gainsayers to report back to me according to Plato, I am asleep. I await your proof. Yet please undergird my position and respond to this open door. I'm waiting....