> gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:0acc8ca7-5bd7-4bf5-8411-dd4d608bab94@i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 11, 7:15 pm, "THE BORG" outthere.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>

>> gmail.com> wrote in message

>

>>news:11711d32-5ea7-40fb-beda-682443ca817f@z17g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...

>

>> You may not, but I will.

>

>> Correct, I wasnt asking a question, just expanding on your
>> 'personalisation of consciousness' view.

>

>> BOfL

>

>> Jesus is the son of a deity and not a deity himself. You should seek the
>> Father of whom he speaks and not Jesus.
>> Krishna is on the level of the Father and not on the level of the Son.
>> Of course - as you say - what you term the cosmic conscious could not be
>> personalized by way of any God - Jehovah - Zeus - Vishnu - or any others -
>> they would know of and maybe be part of the cosmic conscious - or cosmic
>> awareness - or cosmic intelligence (there are hundreds of ways to describe
>> this) but naturally - as you say - no personalization could or should
>> occur.
>> THE BORG

>
> Son of, father of...2nd cousin?why not if you like to project "all in
> the family" , and yet you say no personalization should ...or *could*
> occur? ...after personalizing J and K
>
> Do Borgs have 'bad hare" days? (there's a pun there if you can spot
> it)..
>
> BOfL
>
> No - we are saying you cannot personalize what you call the Cosmic
> Conscious - it is like trying to personalize the universe or the rain that
> falls on Earth.  This is what is so funny about Mark Earnest - who states
> that this Cosmic Conscious or the rain that falls on Earth is very nice when
> you get to know him - note the word "him" and the very low level of his
> awareness.  Regions naturellement.  We are not being rude but we refer to
> this kind of person as "closed minded religious bigot" - you see this is not
> rude?  It is the truth eh?
> No we do not see your pun but would be interested as naturally numerology
> that you find and synchronicity are indeed some of the wonders of all this.
> You find more and more as the path is right - as you indeed have said.  We
> were sorry when they laughed at you for your view on numerology - naturally
> the ones who laughed would not find or know of this - as they are not on your
> path.
> Incidentally there is no plural of Borg - a Borg or many Borg - rather like
> sheep - a sheep or many sheep - there is no such word sheeps in plural.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -