The Love Of Jesus

[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...

 

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

You are, but I'm enjoying it.

[Antlerman]

For me, integrity and consistency are somehow rigidly entwined. I think they are for a lot of people, and I was suggesting in my last paragraph that this is why some people may find Jesus appealing, as a self-actualized, perfectly consistent (in theory) being.

One of the big problems I have with this is because in mythologizing Jesus as outside humanity, that is never needing to improve or become more consistent with greater truth, is that it removes him as a symbol of one who found a path to the divine, and hence we can too. Instead he is turned into this God on Earth figure, and words are mouthed that 'he was tempted in all points like us, yet without sin". That's all good and fine for a son of Zeus, but that's not reality. There is no human, any real human who is a product of this world who does not have to grow. And growth necessitates a series of successes and failure, hopefully leading to greater degrees of success and subsequent improvement. IMO, Jesus, even though he is claimed to be human is presented as beyond human by the mere fact of his being a miracle intervention of God into the world.

 

To me, I would find much greater inspiration in the view that Jesus was a man of great spiritual depth and character who discovered a path to the realization of the divine and the fulfillment of his humanity in connection with infinite Spirit, than some divine god from the cosmos come to set an example of perfect, sinless behavior for us. No. That takes the possibility of any other human attaining complete Oneness with the Divine and removes it from them. Only the Divine Son of God who became a human can Realize that! What a shame it had to be crafted that way in the church's evolution of mythmaking. What an injustice to those who seek union with Spirit.

 

Perfection is living consistently with the Universe. Evolving to higher and deeper levels of Realization. That is reality, not the myth of perfect god/human beings.

 

I appreciate reading your view. It's different from where I'm coming from (not bad different...obviously my worldview causes me all sorts of existential problems).

 

Phanta

Oh I full well understand those views. I'm a product of this culture as well...

[Shyone]

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

I'm with you. It sounds like gibberish. "We are the oneness of the ones that are the oneness of all, and this is one connected with one."

 

Sorry, this has nothing to do with paying taxes.

 

That is what y'all are talking about, right?

 

I am the Walrus.

[Antlerman]

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

I'm with you. It sounds like gibberish. "We are the oneness of the ones that are the oneness of all, and this is one connected with one."

 

Sorry, this has nothing to do with paying taxes.

 

That is what y'all are talking about, right?

 

I am the Walrus.

I'm just waiting for Pastor to come back and read this. I'm sure he'll be scratching his head wondering what the hell he just walked into.

 

End has a way of his thoughts sometimes getting way ahead of his hands at the keyboard. But believe it or not, I always seem to be able to interpret it with some thought. It's a gift, I think.

[Neon Genesis]

On the subject of what is meant by the love of Jesus and why are non-Christians unable to feel it, I think Jesus sums up the problems with this belief best in Luke 18:9-14

He also told this parable to some who trusted in themselves that they were righteous and regarded others with contempt: 10‘Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax-collector. 11The Pharisee, standing by himself, was praying thus, “God, I thank you that I am not like other people: thieves, rogues, adulterers, or even like this tax-collector. 12I fast twice a week; I give a tenth of all my income.” 13But the tax-collector, standing far off, would not even look up to heaven, but was beating his breast and saying, “God, be merciful to me, a sinner!” 14I tell you, this man went down to his home justified rather than the other; for all who exalt themselves will be humbled, but all who humble themselves will be exalted.’

[NotBlinded]

 

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.

 

I would like to welcome you to the site and I know that anyone AM invites deserves great respect and I will do so.

 

I now realize that when I speak of the love of God, I do so without religious boundries. I can see all religions as being pointers to the divine and I understand that God doesn't belong to the symbols that point to "It".

 

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 would state that love is created by humans. Or that love is the nature of humans when they are open to the divine that already exist in them and everything. Humans can't actively search and find this love because they already have it. They can only remove the block or veil that stops them from realizing it. You may call it the Grace of God because it can only happen when one stops trying to find something that isn't lost.

 

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.

You realize how that sounds don't you?

I believe the truth of Jesus Christ has been known before Jesus experienced his Divine sonship. There have been others before and after and continues to be more all the time. The veil is lowering and I would say that this may occur more and more as the symbols are understood more as pointers and less as the real thing. The dismissing of mental idols is a great way to allow Divine Grace to happen.

 

 

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)

I look forward to this because this is where my heart is also.

