Can two people manifest opposing intentions?

[SmartAlx]

Originally Posted by newmark

SmartAlx; I'm not a Christian and don't presume to speak for them, but I thought the aim of Christians was to get closer to God.

It's also to teach us how to live.

But don't forget my point about new age.

[newmark]

SmartAlx; I'm not completely clear on your point.
I see most spiritual systems as being different approaches to God (or whichever other name you choose for God).
It's like different foods or colors suit different people. That's why we have many choices.

[Acting Like Godot]

I don't really know what is "New Age".

At one time it was a kind of music.

[Daffy Duck]

Amazon has a New Age section which helps shed some light: Amazon.com: New Age Religion & Spirituality Books: Astrology, Mental & Spiritual Healing, Divination, Mysticism

But eh, their choices are a bit off to me. Stuff like The Secret and The Power of Now makes sense to me, but The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People isn't New Age.

My understanding of New Age is basically anything that promotes the ideas of Subjective Reality, LoA, "We Are All One." Even some of those things can fit into OR though. You know what -- I can't describe New Age in words. I just know, lol.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by StAnselm

According to some theories of child development, that is the experience of infants - that the world is an extension, projection, or creation of oneself because the infant lacks the tools to interpret the actions of others. But, quickly, the infant learns that people recognize his cries as pain, his smiles as pleasure, and then learns that other smiles express what he feels, so a smile at an infant causes him to smile back. Getting beyond this phase, of seeing humans as projections, is essential for growth.

Those are Piaget's cognitive development theories. They are standard curriculum for people training to be kindergarten teachers, but in these forums, we tend to go beyond that kind of conventional theory.

For example, what Piaget would view as a healthy human being, Eckhart Tolle would describe as insane; and Buddha would describe as asleep.

At least some of the people here in these forums are on a very big quest for personal growth and spiritual development. Piaget's theories are grossly insufficient as a framework to understand them. If you need a psychologist to help you along to understand some of the views here, you're better off with Jung or Maslow.

(For Maslow, refer to his research on "peak experiences", during which individuals who represent the apex of human psychological health will experience a sudden sense of oneness with the universe. Among other things, this means that the person will cease to perceive any separation of himself from any other person, or being, or thing, in the universe).

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Daffy Duck

My understanding of New Age is basically anything that promotes the ideas of Subjective Reality, LoA, "We Are All One."

I thought it was people who were interested in crystals or Tarot cards or fengshui or palmistry. None of those things, however, necessarily imply or require a belief in SR.

[SmartAlx]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

I thought it was people who were interested in crystals or Tarot cards or fengshui or palmistry. None of those things, however, necessarily imply or require a belief in SR.

Those are trappings within the new age belief system, but not all new agers use them. New Age is generally a search for knowledge especialy as it relates to metaphysics. And that most certainly includes the LoA. You might even say that metaphysics = new age.

Here, tell me if this sounds familiar:

An umbrella term for a wide range of personal and individual beliefs and practices influenced primarily by Eastern religions, paganism, and spiritism.

• Belief in Deity
God is the impersonal life force, consciousness, ultimate truth and reality, the incorporeal, formless cosmic order personified within all people and matter. God is all and all are God.

• Incarnations
Most believe there are no particular incarnations to worship, as all in the universe are embodiments of God.

• Origin of Universe and Life
The universe, life, and matter were not created by God but "are" God. The universe and life emerged out of the creative power of the eternal universal life force.

• Salvation
Salvation lies in the realization of oneness with the impersonal life force. Awareness can be heightened through methods that induce altered states of consciousness, e.g., hypnosis, meditation, music, drugs. Spiritual "tools" include crystals, tarot cards, amulets, channeling, fortunetellers and psychics. Some believe the salvation of humanity will occur when a critical mass is reached, when people converge in experiencing their oneness with God and with each other. This will bring a New World Order or new Planetary Order, resulting in oneness of civilization and one-world government, peace, and harmony.

• Undeserved Suffering
Suffering is the result of greed, hatred, and spiritual ignorance in a person's, or humanity's, past lifetimes, which returns as suffering (karma). Suffering is sometimes viewed as occurring for a specific purpose, to further spiritual growth and learn a life lesson. Suffering is also seen as illusory, in that it results from attachment to bodily pleasure and pain, and only the universal life force within, God, truly exists.

Sounds a lot like what many of you believe, huh? Well, it's how this website (What New Agers Believe - Beliefnet.com) defines new age.

[newmark]

Originally Posted by SmartAlx

Those are trappings within the new age belief system, but not all new agers use them. New Age is generally a search for knowledge especialy as it relates to metaphysics. And that most certainly includes the LoA. You might even say that metaphysics = new age.

Here, tell me if this sounds familiar:
Sounds a lot like what many of you believe, huh? Well, it's how this website (What New Agers Believe - Beliefnet.com) defines new age.

These definitions are too general to be of much use. A search for knowledge. Well, you could include a lot of people using that definition.
I think actually it's just a convenient term for booksellers and other sellers of various products to use.
I've never met anyone who has said to me "I'm a New Ager."

[Angela]

Originally Posted by SmartAlx

Sounds a lot like what many of you believe, huh?

It sure doesn't fit me!

[SmartAlx]

Originally Posted by Angela

It sure doesn't fit me!

Don't you believe that all are one? I've heard more than one expert here say in effect that each of us is God. 4 of the points on beliefnet were about the single consciousness idea.

[SmartAlx]

Originally Posted by newmark

These definitions are too general to be of much use. A search for knowledge. Well, you could include a lot of people using that definition.

You left out the word "metaphysical." That does turn the "general" search for knowledge into something rather specific.

[Angela]

Originally Posted by SmartAlx

Don't you believe that all are one?

I believe there is one consciousness, but I don't believe ANY of what's contained in your bullet points.

[Daffy Duck]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

I thought it was people who were interested in crystals or Tarot cards or fengshui or palmistry.

Yeah, that can be considered New Age as well. New Age has a very loose definition... but generally speaking, the stuff we all talk about on this forum are found in the New Age section of my local bookstores.

[Buttercup McToots]

That's pretty goofy too...but I can...

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

That's an interesting example for me. It reminds of:

(1) the time when I liked music, but had no musical training; and

(2) later on, what happened when I had the opportunity to receive some musical training.

The way that musicians would describe it is that my ear improved. Now of course, I don't think that in a physiological sense, my ears (or anything in them) changed one bit.

What happened, however, was that I grew able to discern small differences in pitch, tone, timbre, accent and other musical attributes. To a much heightened degree, I could discriminate between all the different sounds and details going on in a CD recording.

Listening to a song when I was in Period (2) became a very different experience from listening to a sing when I was in Period (1). It is no exaggeration to say that since then, the reality of music has changed a lot for me. It became a different kind of world. I'm very grateful for it.

Oddly enough, the musical training also altered my ears, in non-musical contexts. It's like when I listen to the humming sound of my air-conditioner, I can actually hear that it's not a sound. Instead it's 3 different humming sounds. When I take the train to work, I sometimes find it very enjoyable to just listen to the sound of the train. Again it is not a sound, it is a stunning tapestry of assorted sounds, each of which kicks in and out or changes, as the train stops, starts, speeds up, slows down etc. And listening to all that fills me with appreciation & amazement for all the different processes must be coordinating and going on, just for a train or air-conditioner to work.

Sounds a bit goofy, I know. Pardon me.

[SmartAlx]

Originally Posted by Angela

I believe there is one consciousness, but I don't believe ANY of what's contained in your bullet points.

Well, if you substituded the word "God" with some other more general word, like universe or consciousness, would you agree then at least with the first 3 bullet points?

[StAnselm]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

For example, what Piaget would view as a healthy human being, Eckhart Tolle would describe as insane; and Buddha would describe as asleep.

Eckhart Tolle is no model of sanity himself.

Whatever Buddha's theory of development may have been, it probably needs some updating.

I don't think it's psychologically harmful to consider other people projections for some limited purposes. It can be a helpful exercise. The truth is I am not a projection of you, and you are not a projection of me. We are independent humans, each worthy of being treated as ends in ourselves, not merely means for one another to reach our own ends, and not to be minimized into one another's fantasy or robot.

We seem to have shifted again. Perhaps my comment on child development was off base. The descriptions of religious experience in Jung or James do not, as far as I'm aware, validate the idea that other people are merely projections of my mind, or that believing that other people are projections is a good path for the average person.

[Acting Like Godot]

LOL .... Bye, Kanzeon.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by SmartAlx

I've heard more than one expert here say in effect that each of us is God.

LOL, I've heard many Christians say quite similar things.

"God is always with me", "God is inside my heart", "We are God's children" etc.

If God is truly everywhere, including right where my bones, my blood, my skin, my organs, my brain are, hmmm .... then all of me has got to be God.

[SmartAlx]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

LOL, I've heard many Christians say quite similar things.

"God is always with me", "God is inside my heart", "We are God's children" etc.

If God is truly everywhere, including right where my bones, my blood, my skin, my organs, my brain are, hmmm .... then all of me has got to be God.

There's a difference. God residing in me is humble. God uses me. But saying that we are all gods is prideful, saying that each of us are in charge. I don't believe that. God is in charge. That's the difference.

