stedyedy

Of course that is attributed to Jesus, but the movie The Secret also says "what you resist. you give more energy to". Can anyone shed a little light on this?

I admit I was pondering the concept of God always having existed. Then I asked a simple question "when does a telephone begin to exist? I can see telephones exist. I can understand Mr. Bell having thoughts about how to build a telephone. I can understand having just the concept or idea, even before the details are conceived and worked out. It even seems somewhat logical that a telephone existed as a vibration or energy wave before Mr.Bell by perfecting his mechanism (himself) through continued concentration and focus was able to "tune in" to the idea. Perhaps it existed as more fundamental ideas that needed correlation. If any of that is true, where did it start. Has the idea of a telephone always existed? Has perhaps everything always existed including all kinds of things which will appear to be invented in the future?. Which in reality will only be the physical manifestation. Applying the "Law of Cause and Effect" there has to be a cause, what or where is it?

I know many things are quite obvious, but there are many situations where, what seems like helping is only delaying necessary learning. How do you determine the line between compassion and enablilng?

For clarity, I'm speaking of your own personal mind. I'm sure some of you want to say George Bush's, or something like that.

If your answer is "no", what would you say is.

On a scale of 1-10 (ten-being they completely determine our experience) (one-being, they have no effect at all).

The arguement goes like this:

-I am here in my body

-I am here in my house

-I am here in my hometown

-I am here in Colorado

-I am here in the United States

-I am here on the earth

-I am here in the universe.

Considering that all these statements are true, where am I not? Is it logical or not?

It seems that since plants use carbon dioxide and give off oxygen, carbon dioxide content in a greenhouse would be extremely low. Where does the name come form?

Do double-blind studies explain the nature of what is being tested to the subject? Or is the test done with no explanation of the nature of the test? I assume a subject would want to know what the test is about before volunteering.

Knowing that the only options are to receive the test product or a placebo, wouldn't the subjects anticipation, simply guessing or misinterpreting minor syptoms they might experience, cause a multitude of incorrect results? I understand the double-blind procedure, but how is the subjects belief system which is where the placebo effect occurs, controlled?

Also the law of "cause and effect" says our experience of life(effect) is a result of the choices(cause) we make. If I purchase insurance am I not "buying into" the idea that we are victims in life and there are things that happen that I have no control over. If I sow those ideas will I not then reap the harvest of those ideas?

I do not have health insurance.

Health insurance is sold primarily on the premise that unfortunate things will happen to us or we may acquire some dreadful illness which we have no control over. In other words they want us to believe that we are "victims" of life.

I believe spending my money on such a negative concept, or my acting on it out of fear that they may be right only would add more energy to that negative suggestion and thereby would actually increase the possibility of things occuring.

I've learned by always having a plan or image for my future, I rarely have unexpected negative occurences. When something does occur that I didn't expect, I always except responsibilty for somehow attracting it for my learning.

Do you think I am being irresponsible?