Topics Topics Edit Profile Profile Help/Instructions Help   FIGU-Website FIGU-Website
Search Last 1 | 3 | 7 Days Search Search Tree View Tree View FIGU-Shop FIGU-Shop

Archive through November 15, 2003

Discussionboard of FIGU » The Creation-energy Teaching » The Application of Natural Logic (Living by the creational laws and recommendations) » Archive through November 15, 2003 « Previous Next »

Author Message
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page

Savio
Member

Post Number: 433
Registered: 07-2000
Posted on Sunday, August 24, 2003 - 12:10 am:   Edit Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Well, I am not sure whether it is natural logic, but surely I know this is based on simple logic, calculation and common sense.

By simple logic, there should be only “one case” of “the only truth or only salvation”, because the word “only” defines that more than one case is logically impossible.

Now, there are more than Ten religion groups in this world who claim that they’ve got the only truth and only salvation.

Applying simple logic, I deduce: at the most, there should be only “one” religion that can equip with the only truth and all the rest must be false religions.

Hence, at least 90% of the religions are preaching untruths.
That is to say, most of the believers are having a wrong faith.
That is to say, the chance of believing in a true religion is less than 10%.

Now, even the assumed true religion is not able to prove the existence of its god, then it is logical to say that it cannot claim to have got the only truth (at the most, it can only claim: It is assumed that we have got the only truth). This is a 50/50 case.

In that case, what is the chance of believing in a true religion again? Logically I would say it is now less than 5%. In fact, it comes down to approaching Zero.

How can a believer be sure any more?
How can a logical person believes in something without proof while there is only less than 5% chance of getting it right?

Perhaps it is time to wake up and apply logic.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page

Joseph_emmanuel
Member

Post Number: 21
Registered: 05-2003
Posted on Sunday, August 24, 2003 - 12:10 pm:   Edit Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Savio

You have reasoned in the same way as one who is religious would reason in order to prove the religion he follows is true while other religions are false. You have reasoned as one who is partial rather than impartial. And I think that to get at the truth of the matter one always has to be impartial, or there is the danger of not seeing the whole truth but only part of the truth. The only way a religion can be proved to be true or false is through its teachings, and if its teachings were true, then it would not be a religion, because true teachings don’t encourage one to have a predisposition, which you would have if you were following a religion. So I think, going by this, it is quite obvious that all religions teach falsely. However, you may ask, what is a true teaching that it doesn’t encourage predisposition. A true teaching is something that accounts for everything and not just for one thing. It is a law of Nature and of Creation that accounts for all existence and all created things. If, therefore, you are taught that your religion is true while other religions are false, this can be understood to be a false teaching because it accounts for only one religion and not for all religions. As long as there are other religions in the world, they too need to be accounted for, regardless of the fact that they may teach falsely. To refuse to account for them would be to nurture prejudice, from which would then arise aggression. Does a true teaching lead one to discord rather than harmony? Take, for example, the issue of race. Is one correct to think that one is superior to another by virtue of one’s nationality? Much of our history is based on such arrogance, and many nations were conquered and subjugated as a result. Was this a true teaching? Of course not. Yet there is no difference between one who thinks he is superior to another by virtue of his nationality than one who thinks he is superior to another by virtue of his religious beliefs. In principle they are the same. A true teaching, then, does not divide but it unites. It brings together all existence so that they become like one existence. A good example of this is depicted by the traveller of the world, who travels from one country to another. Providing his mind is open, his love is not reserved for any one country or any one culture, but for all countries and all cultures. And in this way he broadens his consciousness so that he comes to embrace the world and not remain predisposed to his own country and culture, as many who don’t travel the world are inclined to be. In fact, religion in this sense can be seen to be like one who has not ventured beyond the borders of his country and remains predisposed to his culture. It is like an individual whose mind is closed to what others have to say and share. It is like the colonialist who, in a foreign land, refuses to make himself familiar with the culture of the natives and instead imposes his own values, which he does out of fear more than out of a feeling of superiority. But if religion opened itself up and sought to continually broaden its worldview, it would then become like a traveller of the world. The only problem with this, however, is that it would no longer be able to define itself, which is the identifying nature of a true teaching: the traveller of the world, who knew himself as one of a certain culture and country, eventually learns to consciously let go of that with which he identified himself and broadens his sense of identification to compliment his personality. Thus religion claims to be the revealer of truth in order to establish itself in the world and have a continued identity. For being the source of truth, or shall we say, the Word of God, it could not then be challenged by a people who are filled with fear and kept ignorant by it.

This is actually a primitive human instinct, since the establishment of a religion, like the establishment of a community and the awareness of belonging to it, psychologically affirm our place in the world, or perhaps, more accurately, in ourselves, since the cause of our insecurity is the outcome of our fear of the world, which we have come to experience throughout human history as something that is potentially dangerous or harmful to our lives. We, therefore, create closed environments to protect ourselves from the world: from other clans that have shown themselves to be hostile and from wild animals that prey on human life; but more so from life itself: from the experience of that with which we are unfamiliar, and which we feel threatens us because it brings into question our own existence: our thinking, our beliefs, our lifestyles, our values, our experiences, our customs, all of which accounts for our lives and, therefore, our individual and collective reality. To confirm within ourselves that there are other realities for which we have to account, realities whose thinking, beliefs, lifestyles, values, experiences and customs are just as real as our own, yet are contrary to them, would be to acknowledge the probability that our reality is not as indisputable as we believe it to be, since to contradict it would be to question it, and to question it would be to give rise to doubt, which we couldn’t possibly allow to happen because, then, how would we account for ourselves? Our reality is our identity, and if our identity is potentially false, owing to a contradicting reality that claims to be true, as in the case of religions, who can we say we are? Where is our place in the world, in ourselves? What is our purpose? To feel secure we must have some conviction that cannot be shaken by contrary evidence. Such conviction is better secured when others share it, for this way not only do our own individual identities become firmly rooted in the ground of our conviction but we as a social group become more effective in the world when confronted by other social groups; that is, we adopt the appearance of being authoritative and of having presence in order to put off being challenged. And this we do at the expense of truth, and at the expense of our own spiritual evolution.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page

Savio
Member

Post Number: 434
Registered: 07-2000
Posted on Monday, August 25, 2003 - 02:20 am:   Edit Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Hi Joseph

Thanks for your response :-)

But I am sorry to tell that I cannot understand you as there are so many points in so many words within such a long paragraph.

All I have to say in my above simple logic/calculation is:

"If one choses to believe in a religion, his chance of getting a religion with the "only truth" is less than 5%, it is even worse when one cannot even prove the existence of the God".

My approach is very simple and straight forward, one does not have to be well educationed to understand it, that is the beauty of simple logic :-)

Regards

Savio


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page

Joseph_emmanuel
Member

Post Number: 22
Registered: 05-2003
Posted on Monday, August 25, 2003 - 01:40 pm:   Edit Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I want to pose the question "What is love according to the laws of Creation, and how is it expressed through ourselves as humans?

I will be attempting to answer this myself, but of course the idea is to involve everyone, so as to encourage thought.

As a reminder I would like to quote the TJ in reference to this section: "Choose your words using natural logic, and draw upon the knowledge and behavior of nature."
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page

George
Member

Post Number: 19
Registered: 03-2003
Posted on Tuesday, August 26, 2003 - 12:03 pm:   Edit Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Hi everybody,
Natural or not - I think all logic is based on the Truth. Truth is the set of facts that really happened and can be verified. This is then how we can function, judge and logically establish what is correct or not what is properly balanced or not...etc.

Regards
George
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page

Howard
Member

Post Number: 50
Registered: 05-2003
Posted on Tuesday, August 26, 2003 - 03:45 pm:   Edit Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I think you people love the word "logic". You use it well to often, its kind of misused. You cannot state that everything you say are logic. Thats far behind... Joseph, to recognize the spiritual teachings as the factual thruth for everyone would not be accepted by the average normal-thinking human. It isnt that logical as it may seem to those who have not had the experience of it. You see, everything is about experience, what you feel is right, the spiritual teachings or any teachings about the spiritual can not ever be proved, even Semjase states this. Religion can just as well be the right answer for ones everyday philosofical questions, as a complicated spirtitual teaching. The spiritual teachings might just confuse ones path, and lead ones path in another direction than ones "destiny" originally designed it for you. It might just destroy your inner sense for whats right, because the evolutionary point of the extra-terestrials are so much higher than ours, and we belong to a totally another culture than theirs. We must not destroy our own culture, as i feel Billy is trying to do with his qvasi-historical explonations of the koran and the bible etc, to build something totally new. What if there was something special to our planet? If all we have done on this planet has being focusing on religions, something must have come out of it. We must have been given an answer on something, that the extra-terrestrials has not been questioning. To not see the logic of religions, that means a God, a creator, the very essence of early stages of human development, is foolish. We humans trust in god and supernatural forces when were "young". Why just throw that away in one sec, and destroy it with creational logic of spiritual teachings? The teachings should have come independently, and the extra-terrestrials should not at all have interfered in our earthly business, if they really have, concerning religion. It was a stupid mistake by "spiritually evolved" extra-terrestrials.

Howard
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page

Markc
Member

Post Number: 63
Registered: 06-2000
Posted on Tuesday, August 26, 2003 - 09:40 pm:   Edit Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I think that attentiveness and attention is a form of love , as opposed to neglect . If someone devotes their time to any purpose , they add to the purpose and serve all those that it benefits . We often hear of romantic love in terms of attention and attentiveness , so it is yet one manifestation of the principle . It is self love to pursue interests , and all love of others and creation itself must sprout forth from self-love , that is , if it does not become narcistic and selfish . Everything in balance is Love .

Mark
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page

Joseph_emmanuel
Member

Post Number: 23
Registered: 05-2003
Posted on Wednesday, August 27, 2003 - 01:06 am:   Edit Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Howard

Logic is a path of reasoning used to prove the validity of an argument. At the end of this path we would presumably arrive at a truth, which would either confirm or contradict the argument. The point of this process is not only to prove what is true and what is not true, as has often been the case among intellectuals, but also to show that there are laws of thought, just as there are laws of Nature, and if we allow ourselves to be guided by these laws, it is my understanding that we would then align ourselves with the laws of Creation. If we don’t reason in this way, whereby we are able to build the foundation of our understanding of things, whether spiritual or material, we would allow for lies and fantasies to creep in to our thinking, for how else are we to reason? Everyone reasons using a degree of logic, even you yourself, though you claim to be averse to it, for your statement above shows a line of reasoning that follows a logical path. You are right to say that the spiritual teachings aren’t for everyone, since it is not for everyone to know the same things at the same time. To quote J. E. Camilleri: “The pupil who is beginning to learn is given a preliminary education and the pupil who has been learning for a number of years is given an education according to his level of knowledge. You don’t give the pupil who is beginning to learn the same education as the pupil who has been learning for a number of years. And neither do you give the pupil who has been learning for a number of years the same education as the pupil who is beginning to learn, since neither pupil would benefit from such an education. What good, then, will it do anyone to receive truths for which their minds have not been prepared? Or for which their minds have already come to understand? Either they will give up their learning because they are not able to comprehend what they are taught or they will hinder the progress of their spirits because they go no further.” Therefore, what you say is true and correct. The spiritual teachings taught here can confuse one who is not prepared for them. That is why it is not the intention of FIGU to impose them, unlike, might I add, religion, of which you speak so fondly. And I doubt that it is the intention of the Pleiadians to affect our world culture as drastically as you imagine, although I can’t really speak on their behalf. But as I see it, they have presented us with knowledge, and they have done nothing more than that, and it is up to us to receive it. That said, however, it is of course the right of the individual to follow his own path, and to learn from his mistakes along the way, although I will say that I feel people these days use this as an excuse to justify their lifestyles and their habits rather than as a reason to learn and evolve. But it is arrogant and wrong to assume that people don’t learn eventually, no matter how determined they are to live contrary to what is good and right, and in that we must trust and learn to be patient. We must learn to see the bigger picture, which is to focus on the evolution of the human being and not the individual, for where the individual may spend a lifetime living contrary to what is good and right, the human being has the opportunity to learn and to change his ways.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page

Joseph_emmanuel
Member

Post Number: 25
Registered: 05-2003
Posted on Wednesday, August 27, 2003 - 02:17 pm:   Edit Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Mark

But what do you think love is according to the laws of Creation? In the Spiritual Teachings it refers to it as a state, and also as wisdom in its best form. No doubt it means to a state of consciousness. How do you suppose one achieves this state? “A human who is filled with love is also rich in wisdom, and a human who is rich in wisdom is also full of love.” The Spiritual Teachings, Verse 57. It is easy to define love through our actions, but how do you think it is expressed through our consciousness? If it is a state, it is something we experience. It is something we live. What do you say it is?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page

Edward
Member

Post Number: 309
Registered: 05-2002
Posted on Saturday, August 30, 2003 - 12:36 pm:   Edit Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Hi Joseph and All...

From 49 Questions - With Answers Regarding Life And The Human Condition - From the Billy Meier Contacts.

Question nr.27 "What is love?"


THE LAW OF LOVE

Love is the absolute certainty in knowing that one co-dwells and co-exists in everything, thus in all that exists: Within fauna and flora, with one's
sibling humans, in each and every materiral and spiritual life form regardless of its
species, within the existence of the entire Universe and beyond.

Therefore love in its truest definition means:

To experience the absolute certainty of co-dwelling within everything that exists - in the absolute certainty, and with the absolute awareness, that the existence of one's surroundings is also part of one's own existence. This may be in form of a plant, a spirit form, an animal, a planet, a stone or another human being.

Love is the absolute certainty, the absolute knowledge and the total experience
and comprehension that all life is a fraction on one's own. Together, everything is a complete "We-Form" in the Ur-BEING of all existence for all time, which can only live as a total existence in the knowledge and sensation of love.

Love, therefore, is absolute knowledge and sensation, absolute discernment and co-existence in unity with all existing life of every species and form in the entire Universe. This is in the absolute wisdom that one's own existence is also a fractional existence of each and every other life form that is. Conversely, every other life form is also a fragment of one's own existence. All life forms throughout the entire Universe only exist because this is truly how it is.


DECALOGUE
Epilogue. Page 135

LOVE MUST BE THE HEARTBEAT OF HUMAN INTERGRITY, for love alone is the path to peace, freedom, knowledge and wisdom. To feel love for Creation and every life form is to show a deference and dutifulness to all that is worthy of reverence.


Just to be More.."Precise"...Joseph.


Edward.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page

Der_beobachter
Member

Post Number: 8
Registered: 05-2003
Posted on Saturday, August 30, 2003 - 07:40 pm:   Edit Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Edward,

Regarding your posting above in simple words Wonderful my friend! Needless to say more...

Viel Dank! and
Saalome



Der Beobachter Edelweiß
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page

Joseph_emmanuel
Member

Post Number: 28
Registered: 05-2003
Posted on Sunday, August 31, 2003 - 01:22 am:   Edit Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Edward

A few years ago I went to a Jehovah's Witness meeting to hear what they had to say about god, the spirit, life, existence. Having had several encounters with them prior to this meeting, I knew full well that we were not going to meet on mutual ground. But I went, anyway, and I always greeted them at my door, because I find that those who challenge my thinking inspire me to question what I understand and what I don't understand, which is conducive to learning.

As I sat there listening to the group organizer recite a passage from the Bible, who then began to ask questions in relation to what he had just read, I was horrified to watch each person present take his answer from the exact same passage, and then receive approval, rather than answer from his own understanding.

When we are at school, and we are trying to pass our examinations in order to qualify for higher education, to put down a complete extract from a textbook as your answer to a question would get you no marks at all, for it is expected of you to put down your own answer in your own words, referring, if you wish, to the text by including a quote here and there in support of your answer. In the case of long passages, such as you have put forward in your post, I would say that you would need to include a further ¾ of written text, in your own words, in order to justify your contribution as an answer.

As it remains your post does not qualify as an answer, since it has not come from yourself but from a book written by Eduard Meier, to whom the question was not posed. To quote Anonymous: "You must speak for yourselves, and it must be in your own words, for if you speak words spoken by another, how can they be in your hearts? You will not have his knowledge and experience from which his understanding came. And if you do not have his knowledge and experience, how can you live as he lived? You will not have the life inside you. And if you do not have the life inside you, how can you know the life?"

If you are not able to answer a question, answering it through another will give you no reward, because you have made no effort, and therefore are not deserving of a reward, though others may be impressed by your answer and reward you with compliments and flattery. But truly is this a shallow reward. It would be better not to answer it.

All that is asked here in this section of the forum is that one attempts to apply logic and thought. It doesn’t matter if the answer is right or wrong. What matters is that we learn to think, for it is through this process that we learn to answer correctly. Here we can rationalize and debate like thinkers and philosophers, and become conscious or our own thinking.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page

Edward
Member

Post Number: 310
Registered: 05-2002
Posted on Sunday, August 31, 2003 - 12:47 pm:   Edit Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Joseph....

What I have Posted...is an Answer to Your Question!
"Be Content"!

Billy's Wise and Clear Discription of what Love Is.., is of Common Explanation..and COMMON SENSE...AND LOGIC...Amongst Us here. I would Know...That My Definition...is "ABOVE"...Your Knowledge..of Love...and Thinking..even, in One's Own Self.

I am Not here to have Lessons from You or anyone else that is Not Like-Minded and Familiar with Billy's materials.., but to Only Learn and Expand my True Spiritual Knowledge...of the Teachings of The Spirit and The Laws of Nature and Creation, and want Nothing to do with those..Biblical "LIES"...that POISON..the Minds of the
Weak Mass...Which in Turn...Can Not EVER...Think for them selves...and Just Become "Slaves" of The Beast -666- that Only Brings Hate...And Death..
to ALL Man Kind.
GO Amongst THEM..and Teach Them....What Love IS....Now that you Know...what Love is, from my posting!

"Love"...is All Explained in the Posting. If You can Not Understand that.., well...I
think you are at the Wrong discussion-board. This is No Jehovah's Witness meeting...or the likes. You Either...Take It...or Leave it. Thats all up to you. If you would like to "Tamper" with Minds..Go To The Above Mentioned...; than you will do Mankind a Greatful Deed!(and Even Your Own..Spirit Self!!!!)

"THINK...'Logical'....Joseph...!!!"

May TRUE Knowledge...Someday...Come Your Way!

PS: Joseph...I have Fully Understanding...that NOT EVERYONE can "Understand" and "Grasp" Billy's Materials(Spiritual Teachings). Maybe...over 10
incarnations...you Will/May...Understand it even better/more....???


Edward.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page

Joseph_emmanuel
Member

Post Number: 29
Registered: 05-2003
Posted on Monday, September 01, 2003 - 02:09 am:   Edit Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

This post is in answer to the question I posed on 25th August, which is: “What is love according to the laws of Creation, and how is it expressed through ourselves as humans?”

Love, according to the laws of Creation, is a condition that embraces our lives progressively the greater the spiritual wisdom gained through the development of the consciousness and the evolution of the spirit form, which means that even now, at this stage of our development, we as humans are already able to express Creational love to a degree, seeing as many of us will have evolved and developed accordingly through previous incarnations. However, since we are still more strongly drawn towards the general human concept of love, our sense of Creational love is expressed sporadically during moments of conscious striving, for only when we are conscious are we aware of the oneness of all things, which is what Creational love is. It is the conscious embracing of all existence and of all life. It is the acknowledgement, within one’s consciousness, that all things exist within Creation. It is the life-experience that we feel growing inside us the more consciously receptive we become, changing us as it grows. When we are not conscious, however, we are self-conscious, and this way we cannot hope to feel such connectedness, since the very nature of self-consciousness is to separate itself from everything. The love we feel then is the love that relates to us personally, through our feelings. But this in truth is not love. We only believe it is love because instead of regarding our feelings of attraction simply as feelings of attraction – or repulsion, as the case may be – we interpret them as having special significance. Thus we say we are in love when we have strong feelings of attraction towards another person or we say we feel hatred when we have strong feelings of repulsion, when in actual fact it is neither love nor hatred we feel, but simply feelings of attraction or repulsion. This, of course, is human nature. It is not a weakness or a defect, neither is it an obstacle. It is what it means to be in a physical body with an intellect that is able to reason and a consciousness that is able to know. As humans our experiences are bound to cause us to acknowledge ourselves, and in acknowledging ourselves to become self-conscious. The real obstacle is the false knowledge we have that teaches us that who we perceive ourselves to be is our actual condition, since this encourages us to continue identifying with our experiences and thus hinders us from becoming conscious and knowing Creational love.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page

Edward
Member

Post Number: 330
Registered: 05-2002
Posted on Friday, October 24, 2003 - 07:13 am:   Edit Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Hi Dear...Howard...


Here's a "Hint" of What "Natural Logic"...IS!

1+1 = 2

Thus....Not: 1+1 = 11 !!

Something to Think about and and to Consider...Ok.


I thought the Above would be the Most "Simplistic" Manner to Define this to
you. There is Realy Nothing to it! As you can See!
This Same "Approach" One should take in to "Practise"...In One's Daily
Life.

As Savio has Mentioned..: "I know this is based on simple logic, calculation
and common sense."

WELL...Said..Friend..Savio..:-)


Very Much Luck with your Journey Seeking "TRUTH".


Edward.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page

Howard
Member

Post Number: 103
Registered: 05-2003
Posted on Friday, October 24, 2003 - 11:41 am:   Edit Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

What kind of non-sense is this? A totaly unneccesery post. Natural logic is to be found in the nature. Ofcourse one can take this further into spiritual things, but you can never prove what is right or wrong. You can definately not say that your own view of the spiritual is the only possible solution on the meaning of life. Natural logic can never be transfered into the spiritual, since evolution and destrution follow eachother. As Billy says, the end of suffering is a silly buddhist teaching. That means, the spirit is according to the plejarens to evolve, and what you do with your spirit in my view, is what you make out of it. A slavery to the spiritual teachings isnt good either. We are supposed to show interest for the spiritual, and we are given the philosophy of the plejarens. But, this is only a theory of what is right or what is wrong to do on spiritual matters. When the Plejarens say that new human spiritforms is created by the universe, they can never prove that either. I agree that it is a possible solution. But if this universe is creating new spiritforms, and other universes to, it is a darn good gift to get out of here. According to God, your sins is deleted and forgiven, so that you in my own theory dont have to pay for this in the next life. This is just only a theory of mine, and there is a lot of theory about christianity. Therefore, christianity can be taken into every view of the world, it can destruct every philosofy in the world, because it is the genious philosofy, which might be given by a creatorgod, who put all of this universes into fuction. I mean we are already in hell. The universe is created which in there are no way out. But there was probably a solution to it afterall, as God incarnated into a human body, and on the cross payed for our sins, in a symolic way, so that people believing in it wont have to perish, given the spirit of all spirits to guide them into the kingdom of God, and make them live a good life. But the enemy of christians are Satan. He only give problems to them, for they are enemies, and Satan is the suppressor of truth. Why the hell should he bother you? You are not saved, and follow another path. But if you turn the other way, you will be given the greatest life ever, and free of suffering in the end. I will definately be called a sectarian of the past, but I know what I have to pay for my view on the world, and being a "sectarian", kind of funny description I must say, I will never stop experiencing what is real to me. When I tell others what can be done to experience the gift of all gifts, you get pissed off. A "crazy religion" and "go away!". Childish.
Well I could go on and on with this. But I wont.

Howard
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page

Edward
Member

Post Number: 333
Registered: 05-2002
Posted on Friday, October 31, 2003 - 01:13 am:   Edit Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Howard....

This is No...Non-Sense!

1 + 1 = 2

Thus, for those out there who Understand and Comprehend the Teachings of
The Spirit and The Laws of Nature and Creation...The Sum 1 + 1 = 2 definition
Is Adapted!

And as...for those out the who DO NOT...Understand and Comprehend the
Teachings of The Spirit and The Laws of Nature and Creation...The Sum
1 + 1 = 11 definition Is Adapted!...Alas.

It is as "Simplistic" as it can be!

Thus...True "Logic" from the sum 1 + 1 = 2.
Thus...True "Illogic" from the sum 1 + 1 = 11.


I had a Feeling you would React is such a manner, because of Not Under-
standing and Comprehending the above mentioned Example.

Thus, I Know and Acknowledge; that Those on this board who Do Recognize this
Example "Are"...True Spiritual Knowledgable Students....Knowing...It's
"Logic".

I just wanted to get Across to you; that This example is the most "Simple"
Form of "Natural" Logic.

Another example:

I once worked in the educational branch and there were classes given to
"Adults" that could not read or write. Yes, ADULTS. They were mostly After-
War children that did not have/get a chance to get some sort of(decent)
Education...alas. Thus are...very very "Illiterate".

Thus, teachers given them a copy-form with some simple arithmetics which is
of Kindergarten; noticed that there were adults that made the cal-
culation of "1 + 1 = 11"! Instead of calculating this as how it should be
"1 + 1 = 2"!!

Thus, as you can see...this Is NO NON-SENSE or joke.

And when Explaining to these adults their mistakes...they did Not SEE...
The "Logic" it the calculation! Thus, they had to be made Clear...that
1 + 1 = 2...and that This IS Logic. And that 1 + 1 = 11 Is NOT...
"Logic". But Luckily...throughout their classes they DID manage to
Understand and Comprehend WHAT..."Logic" IS. Thus...making them
Clear...WHAT "Natural-Logic" IS. Because the Sum 1 + 1 = 2 calculation IS
just a "Natural" manifestation....OF..."Natural-Logic(s)". And Just
HOW IT IS!

Thus, Howard...there is Nothing to laugh about when it comes down to
"Natural-Logic(s)". Even it's most "Simplistic" sort/example. There are
just Still Many people Out There...in our world who do not Know Yet...
What "Logic" is. Let alone..."Natural-Logic"! Thus with the "1 + 1 ="
example One can make this Clear to them.

Thus, Howard...this has Nothing to do with Religion or the likes...;
it is just Plain Old Natural....Natural-Logic! In other words: Just
Utilizing One's Thinking(brain) Process(ing)! To Recognize "Logic"!


Edward.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page

Anonymous
Member

Post Number: 5
Registered: 09-2003
Posted on Tuesday, November 04, 2003 - 01:03 pm:   Edit Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Natural Logic means to find plausability in one's reasoning through experience and observation of life. It is logical to say 1 + 1 = 2. But this is not natural logic. This is the logic of logicians, which can be very complicated and hard to understand. It is also logical to say 1 and 1 = 11. However, it is arrogant to assume that one does not understand the differnece between the symbol '+' and the ampersand '&', which in this instance was not used.

Natural logic is expressed clearly in this statement given by Christian Frehner in answer to Savio's last question to Billy:

"The Ur Creation will go to sleep and later waken up again. It will follow its own evolution. As soon as the Ur Creation has created a Creation, this Creation is independent and will follow its own path of evolution --- until reaching the AA and beyond.

(Note by CF: If your father or mother goes to sleep, you don't have to sleep as well, at the same time, because you lead an independent life, with your own evolution.)"

Here you have natural logic.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page

Edward
Member

Post Number: 336
Registered: 05-2002
Posted on Wednesday, November 05, 2003 - 12:22 am:   Edit Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Hi Anonymous..

Yes, I Understand your posting. It is well explained.

But concerning the 1 + 1 = 2 example is how/what was utilzied to Simply
Explain it to the Adults(as is to Children). As did the teachers.
Thus..."Natural Logic"(as This being the basics)!
Thus 1 + 1 = 2...and Not 11.

As ofcurse, in this case...it was the "+" and Not the "&"...which I am
Concious of. Ofcourse...with the "&" this would be Another "Approach".

Thus with 1 & 1 = 2...and 1 & 1 = 11...was Not the Point that was to be used
for the a Arithmetics(as we All Know from School). Ofcourse..with 1 & 1 =
2...and 1 & 1 = 11..is just a Matter...of from What Point of view One was
asked to Calculate it from. In the Example case...it was the "+"...and Not
the "&". Which was Also...Explained...thorughtout the classes!

Thus, ofcourse...the 1 + 1 = 2...Is Of..One's Reasoning through experience
and observation of life....For Those...who have Experienced This. Thus
Not...for those who have Not(who are/were..."Illiterate"). Thus they still
have/had to Experience...This...At First Hand(as they have in the Class).

The point with the "+" was to explain it as a "Basic-Simplicity".

Thus Is Not That Hard to Understand!


And concerning..the example(from Christian) to Savio(Concerning That Topic)
Is very Clear and which I can Acknowledge Also(Which I have tried to explain
to Savio Also)! In this case Christain utilized a Better Wording.

Natural...That IS..."Natural Logic".


PS: Have Noticed you are Not using your Real name...can you please tell
me(us)..than I know who I am Talking to. Very Shy...maybe??:-)


Edward.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page

Howard
Member

Post Number: 106
Registered: 05-2003
Posted on Thursday, November 06, 2003 - 04:51 pm:   Edit Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Hi Edward, "the application of natural logic", which you put so high, and you tend to critize me for my different opinion on the Meier-case, with some religious overtones, which you despise and call "illogical", you should remember that you are just an "effect", that is, the pendulum between Christianity and absurd logic. The logic you put forward here is nothing but pure non-sense. The logic you tend to find in nature, cannot possibly be transferred in to the spiritual. When every kind of PSI-factor relates to the most perfect schizophrenia, the "logic" seems to be perdition, not creation. If you open your eyes up, you will find out this battle is between Gods, but you have been lured to think this doesnt exist. One can say that the christian God is based on fear, but the fact is that we have a hell of alot to fear. For an example, the warm glow which the extra-terrestrials have, is common in the psychiatry as abnormal feeling of anxiety and fear. Why the Plejarens have called this evolution, is something that is a joke itself. Choose your side, the Talmud is fake, and the Plejarens are afraid, or they dont care.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page

Pureharmony
Member

Post Number: 101
Registered: 08-2002
Posted on Tuesday, November 11, 2003 - 01:09 pm:   Edit Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Howard, you have a lot to learn. A battle between Gods? This is illogical. The Talmud is NOT fake and there are other writings that collaborate its teachings. But man has to search and find the truth for himself. If you choose to remain uneducated in the facts and ancient writings, you will not be able to understand.
But the Plejarans know that we have to evolve ourselves, and they have their own lives to live also. Our evolvement is completely up to us. We have to desire for the truth, thirst for its knowledge or else the people on this planet will forever be enslaved by false teachings!


This is a battle of spirit and return to the original teachings! The battle is within! If you keep your spirit enslaved by the lies that Christianity has perpetuated, your spirit will truly suffer! This is so true and i cannot emphasize this enough! Your teachings say that if my mother and father commit adultery, then i am condemed to death myself, being innocent! What kind of false information this is! Terrible fear it can cause. And fear is a negative emotion that literally drains your spirit force. Because your spirit is like a battery! Negativity perpetuated through fear & false teachings inhibits one from having a life of happiness! And i for one will NOT be enslaved by this FALSITIES to scare me into being religiously fanatic!

*pureharmony*
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page

Gicayhwh
Member

Post Number: 27
Registered: 06-2003
Posted on Friday, November 14, 2003 - 09:28 am:   Edit Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Hi Howard,

Firstly, build yourself a beamship, go search for a Cristian god, then bring some evidence for the rest of the mankind, before you rustle your feathers like a turkey saying that we are no good or stupid believing into Mr. Billy's Contact Notes.

Sincerely,
Gica
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page

Gicayhwh
Member

Post Number: 28
Registered: 06-2003
Posted on Saturday, November 15, 2003 - 07:32 pm:   Edit Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I wander who plays the song "It was a UFO, it was a UFO" !

Gica

Hi Gica,

I think this question would be more suited under the General topic area/Non FIGU related. Thanks-Moderator

Administration Administration Log Out Log Out   Previous Page Previous Page Next Page Next Page