The LoA would say that because I say that God is in charge then He is, right? I put Him in charge. That then puts the decision as to who is in charge back in my hands.* But I don't think that decision is even in my hands.

The question then is, if I put the power into God's hands and not mine, and God is a projection of my mind, then aren't I still in charge? I can't get away from being in charge! Not if the LoA works the way it is popularly understood.

[newmark]

I don't think that God is a projection of my mind. More the other way around. I think it's more likely that I'm a thought or dream of God.
You don't have to believe that you are God to make use of positive thinking techniques.

[Acting Like Godot]

Naturally, I disagree.

After all, comparing myself now to myself before I ever heard of the LOA, I can't say I feel more prideful than before.

I would say that I feel:

(a) generally more optimistic
(b) generally more confident
(c) much more impressed with our weird and wonderful universe
(d) much more curious about my own thoughts
(e) more responsible for my own circumstances, challenges and problems

... but prideful? Nah. What's there to be more prideful about?

After all, even my neighbour's dog is God. Yes, I feel more inclined to love him and pat him on the head and appreciate + celebrate his divine doggy friendliness. But no, I don't feel more prideful about it.

----------

You should also read Shakti Gawain discussing "Creative Visualisation".

Something about the person naturally evolving from one-way mode to two-way mode.

One-way mode is like, "I want a blue feather" and you get a blue feather.

Two-way mode is like, you learn to sit still and listen to that quiet little voice of love & wisdom deep inside your heart tell you what's really important and what you should be doing next in your life.

Some Christians call that quiet little voice "God".

[James81]

I look at manifesting in much the same way I look at prayer (for the religious).

The way I see it is this...you don't pray for things you WANT ("God help me win this game", "God heal little Bobby of his Swine Flu", etc.). That's not how it works at all. You pray for changes in yourself, and, thus, by changing yourself, the world around you changes and you see everything in a different light. ("God, whatever the outcome of this game, teach me what I'm here to learn", "God, give me the strength to deal with little Bobby's swine flu", etc.)

Manifesting, IMO, works the same way. You don't manifest the things you want (win game, swine flu). You manifest the situations that bring about the changes within you to get you where you want to be.

So in that vein, it's impossible to manifest opposing intentions. Because you manifesting material things doesn't work and doesn't matter anyway.

[Daffy Duck]

Originally Posted by SmartAlx

I can't get away from being in charge!

I think this is what God calls "personal responsibility" and "free will". We are in charge of our lives. You are the CEO of SmartAlx, Inc.

[SmartAlx]

Originally Posted by James81

I look at manifesting in much the same way I look at prayer (for the religious).

That's not surprising. A lot of people make that comparison. But prayer is humble. IM is proud. Prayer is a question. IM is a statement. LoA advocates also compare IM to performing spells, but prayer and spells are completely different.

The way I see it is this...you don't pray for things you WANT ("God help me win this game", "God heal little Bobby of his Swine Flu", etc.). That's not how it works at all. You pray for changes in yourself, and, thus, by changing yourself, the world around you changes and you see everything in a different light. ("God, whatever the outcome of this game, teach me what I'm here to learn", "God, give me the strength to deal with little Bobby's swine flu", etc.)

I'm afraid that you don't understand prayer at all. You apparently think that it is identical to IM in its methodology, but it isn't. We are taught to pray very specifically in The Bible. We do ask for God to heal Bobby of his swine flu. But we are humble in our approach. We know that we are not worthy of the prayer being answered, but we pray anyway because God has proven time and again that He is compassionate and full of grace, and there is a very good chance that it is God's will that Bobby be cured of the swine flu. Miracles do happen. I know of one instance in which a friend of mine went on a mission trip with her church and witnessed one of her friends curing a blind girl. You better believe that he prayed VERY specifically.

[Daffy Duck]

Originally Posted by SmartAlx

IM is proud.

Only if you think it is...

What is so proud about wanting to do the highest good for all?

I know some Christians who act very proud and "holier than thou," but I don't judge all of Christianity based on them. That would be inaccurate, wouldn't it?

If LoA is proud, then so is setting a goal, buying a car, or making a plan with your family to go on a vacation to Disney World. These are all intentions and manifestations.

"Like attracts like" is an old basic concept. People say it in many different ways. "Birds of a feather flock together" is another way of saying how people with similar thoughts tend to attract each other.

[Angela]

So what's your bottom line, SmartAlx? Are you arguing that people shouldn't use the law of attraction or subjective reality? Are you arguing that people should switch to christianity? Are you simply reinforcing the faith you have in your own scientifically unproven beliefs by talking about how superior they are to other people's scientifically unproven beliefs? Trying to prevent the spread of this belief, or expose ALG as the devil incarnate? What's the scoop here?

I ask because your approach seems very problem-oriented. I don't see what solution, if any, you are proposing. Is there one?

[SmartAlx]

Originally Posted by Daffy Duck

I think this is what God calls "personal responsibility" and "free will". We are in charge of our lives. You are the CEO of SmartAlx, Inc.

You ver cleverly avoided my point. Sure I am in charge of my life. The decisions I make are entirely mine. But the decisions of other people are not. That's the difference between LoA and Christianity. God may allow free will but He still has influence over our lives. We may have some influence over some other people's lives, but not to the extent that God does, and not with equality. We have more influence over our children than we do over a stranger. God has equal influence over everyone. So again, we are not like God.

[Daffy Duck]

Originally Posted by SmartAlx

You very cleverly avoided my point.

I'm so clever I didn't even realize I did that!

But the decisions of other people are not. That's the difference between LoA and Christianity. God may allow free will but He still has influence over our lives. We may have some influence over some other people's lives, but not to the extent that God does, and not with equality.

I don't understand what you mean. How does anything you just said go against LoA? We don't need to be equal with God to use LoA.

Considering how many people "disobey" or don't believe in God, it's interesting to think about how much influence He has.

[SmartAlx]

Originally Posted by Daffy Duck

Only if you think it is...

What is so proud about wanting to do the highest good for all?

Respectfully, this is a red herring. Let's stick to the point about how prayer and I-M compare. One might recognize faith in God and believe that strength of conviction when you manifest are the same thing. But they aren't. Faith in God and belief in the LoA are different.

Christians have faith when we pray. But the faith it that God's will is good. That no matter the outcome, His will will be done. We pray that it be His will to say yes to our prayer. But we recognize that he might say 'no.'

But the LoA user is different. The key word for the LoA is conviction. You are determined to achieve your goal. You might not know the details of your goal. But you are determined that you will manifest your intention. You may decide that you want a big screen TV for your big game party. You don't know how you are going to afford it. You imagine that a big account will come at work or someone will send you a big check you forgot about. But instead you look in your paper early one Saturday morning and find an ad that says first 5 customers on Sunday get that big screen TV for half price! BAM! Intention manifested. But you ignore that 6th person that would have got the TV if you hadn't done your intention manifestation.

God doesn't forget that 6th person. He knows that the 4 people ahead of you and that 6th person needed the TV more than you. Your current 48" model is perfectly good enough for your party. You just want to impress the neighbors. But the 5 other people need the TV for something more important than that. The Christian accepts that it might not be God's will for the answer to the prayer to be yes. We believe that God always answers our prayers, but we understand that sometimes the answer is 'No.'

The LoA advocate doesn't accept 'no' for an answer. Even a 'no' is a yes to them because they apparently asked for the no. Again, they made the choice, not a power greater than themselves.

Originally Posted by Angela

So what's your bottom line, SmartAlx?...

...I ask because your approach seems very problem-oriented. I don't see what solution, if any, you are proposing. Is there one?

I guess I just get carried away with responding to all of you that it seems that way. I just want to open your eyes to the possible dangers of using I-M willy nilly, without regards to any long term effects. The current theories of how the LoA works are just that. You all accept them as fact, but they aren't. You choose to ignore the possibility that there could be negative and extremely severe consequenses.

Originally Posted by Daffy Duck

I don't understand what you mean. How does anything you just said go against LoA? We don't need to be equal with God to use LoA.

I was just rebutting your statement. Don't many LoA advocates say that we are like God? Or that God is a projection of our mind so we are in fact God ourselves?

[Daffy Duck]

Originally Posted by SmartAlx

Respectfully, this is a red herring.

Respectfully, you brought up the idea that IM is proud. This is your red herring. Surely I can make a response?

God doesn't forget that 6th person.

Okay, let's go with your example. "The highest good of all" aspect of LoA doesn't forget that 6th person. Problem solved.

You choose to ignore the possibility that there could be negative and extremely severe consequences.

Many Atheists say the same thing to Christians, but that doesn't stop you from being one.

I think the consequences of not pursuing my goals are worse than pursuing them. Not only for myself, but for the whole world.

I just want to open your eyes to the possible dangers of using I-M willy nilly, without regards to any long term effects.

We looked at your ideas and decided not to agree with them. Are you okay with that?

If someone came to this forum and told us to "open our eyes and see the possible dangers of eating broccoli", we probably wouldn't agree with them either. Many of us believe broccoli is healthy!

Don't many LoA advocates say that we are like God?

Some do. It is a common New Age belief that We Are All One, or that God is Everything.

Some Christians say we are like God too. They claim we are "made in His image."