Post Reply
Switch to Forum Live View Owe no man anything
7 years ago  ::  Nov 28, 2007 - 11:16AM #1
annihilator
Posts: 17
Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.  Romans 13:8

When I was a Bible thumper I started realizing that the Bible was full of cause and effect verses. 

When we owe others it takes away our freedom because we are in their debt.

Now the reference to "Law"  is based in duality but it still makes a clear new thought statement.  To love is to do all that is required of God and the effect is harmony with Godl.  In new thought this would still hold true.  Anything that is not done in love results in some sort of disharmony in our lives and relations.

What's your thoughts?
Patrick
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Dec 06, 2007 - 6:20AM #2
temptuioussoul
Posts: 3
When One Is In The Giving Possition..the Giving Is Givin Freely If It Comes From The Heart And If It Is Givin Of Your Own Freewill For The Sake Of Giving......the Greatest Rewards Are Found And Seen In The Gratitude That Is Givin In Return...... Never Take Ones Kindness For Granted, For It May Never Come Your Way Again.....always Be Greatful And Accept Their Kindness For What It Is.......and Be Kind In Return.
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Mar 28, 2008 - 12:25PM #3
Just1dering
Posts: 104
I've noticed the action in our forum has slowed down lately.  So I went looking for rich ideas that have lain fallow too long.  Two things in Patrick's thread of last November struck me.

[QUOTE=annihilator;99923]When I was a Bible thumper I started realizing that the Bible was full of cause and effect verses.[/QUOTE]

Patrick this is a valuable observation.  New Thought used to be much more Bible-based than it is now and as a result a lot of the wisdom contained in this scripture is being lost.  In my opinion the attempt to turn every word into a "metaphysical" truth was a bit extreme, because the Bible is a mixture of literary styles with different purposes.  Such a complex anthology defies single interpretation approaches.  But I agree with you that there is much of relevance in the Bible and I thank you for bringing this up.  I wonder if you of others could offer up any more examples.

This idea also struck me.

[QUOTE=annihilator;99923]Anything that is not done in love results in some sort of disharmony in our lives and relations.[/QUOTE]

In Religious Science Ernest Holmes makes the observation, that Thomas Troward also stressed, that the law can be used either constructively or destructively.  The key difference was whether or not it was being used in harmony with the nature of Divine Spirit the essence of which is love.  It is my strongly felt belief that much of the recent attention on the Law of Attraction has missed this point.  Or maybe I'm wrong.  I hope those of you who disagree with me on this will help straighten me out.
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Mar 29, 2008 - 1:56PM #4
Runningbrook
Posts: 85
I'd love to hear this group discuss this topic. In reading E.Holme's chapter on 'The Thing Itself'..,

I get that the Law is First Cause, Mind, it is a Mental Law, and when we think, we are using the Creative Power of the Thing Itself..the Universal Mind, Spirit, Intellignece, the Power back of creation..the First Cause, God.

This Energy is Pure Love, as the Love of God is perfect, a Love beyond our fondest dreams, and a freedom which the soul craves. This is how he describes the Thing Itself. So, Love and Law are One. (paraphrased)

Now, what I learned from the movie the Secret, and what many hypnotists might say, is that we can use this power to get what we want..feel that new car, smell the new car smell, visualize yourself in it, etc..etc..

I believe that this is a successful use of the law, and that it can happen that way. So, is that what Ernest Holmes is talking about, too?

I know this disussion has surfaced in the past, but, like you Jim, I'd like to hear more. I can't speak to the thoughts on the Bible, but this sure interests me, be well, dee
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Mar 30, 2008 - 4:26PM #5
Just1dering
Posts: 104
Dee,
Before responding to your post I re-read the introductory chapter in The Science Of Mind you referred to, "The Thing Itself".  I have read this chapter countless times and I still come to the same conclusion about it.  I think it is extremely unfortunate that the decsion was made to make it the first thing most people read.  It was not part of the original edition of the The Science Of Mind.  it is dense, confusing and often seemingly contradictory.  I advise new students not to pay too much attention to it.  My preference is to have students start with the first chapter of the book and read the Introduction after they have finished the first seven chapters, but that's not what you asked.

You asked if the ideas about prosperity that were presented in the Secret were what Ernest Holmes was talking about.  I can't say what the participants in the Secret or Ernest Holmes, for that matter, actually intended.  I can say that Ernest Holmes wrote in the text book that Relgious Science was not a get rich quick scheme and that "We do not teach that you can get what you want." (p266).  He also warned about the consequences of selfishness.

This often surprises people because much of what Dr. Holmes wrote about in The Science Of Mind is about controlling conditions by using the Power of Mind.  There are students of SOM that focus on this aspect of Dr. Holmes' thought. 

What attracts me to this teaching is that which goes beyond demonstrating conditions as an end in itself, but that is a longer conversation.
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Mar 30, 2008 - 9:40PM #6
Limitless
Posts: 2
Thats a great way to put it.

"Gratitude is happiness doubled by wonder."--G.K. Chesterton

Here is a link to some good quotes along this line.
http://unlimitedriver.com/quotes.html
Quick Reply
Cancel
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook