The Love Of Jesus

[Antlerman]

I noticed a comment from a new member who joined today in the 'What's on your mind?' comments that appears on the right side of the screen of the forum listings that various members add comments to. It said, "Is wondering how the Love of Jesus can be missed by so many people." He is a pastor of church in a city a mere 30 minutes from where I live. a city where I've been many times in the past. This comment intrigued me as an expression of something that he feels perplexed over regarding those who are Ex-Christians. I am wanting to explore what is meant by the use of this phrase, "the Love of Jesus", and determining what that is, why it is believed that whatever that is is something we don't "see"?

 

What is meant by "the Love of Jesus"? I would contend that it is a way for someone within a religious system to hang what they see as matters of value and an experience of life in its higher qualities, wonder, awe, love, community, ideals, etc, on a hook of religious symbolism - "the Love of Jesus." What is that, if not an expression of human experience? And if that of human experience, something we all share - as humans, then how is it that someone within the religious system is unable to 'see' what exists in other humans as well as them? What is it exactly that they see that gives them the impression we don't experience, or know, or 'see' all these things ourselves, and value them at least as well? Is it solely the use of words, or is their something of real, practice substance?

 

How is it that one person's not tying this to a symbolic figure "Jesus" means that they don't share the same truth? And of greater importance, how is it that the one who claims an embrace of truth by holding up a religious symbol, "Jesus", in this case, is unable to see it in others? How is it that because they hear someone challenge or dismiss the system of religious mythologies of gods and sacrifices of appeasement, that they leap to the conclusion that we don't know the nature of love?

 

Is it that they, in their devotion to the symbols, miss what they represent? That it is love that is the truth, not how we speak about it? And if they assume someone doesn't know it because they don't use the same words as them, then who - who is it that isn't seeing? Who is it that doesn't hear? Who is it that hears through the "carnal mind"? And I then add as my comment, "Is wondering why the religious are so blind and deaf as to deny the life in front of them? How they miss life that is there everywhere around them, radiant and brilliant, simply because they are blocked by their sad devotion to a set of religious doctrines over the vitality of living love in all?

 

Who is blind?

[oddbird1963]

A-Man,

 

I guess there's a threshold that needs to be crossed where the believer in a religious system begins to recognize the images, catch phrases, creeds and cultural norms as symbolic of and reaching for a greater Truth accessible to all and sought by all.

 

The first obstacle to reaching that threshold is learning that there is truth outside the system which they have sought to master (as if a person can "master" Truth!).

 

I know for Christians, Jesus represents the end all and be all of Truth.

 

A second obstacle is to be duped into believing that Truth can ever actually be obtained, mastered, reduced to propositions, codified or completely parsed. There are greater truths to be grasped. But to say you have reached Truth and discovered Truth, is to fall back into the blind devotion to symbols. Truth will always be beyond us, although some truths will be obtained along the way.

 

A third obstacle is alienation. To see another human as "other" - foreign, lost, infidel, in need of my symbols to the exclusion of the ones with which they currently identify.

 

These observations are woefully partial and incomplete. But I plan to look your comments over again in the morning and perhaps I will be of some use on this thread. You raise a really good issue here.

 

 

 

OB '63

[MultifariousBirdLady]

What is meant by "the Love of Jesus"?

 

When I was a Christian, "knowing the Love of Jesus" referred to a couple specific things that went hand in hand:

• Knowledge that Jesus loved you so much that he was willing to die to pay the price of your sins so that you could be with him someday in heaven.
  
• The experience of "Jesus" working through their everyday lives. This included the way that circumstances in their lives came together to convince them that "God had a plan" as well as the feelings they thought were coming from God (i.e. the Holy Spirit working within them) as they helped others.
  

But, at least the way I was taught, these two ideas were not supposed to be separated. Jesus' sacrifice was supposed to permeate everything.

 

I would contend that it is a way for someone within a religious system to hang what they see as matters of value and an experience of life in its higher qualities, wonder, awe, love, community, ideals, etc, on a hook of religious symbolism - "the Love of Jesus."

 

I think this is a good description of the 2nd aspect described above, and it's the essence of the confirming feeling of "the Love of Jesus" that many Christians claim to have. But I am wondering if Pastor15 was perhaps more puzzled about the first aspect... i.e. "How could so many people who had once been Christians have 'missed' the incredible 'gift' that Jesus gave to them through the cross? How did these former Christians come to view Jesus as anything but loving? Didn't they understand his sacrifice?" At least, that's what came to my mind when I read his comment.

 

If he sticks around and bothers to read and open-mindedly consider some of the material on this site, he'll find his answer.

[Pastorl5]

First off, let me say thank you to Antlerman for inviting me to this discussion. I am always intrigued by the opinions of others so that I can better understand how people feel.

 

There is a lot to discuss here, but I guess what I want to focus on is Antlerman's initial question: what do I mean by the "Love of Jesus". Plain and simple what I meant was to ask the question, "How could a person who has claimed to experience God's love turn away from it?" I have been a devoted Christian for 9 years and my experience of God's love has only gotten deeper and better. To have a person who has experienced that love to only leave it is mind-boggling to me and thus the thrust of my comment.

But you raise some other things that I would like to discuss:

 

 

"What is that, if not an expression of human experience? And if that of human experience, something we all share - as humans, then how is it that someone within the religious system is unable to 'see' what exists in other humans as well as them? What is it exactly that they see that gives them the impression we don't experience, or know, or 'see' all these things ourselves, and value them at least as well? Is it solely the use of words, or is their something of real, practice substance?"

 

I would agree that the Love of Jesus, or what is meant by it, is a expression of human experience; however, as you would expect, this expression is not something humans can create. Now, I will be the first to admit that I see tons of people, who do not believe, who are genuinely loving and caring people. I have many friends who don't believe in Christ and they are people who share the same values as I do. So, at the least, I would suggest that the Love of Christ is not something that is shown in our higher morals or values; it is only something that we experience from God.

 

You go on by saying this:

 

"How is it that one person's not tying this to a symbolic figure "Jesus" means that they don't share the same truth? And of greater importance, how is it that the one who claims an embrace of truth by holding up a religious symbol, "Jesus", in this case, is unable to see it in others? How is it that because they hear someone challenge or dismiss the system of religious mythologies of gods and sacrifices of appeasement, that they leap to the conclusion that we don't know the nature of love?"

 

 

Whether or not you believe in Jesus is the measuring stick of what I see as truth. If you don't believe in Jesus, how can you believe in the truth that He teaches? My truth (or I see it everyone's truth) cannot be truth without Jesus Christ at the center. It's not that I don't think non-Christians are unable to know the nature of love, I just think (and don't be offended) that you cannot experience the fullness of that nature without the truth of Jesus Christ.

 

 

I hope this is a good start to what i hope to be a wonderful conversation. Thanks for the invite, I hope to hear from you soon.

 

Peace, Love, and Soul

Larry D Vinson

 

P.S. Anterlman, anytime you want to get in person and talk of this, please look me up @ FOrest Lake Christian Church (or email @ larry@myflcc.com)

[oddbird1963]

So, at the least, I would suggest that the Love of Christ is not something that is shown in our higher morals or values; it is only something that we experience from God.

 

Larry,

 

So what exactly is the love of Christ again? You say it is "something" that Christians experience from God. And from that I infer it is something that non-Christians cannot experience.

 

So, what is it that you experience that nobody else can experience? What is it like for you? What does it do for you? How does it affect your daily life?

 

Thank you,

 

Scott

[Pastorl5]

So, at the least, I would suggest that the Love of Christ is not something that is shown in our higher morals or values; it is only something that we experience from God.

 

Larry,

 

So what exactly is the love of Christ again? You say it is "something" that Christians experience from God. And from that I infer it is something that non-Christians cannot experience.

 

So, what is it that you experience that nobody else can experience? What is it like for you? What does it do for you? How does it affect your daily life?

 

Thank you,

 

Scott

 

 

Scott,

 

Your inference is correct, the Love of Christ is only something that Christians can truly experience the fullness of. That experience is hard to describe (I know, it sounds like a cop out), but for me it is a peaceful closeness to the God who created me and loves me. When I worship Him, pray to Him, serve others, speak of Him to others, I truly feel a presence of God that is more than words can describe.

 

Sorry, I'm sure that doesn't help but for me to describe something that is indescribable is kinda hard. I'll keep thinking and will get back to you.

 

Peace, Love, and Soul

Larry

[Pastorl5]

Hello fellow conversers. Interesting topic!

 

Thank you for raising these questions, Antlerman, and thank you for your thoughtful response, Larry. I'm not interested in contributing at this time, but I am very interested in following the conversation, so if you could clarify a couple of your statments, Larry, I would appreciate it. I want to make sure I understand what you are saying.

 

I would agree that the Love of Jesus, or what is meant by it, is a expression of human experience; however, as you would expect, this expression is not something humans can create. Now, I will be the first to admit that I see tons of people, who do not believe, who are genuinely loving and caring people. I have many friends who don't believe in Christ and they are people who share the same values as I do. So, at the least, I would suggest that the Love of Christ is not something that is shown in our higher morals or values; it is only something that we experience from God.

 

I thought a couple of times that I grasped your view, but it keeps slipping because I'm not sure how the three statements I have bolded above match up. You say that Jesus' love is an expression of human experience, but not of humans, and that seems contradictory to me.

 

Perhaps it would be helpful if you could define the qualities of "an expression of human experience"?

 

It's not that I don't think non-Christians are unable to know the nature of love, I just think (and don't be offended) that you cannot experience the fullness of that nature without the truth of Jesus Christ.

 

Which parts are we missing?

 

Namaste,

Phanta

 

 

Phanta,

 

Sorry for the confusion, we can chalk that up to my experience in discussing in this type of format. To understand my viewpoint of God's love as a human experience that humans cannot create, you'd have to understand my assumption that God is real. Humans can experience God's love, that is true, but God's love is not something they create it is something that God gives to them when they accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior (I'm really trying to stay away from Christian cliches but it is hard, so excuse me for using them).

 

When I say that the love of Christ is an expression of human experience what I mean is that the Love of Christ is seen, in our viewpoints, when we express our love for Him (either through worship, serving others, praying, etc.).

 

I hope this clarifies what I'm trying to say. Thanks for the respectful response, I look forward to continuing this conversation.

 

Peace, Love, and Soul

Larry

[oddbird1963]

Scott,

 

Your inference is correct, the Love of Christ is only something that Christians can truly experience the fullness of. That experience is hard to describe (I know, it sounds like a cop out), but for me it is a peaceful closeness to the God who created me and loves me. When I worship Him, pray to Him, serve others, speak of Him to others, I truly feel a presence of God that is more than words can describe.

 

Sorry, I'm sure that doesn't help but for me to describe something that is indescribable is kinda hard. I'll keep thinking and will get back to you.

 

Peace, Love, and Soul

Larry

Larry,

 

Isn't it possible that the feelings you describe are subjectively experienced by people who profess other belief systems, whether those belief systems are atheistic, monotheistic or polytheistic?

 

For example, I can honestly say that many times throughout the last 10 months or so I have felt "peaceful closeness" to the Ultimate reality upon which I hang the descriptor "universe." It feels a lot like the feelings of closeness I had to the being I believed in as "God" back in my days as a Christian. I'll bet there are many non-Christians on this site who could describe similar experiences with their deity or their depiction of ultimate reality.

 

And I believe lots of people, Christian and non-Christian, feel indescribable feelings of joy, fulfillment, satisfaction and closeness when they serve others or worship in a way that is meaningful to them.

 

Wherein lies the "difference" that is exclusive to Christianity?

 

Who is to say that my experiences are less ultimate and less meaningful than yours?

 

Though you hang the symbol "love of Christ" on the experience, might not Joe Pagan, who never darkened the doors of the church feel much the same through worshiping Thor?

 

Sincerely,

 

Scott

[Antlerman]

First off, let me say thank you to Antlerman for inviting me to this discussion. I am always intrigued by the opinions of others so that I can better understand how people feel.

Thank you for your response. It's in the spirit of dialog that we can hopefully move forward as individuals together within a society. Working off assumptions only leaves us with a very limited perception of reality, largely created by our own imaginations without the benefit of a broader understanding through others.

 

There is a lot to discuss here, but I guess what I want to focus on is Antlerman's initial question: what do I mean by the "Love of Jesus". Plain and simple what I meant was to ask the question, "How could a person who has claimed to experience God's love turn away from it?" I have been a devoted Christian for 9 years and my experience of God's love has only gotten deeper and better. To have a person who has experienced that love to only leave it is mind-boggling to me and thus the thrust of my comment.

This was what MBL pointed out above. I have been considering the comment in respect to that point of view. I can understand the question from that mindset. To you it must seem mind-boggling indeed. I hope to address a response to that with respect to your understanding of it.

 

To briefly answer that, in my case in particular, though I'm certain that is shared by most others as well, is that it's not a case of turning our back on Love or the experience of the ineffable. Instead it is a case of questioning or moving beyond limiting it to one definition, to a doctrine, to a theology, to a religion - in other words 'putting God in a box', so to speak. Quite the contrary for me, it was about being able to free it from the claws of a religion that claimed proprietorship of it. "God as we prescribe", or as "Interpreted from the Bible by us," is not God at all.

 

I can equally argue that how is it that if someone has tasted the transcendent, that they put limits on it by sticking it into a box of religious definitions? Does that Truth that is in them, pull them to something higher? How is it that they turn away from that in favor of allegiance to a religion, or an interpretation? Isn't the ineffable just that? Beyond description? Beyond definitions? Can't I from my perspective ask, how is it that you live within the limits of a religion then, having tasted that which is infinitely beyond?

 

In short, I left because the religion restrained my soul from the needed liberty to grow.

 

 

I would agree that the Love of Jesus, or what is meant by it, is a expression of human experience; however, as you would expect, this expression is not something humans can create. Now, I will be the first to admit that I see tons of people, who do not believe, who are genuinely loving and caring people. I have many friends who don't believe in Christ and they are people who share the same values as I do. So, at the least, I would suggest that the Love of Christ is not something that is shown in our higher morals or values; it is only something that we experience from God.

This has come up a number of times recently in conversation with other Christians how they externalize this, how they separate us out from it. That that love, comes from outside to in, and that we do not 'create it'. I want to explore that idea with you.

 

I would agree that we do not create it, in the sense that it is a purely manufactured reality of of nothing. However, it is something that we participate in. We are not passive, nor external to it. It is our nature as part of existence itself that we through our conscious participation within it either open our conscious awareness to or close off from ourselves. It is not as though we have zero in us, and suddenly that nature is 'put into us'. It is our nature as part of all being, and is strictly a case of apprehension or the realization of it. We don't create it, nor does it exist outside us, as separate to us. We are never outside it or removed from it.

 

You suggest that the Love of Christ is not something shown in higher morals and values, but is something we experience. But couldn't you recognize that the experience of higher Self or "God", is manifested through those things? That they are the 'fruits' of that? They are expressions of that? That they themselves can be considered as 'evidence' of that living in them, and showing through them? And if so, then "God" is in them, regardless of their acceptance of religious mythical symbols describing it? That the symbols are not what is apprehended, but the truth beyond the symbols? And if there is a truth beyond the symbols, then how does one recognize it? Certainly not by the symbols, by someone using or not using the symbols. What manifests it, if not actions?

 

Whether or not you believe in Jesus is the measuring stick of what I see as truth. If you don't believe in Jesus, how can you believe in the truth that He teaches? My truth (or I see it everyone's truth) cannot be truth without Jesus Christ at the center. It's not that I don't think non-Christians are unable to know the nature of love, I just think (and don't be offended) that you cannot experience the fullness of that nature without the truth of Jesus Christ.

And here becomes the crux of our discussion. You are in essence saying that someone accepting the religious symbol of Jesus as the Christ, the Savior, is the measuring stick, the evidence of the Spirit in them. You are in essence saying this: That love manifests through an individual must in effect be not recognized, accepted, nor embraced as manifestation of true Spirit if it is not evidenced by them accepting Christian doctrines. That is exactly what I hear, exactly why I left, and exactly what breaks my heart for those who in fact do love Truth, but block themselves from it in others because of a sad, or mistaken notion of fidelity to a doctrinal interpretation of a religious organization.

 

That in effect is worshiping theology above "God", above those things you assign to and describe by the symbols of your faith. It's the point at which spirituality becomes a religion, and development ceases and man is in fact "separated from God", so to speak. In in an ironic sense, I express that by saying that true salvation, is freedom from religion. To say we must use a book compiled by priests representing their 'orthodoxy' of acceptable religious beliefs, canonized and mythologized to by the standard of acceptable belief that God Himself gave us, is in fact to deny the Spirit it claims to embrace.

 

I hope this is a good start to what i hope to be a wonderful conversation. Thanks for the invite, I hope to hear from you soon.

I agree and I appreciate your response. I look forward to exploring this with you.

[Guest end3]

Larry,

 

If you don't mind me calling you that, I think what some are asking is, what is it that specifically identifies the "knowing" and everything inclusive to that as Jesus. AM labels it, if I am not mistaken, "the Ground of Being", which I don't know that I have a problem with....a large indescribable something in an almost separate plain....I am not trying to speak for him, just a hint of what he sees....maybe.

 

I specifically identify Jesus as Jesus due to my healing has come not from the knowledge or rationalization of my disalignment with God, but with the revelation of how it was hurting Jesus and all things inclusive to Him....the creation...my acts were contrary to acknowledgement of what was accomplished on the cross.

 

Thanks

[Brakeman]

Forgive my ignorance, but how can it be that there is an experience of love that ONLY christians can feel? I thought the bible speaks very plainly that god loves us all, jesus loves us all. If a christian feels that love physically or psychically, then the unsaved should be able to too. Right? Is it not our rejection of that love that makes us unsaved?

[Shyone]

 

Whether or not you believe in Jesus is the measuring stick of what I see as truth. If you don't believe in Jesus, how can you believe in the truth that He teaches? My truth (or I see it everyone's truth) cannot be truth without Jesus Christ at the center. It's not that I don't think non-Christians are unable to know the nature of love, I just think (and don't be offended) that you cannot experience the fullness of that nature without the truth of Jesus Christ.

If a person had only read one book I could understand how they might think this way.

 

A good reading of Tao Te Ching or Confusius would give you truth that clearly did not come from Jesus. Jesus says, "Hate your mother." I say, no, I will honor my mother. Jesus says, "The sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath." I say, yes, that makes sense.

 

If god said for me to sacrifice my son, I would say no because it is wrong.

 

Good and bad are independent of religion because we can judge the good and bad in religion (or at least decent human beings can).

 

Most serial killers believe in Jesus. That is the measuring stick of truth. Serial killers then can "experience the fullness of that nature" of love.

 

Or maybe I can do better than they without that belief.

[Antlerman]

To understand my viewpoint of God's love as a human experience that humans cannot create, you'd have to understand my assumption that God is real. Humans can experience God's love, that is true, but God's love is not something they create it is something that God gives to them when they accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior (I'm really trying to stay away from Christian cliches but it is hard, so excuse me for using them).

 

When I say that the love of Christ is an expression of human experience what I mean is that the Love of Christ is seen, in our viewpoints, when we express our love for Him (either through worship, serving others, praying, etc.).

 

Hi, Larry. This helps only a little. I think I'm having trouble imagining humans expressing something they didn't create. I can imagine (conceptually...I've never felt the connection you or many of the ex's here describe) receiving love from another. An expression, though, is offering forth. It seems to me that an expression of anything would be human in nature...intrinsic. What you describe, assuming for the moment God does exist, is a human reaction to a supernatural expression, I think. Do you see the nature of my confusion?

 

Phanta

This will help me to put some thoughts/perceptions into words. Experiencing love 'from another', is really experiencing love through another, through them as an agent. But what you are experiencing is coming from you. It is love in you that you are experiencing through them. They are a means to your experience of what exists in you. They don't give you love, but they help facilitate its realization in you. People may spend their whole lives thinking that their happiness or joy or sense of completeness comes from others, but it is an illusion. We have those things in us to experience, and they simply help us to access it in ourselves. To become dependent on others to access this, is to never realize Self, to know the nature of Love for itself and as the nature of what we are. We are always seeing it as removed from us, and us seeking to obtain what we already have.

 

To restate that, the experience of Love in ourselves is opened to us through the expression of it through others. We respond from what is inside. "Jesus", for the Christian is a symbolic representation of the "other" expressing Love, which allows them to access to the Divine in themselves. But the symbol is not the divine. If we move beyond the symbols, beyond all forms as expressions of it, then there becomes a fusion with our nature as divine. We don't just experience it, we become it and become manifestation and expression of that.

 

To limit access to that nature by externalizing it and placing the keys in the hand of another, though it may help in allowing us to experience it in ourselves through temporarily setting ourselves aside through distraction, will disallow us the full apprehension of it as our Nature if we persist in externalizing it. It is like believing I can never be whole or happy without having a love relationship in my life. "I need Jesus", is understood by me to say, "I'm afraid to face me at the end of all distractions." But its facing that, that we meet its true Nature and become Self Realized.

[Guest end3]

To restate that, the experience of Love in ourselves is opened to us through the expression of it through others. We respond from what is inside. "Jesus", for the Christian is a symbolic representation of the "other" expressing Love, which allows them to access to the Divine in themselves. But the symbol is not the divine. If we move beyond the symbols, beyond all forms as expressions of it, then there becomes a fusion with our nature as divine. We don't just experience it, we become it and become manifestation and expression of that.

 

But in this case, Jesus in both, the tree and the limb to reach us. How can we access the expression other than accepting the power, kingdom, sap, nutrients?..... that being leaves or branches, we were designed to accept? I don't see the leaf as having direct connection to the tree without acknowledgement and connection to the tree?

 

Where do we find an independent expression of nature in nature.

[oddbird1963]

To restate that, the experience of Love in ourselves is opened to us through the expression of it through others. We respond from what is inside. "Jesus", for the Christian is a symbolic representation of the "other" expressing Love, which allows them to access to the Divine in themselves. But the symbol is not the divine. If we move beyond the symbols, beyond all forms as expressions of it, then there becomes a fusion with our nature as divine. We don't just experience it, we become it and become manifestation and expression of that.

 

But in this case, Jesus in both, the tree and the limb to reach us. How can we access the expression other than accepting the power, kingdom, sap, nutrients..... that being leaves or branches, we were designed to accept? I don't see the leaf as having direct connection to the tree without acknowledgment and connection to the tree?

 

Where do we find an independent expression of nature in nature.

 

End3,

 

It seems you are using a symbol to describe a symbol. The phrase "love of Jesus," which started this conversation, the name "Jesus" in Christian theology and the Tree as used by you all point to a Reality beyond the symbols used to evoke that reality.

 

We don't depend upon an outside entity to access that manifestation of the Divine - we are that manifestation. We are the Divine toward which all three of those symbols point.

 

Sincerely,

 

OB '63

[Guest end3]

To restate that, the experience of Love in ourselves is opened to us through the expression of it through others. We respond from what is inside. "Jesus", for the Christian is a symbolic representation of the "other" expressing Love, which allows them to access to the Divine in themselves. But the symbol is not the divine. If we move beyond the symbols, beyond all forms as expressions of it, then there becomes a fusion with our nature as divine. We don't just experience it, we become it and become manifestation and expression of that.

 

But in this case, Jesus in both, the tree and the limb to reach us. How can we access the expression other than accepting the power, kingdom, sap, nutrients..... that being leaves or branches, we were designed to accept? I don't see the leaf as having direct connection to the tree without acknowledgment and connection to the tree?

 

Where do we find an independent expression of nature in nature.

 

End3,

 

It seems you are using a symbol to describe a symbol. The phrase "love of Jesus," which started this conversation, the name "Jesus" in Christian theology and the Tree as used by you all point to a Reality beyond the symbols used to evoke that reality.

 

We don't depend upon an outside entity to access that manifestation of the Divine - we are that manifestation. We are the Divine toward which all three of those symbols point.

 

Sincerely,

 

OB '63

 

Thank you, I see that. His statement then, is contradictory. Please see the bolded in contradiction to the underlined. Jesus, is both by definition, directly that which we may be a manifestation, as I see Jesus and God as One. The difference that I see in belief is what AM describes as "we become it", is what happens when we go to Heaven. I guess there could be interpretations that say this is upon Spiritual rebirth, but I feel this only to be part of the Heaven experience....the "children" of Adam 2.

 

I digress, y'all have heard my take before. I will try not to post unless necessary

[Guest end3]

I can't help but say this, but Christ being God, then we are in agreement because it is our choice as AM says to accept that manifestation, to connect.

[oddbird1963]

To restate that, the experience of Love in ourselves is opened to us through the expression of it through others. We respond from what is inside. "Jesus", for the Christian is a symbolic representation of the "other" expressing Love, which allows them to access to the Divine in themselves. But the symbol is not the divine. If we move beyond the symbols, beyond all forms as expressions of it, then there becomes a fusion with our nature as divine. We don't just experience it, we become it and become manifestation and expression of that.

 

End3,

 

I'm failing to see the contradiction. I don't see anything stated in bold vs. underline that would be a case of a = NOT a.

 

 

 

I can't help but say this, but Christ being God, then we are in agreement because it is our choice as AM says to accept that manifestation, to connect.

 

But "Christ" is a symbol and even "God" is a symbol. They point to a reality beyond themselves. In making this statement, are you confusing the symbol for the Reality symbolized?

 

OB '63

[Guest end3]

I can't help but say this, but Christ being God, then we are in agreement because it is our choice as AM says to accept that manifestation, to connect.

 

This is one of those times where my basic understanding of what you are saying is hindered by vague stream-of-consciousness poetry-style writing rather than straightforward complete sentences.

 

Broken into phrases, it sound like something a beatnik would read at a poetry slam.

 

I can't help but say this,

but Christ being God,

then we are in agreement

because it is our choice

as AM says

to accept that manifestation,

to connect.

 

I never was any good at interpreting that stuff. I can kinda guess what you're saying, but because it isn't clear, I can also misread a whole lot of bullshit into it. Would you mind fixing it? I am interested in your conceptual contributions to this thread.

 

 

Phanta

 

Damned if you do, damned if you don't. The ex-christian community will beat you if you are not a grammatical genius.

Prose works better for me as I find it helps people understand better what I am trying to express. I can't write well in complete sentences as I suck at it....so please accept my writing style.

 

AM was saying that Jesus is a symbol, in intercessor, that enables the individual to access the devine in them. He is saying essentially that Jesus is not devine and that we have access to the Ground of Being, that is devine...a direct connection at our will. I am saying that his distinction has a fundamental flaw because most Christians I know consider Jesus to be God. There is no intercessor. Jesus is God.....unless you are a Catholic....then there are people between you and God.

 

I don't disagree that this Ground of Being has very similar characteristics by human definition. From a Christian standpoint, I would put God the Father as the Ground of Being and Jesus as a face on that to better help us understand this entity. Hope that helps.

 

And too your previous statement....yes, the Love of whatever this entity is, far surpasses the expression of our definition of love. It would be like taking your very very best experience of love and remaining there...never fading.

[Guest end3]

To restate that, the experience of Love in ourselves is opened to us through the expression of it through others. We respond from what is inside. "Jesus", for the Christian is a symbolic representation of the "other" expressing Love, which allows them to access to the Divine in themselves. But the symbol is not the divine. If we move beyond the symbols, beyond all forms as expressions of it, then there becomes a fusion with our nature as divine. We don't just experience it, we become it and become manifestation and expression of that.

 

End3,

 

I'm failing to see the contradiction. I don't see anything stated in bold vs. underline that would be a case of a = NOT a.

 

 

 

I can't help but say this, but Christ being God, then we are in agreement because it is our choice as AM says to accept that manifestation, to connect.

 

But "Christ" is a symbol and even "God" is a symbol. They point to a reality beyond themselves. In making this statement, are you confusing the symbol for the Reality symbolized?

 

OB '63

 

I can see that, but even AM labels it the "Ground of Being". Will it be long before this title has a myth associated with it? I have already picked up the language. Will there be a face to later express this?

 

He and I were talking about how to access it. I have considered this. I have to humble myself of my natural idiocy in hopes that it will come back. At this point I know no other way.

[NotBlinded]

Wow, a thread of substance and I've been playing with amazed for the last two days. I'll be back!

[Antlerman]

End, I'm not ignoring you. Every time I tried starting a response I was called away. I'm starting with responding to Phanta first...

 

Antlerman:

 

Reading what you wrote here moved me deeply.

 

Our potential to experience love (and feelings and other abstract concepts) is dormant inside us. Interaction with the right other, activates that experience inside of us. It's not like someone giving us a loaf of bread...it's someone exciting the life of something inside us.

 

Is that right?

 

Do you feel we can learn to activate most of all of these expressions for ourselves?

I would say it's maybe not so much activating something dormant in us as it is pulling back the veil to reveal what's there. I used the word distraction before but I think there's a better way to put it. Being confronted by the Manifestation of Love, or of Beauty, moves us to set aside all the busy thoughts of forms and symbols that we use to navigate the world in defining our 'reality'. As we are distracted from this, or rather as we move beyond it, we move into the nature of non-rational experience, of simple and pure being. It informs us of something that transcends the rational, on one level, to one degree or another.

 

As you are confronted and overwhelmed by the Beauty of Nature, it opens you to the sublime, the subtle, both in the World and inside of you. You become connected with the World. You experience yourself in it, and it in you. And beyond that, beyond that Manifestation, that Expression, is the Essence of Beauty itself. And that Essence is in us as Ground as well as in all Manifestation. Our apprehension of it is a matter of degrees of awareness, of depth of Spirit.

 

So can you learn to 'access' that? Yes, certainly. And as we move deeper within it, it manifests itself in every aspect of our being. The world we perceive changes as we change through our becoming.

 

To me symbols or others, serve to reveal it in us, or to us, but the ultimate access to it for us, is not through them, but though ourselves- beyond them. Symbols dissolve into Pure Being.

 

To limit access to that nature by externalizing it and placing the keys in the hand of another, though it may help in allowing us to experience it in ourselves through temporarily setting ourselves aside through distraction, will disallow us the full apprehension of it as our Nature if we persist in externalizing it. It is like believing I can never be whole or happy without having a love relationship in my life. "I need Jesus", is understood by me to say, "I'm afraid to face me at the end of all distractions." But its facing that, that we meet its true Nature and become Self Realized.

 

I often wonder about this, with Jesus. Humans, as limited creatures, get limited satisfaction from others, because they are also limited. So we can only use ourselves or other humans to activate these experiences inside of us according to our own capacity and the availability of those around us who set us off in the right way. Jesus (as reality or as symbol) represents the totally self-realized being. Whether we are simply unable to perceive (due to our limited brains) or accept (due to low self-esteem) our own total wholeness at a needed moment, or if we are truly inherently flawed polluted beings, becoming "one with Jesus" allows us to make the leap to accessing those expressions.

I'm not going to deny the use of symbols as a means to access the higher self. I recognize that they can be vehicles to meditation, that inner journey into Spirit within and through ALL, just as music is for me. Ritual, dance, incense, symbols, music, drums, etc, none of which are it, none of which impart it, none of which define it, but through which we can access it, to one degree or another. Think of it in terms of guided meditation, which is what prayer is in effect. They are tools, but not the substance of it, not its Essence, not its Heart.

 

Where these become a problem is when they are mistaken as Truth in themselves. At which point then, you stop there and they become distorted into something else. Religion. A truth unto themselves, excluding and rejecting the Spirit of Truth that exists infinitely beyond them when it doesn't fit within their created frameworks of interpretation.

 

If we say, "I am a whole creature connected to these expressions" it is easy for others to point out our flaws. But if we say, "'though my faith/prayer/tongues/whatever' I am temporarily connected to that outer perfect being" we can activate those expressions without the burden of...internal hypocrisy. Without the burden of being creatures that sometimes do tremendous good and are tremendous love, and sometimes not.

Well, you shouldn't claim to be anything. Just be it. You do it for yourself, for the sake of what is in you. I see no hypocrisy in sincerity. "Performance" is not the goal, becoming is. It's only religion that's about conformity to practices. That is not what spirituality is. Spirituality is about Truth to Self, to self actualization, to living life with sincerity to yourself and the World. It's not about meeting other's expectations, falling short of them, and needing to cover up, excuse, hide, or otherwise avoid their scrutinies and judgments of you. Your value is in yourself, living sincerely - and consistently with your Heart (as opposed to simply living as a taker without respect for others beyond yourself - that is not in any way living sincerely, it's living insincerely). You judge yourself by what is true to you, and what is true to you is known by sincerity of heart.

[Guest end3]

AM was saying that Jesus is a symbol, in intercessor, that enables the individual to access the devine in them. He is saying essentially that Jesus is not devine and that we have access to the Ground of Being, that is devine...a direct connection at our will. I am saying that his distinction has a fundamental flaw because most Christians I know consider Jesus to be God. There is no intercessor. Jesus is God.....unless you are a Catholic....then there are people between you and God.

 

I don't disagree that this Ground of Being has very similar characteristics by human definition. From a Christian standpoint, I would put God the Father as the Ground of Being and Jesus as a face on that to better help us understand this entity. Hope that helps.

 

Yes, that is much clearer.

 

From your other post, I also understand that a major difference between AM's Ground of Being and your God is that GoB is a part of us as humans (internal) always while in your view the source, God, is separate at least until we go to heaven, and must give love to us (external). Is that right?

 

Somewhat. Love is innate as we are creations of God. Remember the water thing? Humans are largely water, right? AM and I were discussing awhile back that being Spiritually reborn was similar in to having access to AM's Ground of Being. Both, Phanta, are transcendent expressions of his and my human experience. I am saying that my experience was given to me by Jesus through faith....that I believe it to be baptism of the Holy Spirit.

 

To my knowledge, AM is saying that the connection to the transcendence is within us by accessing the innate qualities that put us in unity with this GoB, that the Source, this GoB is within us.

 

I am saying that sure we possess the innate because we are creations of it, but not that it's source is within except by being creations of it. But remember, they are similar because the innate characteristics of the Christian God are given to the creation.

 

He then is saying that Jesus is a symbol of myth and that Christianity limits the experience of GoB by this myth . And true, both experiences seem to be indescribable. I am saying that the Source is external because there is no entity in nature that exists as a stand alone, without a relationship. Humans are in relationship to everything all the time. How could humans be the Source or GoB to the innate? The contribution of the relationships form an aspect of who we are. And this is a function of the universe as far as I know.

 

So I attribute the transcendence to the Creator of the relationships touching me. I request this in faith that He is the Creator of everything and that the means of access are currently through His means, the relationship with Him through Christ. Is Christ a symbol as AM describes? No, I think He is God. The communion bread and grape juice are symbols.

 

On the other hand...it could be a myth and Christianity could just be a means of describing the GoB. Because of my particular experience, I believe in Christianity. Would it be different if I were not exposed to Christianity? I don't know, sure maybe. My experience fits too well with the story to deny the the Bible God.

[Guest end3]

End, I'm not ignoring you. Every time I tried starting a response I was called away. I'm starting with responding to Phanta first...

 

You better hurry man, I think I am misrepresenting you terribly! Lol

[Antlerman]

Antlerman, do you think at all about personal integrity? Do you worry at all about being internally consistent?

 

Phanta

Of course I think about personal integrity. It's a guiding principle of how I choose to live life. Do I worry about being inconsistent with it? No. I will be inconsistent with it because its all about growth and improvement, not being perfect. So I don't fret about it, and when I am, it is a matter of personal integrity to do the right thing to live how I see as consistent. When I'm not, it becomes a matter of correction when I begin to work against myself.

 

I do fall short, but its a matter of what I esteem to be of greater value, personally and universally, that I feel to correct towards that end, towards that hope. But as I progress, I become more consistent with it. It's about being true, not perfect. And by being true, we grow. It is freedom. There is no guilt or worry about failure to conform to perfection. There is only movement into the formless ALL. And it is my freedom to choose, to grow or not. It is about being true to myself in it and it in me.