[Pastorl5]

Wow. And yes, AM you are right I am wondering what I walked into! There is way too much for me to respond to all of it, so let me just respond to AM's latest and greatest:

 

"One of the big problems I have with this is because in mythologizing Jesus as outside humanity, that is never needing to improve or become more consistent with greater truth, is that it removes him as a symbol of one who found a path to the divine, and hence we can too. Instead he is turned into this God on Earth figure, and words are mouthed that 'he was tempted in all points like us, yet without sin". That's all good and fine for a son of Zeus, but that's not reality. There is no human, any real human who is a product of this world who does not have to grow. And growth necessitates a series of successes and failure, hopefully leading to greater degrees of success and subsequent improvement. IMO, Jesus, even though he is claimed to be human is presented as beyond human by the mere fact of his being a miracle intervention of God into the world."

 

I fully agree with you that we all have to grow, through successes and failures, towards improvement in this world. The problem with your assertion is that we cannot follow a human who also claimed to be God b/c they are not an example for us. As you already know, being a former Christian, Jesus had to be perfect to die for the sins of mankind. Yet, logically, isn't it a good thing to follow a leader who's been where we are at and has conquered it? Why would I want to follow a person who's failed at what I failed at? What could I possibly learn from his/her experience (except for another way of how not to live life)?

 

"To me, I would find much greater inspiration in the view that Jesus was a man of great spiritual depth and character who discovered a path to the realization of the divine and the fulfillment of his humanity in connection with infinite Spirit, than some divine god from the cosmos come to set an example of perfect, sinless behavior for us. No. That takes the possibility of any other human attaining complete Oneness with the Divine and removes it from them. Only the Divine Son of God who became a human can Realize that! What a shame it had to be crafted that way in the church's evolution of mythmaking. What an injustice to those who seek union with Spirit."

 

Didn't Jesus do exactly what you are looking for in inspiration? In my mind, Jesus did give us a path to the realization of the dinve and the fulfillment of humanity in connection with the Spirit; only that path is through Him and is Him. When we realize that path and begin to follow it we can obtain to the one thing that you claim we cannot: Complete Oneness with the Divine. This is not an injustice, but a hopeful answer to a wrecked world.

 

"Perfection is living consistently with the Universe. Evolving to higher and deeper levels of Realization. That is reality, not the myth of perfect god/human beings."

 

 

Again I agree, yet I think we would agree on the definitions of some words. Perfection is living consistently with God (or as you would call it, the Universe). As we grow in our knowledge of Him we do "Evolve" to higher and deeper levels of Realization until the day heaven comes and we know all there is to know. This is reality, as you would put it, yet it is found in the truth of a God made human who died for our sins.

 

 

I probably didn't say this as beautifully as End probably would have, nor did I say it as intelligently as AM's rebuttal probably will be, but sometimes the most basic of thoughts can give us the most profound of answers. I am looking forward to continuing this discussion.

 

Peace, Love, and Soul

Larry

[Pastorl5]

As a follow up to my post, let me just say that all my quotes are from AM's previous one. Still trying to figure out how all of this forum stuff works!

[NotBlinded]

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

For once I read ahead a little before I posted and I'm glad I did. You addressed that beautifully OB.

 

The manifestation of the Divine didn't come with names or labels. All words are symbols.

 

End, we can call the tree any name and we can call the Divine by any name. I don't think you are wrong we see a connection to the tree, I just think that you may not, yet, be able to use another symbol to access this connetion. Once the connection is made, symbols should fall away and we are left "knowing" that what they speak of is the truth by any other name.

[Pastorl5]

Thanks for the respect and the welcome... I haven't gotten too much of that outside of this forum! I just wanted to let you know that I read your post, but as I am a family man (as I'm sure most of you are as well) I need to spend some time with my family tonight. I will, however, be responding to your reply tomorrow afternoon. Until then...

 

Peace, Love, and Soul

Larry

[NotBlinded]

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 would be willing to bet that AM won't deny that Jesus was divine, just not anymore than anyone else. I think he meant, as OB said that Jesus and God are both symbols for what lies beyond, or within. When we name ourselves, we also become symbols. This is also why the Jews will not spell out Gods name.

 

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, those are symbols just as the faces of Bramah are represented by Brahman, Krishna, Vishnu. They are all pointers to get you to experience the Divine. A Divine that can't be labeled because it exists outside of all classes. or should I say encompasses all classes. Our regular consciousness can't comprehend this. It works only by comparison. But, we have much more to us than this "naming" consciousness. We would forget to breath without it. It can only be experienced.

[NotBlinded]

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.

End, the Gound of Being is also just a pointer. Anytime we open our mouths and utter any words, they are symbols that point to a reality. We don't know this reality we point to through words or any type of linear thought. Reality isn't linear. But we cannot grasp reality in its totality, so we break it up. It does't come broken.

 

Any faces assigned to this reality will be symbolic...always.

[NotBlinded]

Thanks for taking the time to write that out, End. I read it over four times. No grammatical stumbling blocks. I'm working through understanding your view as much as I can without putting my own stuff on it. I especially find the bit about us being created with innate aspects of the creator in us interesting. I am hearing that that innate stuff is qualities now separate from your GoB-thing, but reflections of it. And AM sees the qualities of GoB inside us.

 

Maybe?

 

Do I have this now guys?

 

See End run. Run, End, run! End sees Antlerman. "Hi, Antlerman." Antlerman calls to End. "Transcend, End!" End transcends. Antlerman also transcends. There is a Being. Antlerman sees the Being inside. End sees the Being outside. No one knows what is really going on. Especially not Phanta. Antlerman, End, and Phanta all run.

 

Phanta

Noooo. The GoB being is both transcendent and indwelling.

[NotBlinded]

But believe it or not, I always seem to be able to interpret it with some thought. It's a gift, I think.

 

 

Lo!

 

 

-----------------------------

 

Antlerman: Hi END3! I am open to discussing transcendent experience with you. Have you given further thought to the numinous supersoakers of all-being? Know that the mist of infinitability expands throughout the lowminder and filters out of the micropinnacles like sunwaves! Jesus is one way to begin to touch these plinta, but truly self-rounding interpersonalities are we, all on our own! I am flummoxed by the gurtlemindedness of Christians to recognize this. Glory!

 

 

NotBlindedBytheBlight: You are so right Antlerman! Yesterday I was tracing my micropinnacles in resounding starplintas and they burst into flames of oneness! I am he as you are he as you are me and we are all together!

 

 

END3: I agree with you in part, AM. But I still have to say, because of my personal experience, [prepostional phrase] [prepostional phrase] ...[prepostional phrase].

 

 

Antlerman: That's so insightful, END3! If you took it just one step farther, you would be free!

 

 

Phanta: Seriously? Wait...what? Hold on... Come again?

 

 

Shyone: Goo goo g' joob.

 

 

--------------------------

 

 

 

- Phanta (who is really enjoying this conversation, and hopes the good Pastor sticks around.)

Hey, I'm not always the echo. So there.

 

 

 

[Franko47]

Many would likely be surprised to know that even as an ex-Christian, I have no problem with the "love of Jesus".

 

 

It's just that "Bible-based" Christianity is in conflict with the "Jesus" I conceptualized when I was younger and later as a practicing Christian. I would go so far to say that modern Bible-based Christianity seeks to pervert much of what Jesus represents, beginning with the denial of the principles discussed in "Sermon On The Mount".

 

In some ways, I feel that I have integrated aspects of Christ as I have moved on with my philosophical and conceptual journey into truth, and understanding humanity and how reality works. (Might as well set the bar high)

 

At times it seems to me that many religious Christians are stranded on little islands, sharing their thought-memes with others; constantly condemning a world they don't really understand.

 

The idea of being "loved" by the cosmos, or by mighty powers, is an old one, and permeates many of the the historical and ancient religions and cults of the past as well as present. It's a nice feeling to feel "universally loved" and to feel "justified".

 

It was in fact this sense of reciprocal love and respect for humankind and the cosmos that has partly led to my de-conversion. I came to see doctrine, dogma, theology, and just plain "bad religion" as running contrary to any sense of serenity or enlightenment that I associated with God's love.

 

It is true, a man cannot serve two masters. You must choose the truth, and it must be supported by your highest ideals, or you must choose to submit to someone else's version of it. Either out of desperation or out of fear. A part of this intangible "love" must support freedom, not to mention the dignity and worth of an individual. A "love" that instigates tyranny is no love at all; a "love" that can be dispensed by manipulators exists only to serve them and their interests.

 

The true "love of Jesus" can only be understood uniquely by the individual; it is not subject to conditions and controls of institutions and other men with "agendas". Religion makes it all so "banal", and I am not the first person in history to claim that.

[oddbird1963]

At times it seems to me that many religious Christians are stranded on little islands, sharing their thought-memes with others; constantly condemning a world they don't really understand.

 

Franko47,

 

If the clouds and cobwebs in my mind this morning from being freshly awakened from sleep were not still keeping me from being sharp, I might have more comments.

 

But your post here was excellent. I will only comment on one aspect of it that jumped out at me this weary, bleary morning. I think you are right in what you say about Christians on their little islands. . . condemning a world they don't really understand.

 

Look at the stupid things most fundamentalists say about evolution, from "I didn't come from not monkey!" to the "crocoduck" absurdity.

 

Many christians seem to make a hobby of being shocked and horrified at their perceptions of sin in the world; the sound "Mm-Mmm-Mmmmm" being as common as "amen."

 

 

Thanks for the thoughtful and insigtful comments.

 

OB '63

[Guest end3]

I have thought about it. It's a bad question. You cannot begin to determine what is the Love of Jesus to a group other than those who have considered themselves to have experienced the Love of Jesus.

[Deva]

I have thought about it. It's a bad question. You cannot begin to determine what is the Love of Jesus to a group other than those who have considered themselves to have experienced the Love of Jesus.

 

For once I have to agree with you End3.

[Neon Genesis]

And we aren't people who have experienced Jesus in our lives? Is End3 forgetting what site he's at?

[Antlerman]

Wow. And yes, AM you are right I am wondering what I walked into! There is way too much for me to respond to all of it, so let me just respond to AM's latest and greatest:

You didn't know you are obligated to answer every single post, in order, until this thread is over 6000 pages long?? (There is a totally obsessed apologist here who is actually attempting to do that).

 

I don't know if I'd consider that last post my greatest... I actually considered it more a side point not terribly well developed, but that's OK. It'll still serve as discussion fodder...

 

And BTW, Phanta's caricature of me is greatly exaggerated. I do not believe in starlight through my hair follicles.

 

One of the big problems I have with this is because in mythologizing Jesus as outside humanity, that is never needing to improve or become more consistent with greater truth, is that it removes him as a symbol of one who found a path to the divine, and hence we can too. Instead he is turned into this God on Earth figure, and words are mouthed that 'he was tempted in all points like us, yet without sin". That's all good and fine for a son of Zeus, but that's not reality. There is no human, any real human who is a product of this world who does not have to grow. And growth necessitates a series of successes and failure, hopefully leading to greater degrees of success and subsequent improvement. IMO, Jesus, even though he is claimed to be human is presented as beyond human by the mere fact of his being a miracle intervention of God into the world.

I fully agree with you that we all have to grow, through successes and failures, towards improvement in this world. The problem with your assertion is that we cannot follow a human who also claimed to be God b/c they are not an example for us. As you already know, being a former Christian, Jesus had to be perfect to die for the sins of mankind.

There's two levels to the myth to look at. And before I begin I wish to clarify for your benefit that when I use the word myth, or mythology, I am not in anyway using it dismissively or as any insult. It's strictly a category of story or use of language as symbolic character representations. Myth exists everywhere around us everyday. It is distinguished by how it is used, and less so about it being fact.

 

When Christians speak of Jesus, you have Jesus as the human: teacher; rabbi; brother; son; leader; etc. Then you have Jesus as the Christ: a cosmic figure standing between God and man as Savior, Judge, Manifestor of God as Logos, etc. When you say Jesus had to be perfect to die for the sins of man, that is the Cosmic Christ that serves as the Agent of salvation. And the value of that as a symbol can be many things, but relating to as a human looking at another human as an ideal, it doesn't. No one in any of the myth is said to become part of "member" of the Godhead (which is a bit of a contradiction itself).

 

Yet, logically, isn't it a good thing to follow a leader who's been where we are at and has conquered it? Why would I want to follow a person who's failed at what I failed at? What could I possibly learn from his/her experience (except for another way of how not to live life)?

A couple of points, if you were disposed to following a person, then following someone you could relate to would be far more valuable then to follow someone who has never had to learn to overcome obstacles like you. The dude was born perfect! How can he teach us how to overcome, if he never had learn how to himself? That's a simple way to put it. If I wanted to look for leadership, I would look to someone who served as an example of what's possible. I would be looking to realize or achieve the possible, what he achieved as a human being. But being born the Son of God, existing elusively as the 2nd member of the Holy Trinity, pretty much removes him as an example of what is possible for us.

 

Second point, I don't believe in following a leader. I was leading discussion at the Secular Bible Study group here in the Cities the last two meetings (a very successful meeting of atheists and Christians co-sponsored by the MN Atheists Group and Trinity Methodist organization), and I had prepared material and a presentation working off the work of critical Christian scholarship discussing the formation of the Q document and early Jesus movement formation as a product of social formation. And one of the members there commented that I was a follower of this particular scholar I was using for discussion.

 

That really struck me. I don't get that follower mentality myself. It seemed an interesting way of putting things that suggested a mindset that was foreign to me, representing my interests or points of view as a follower of a person. I may certainly find some scholar, or some visionary to be inspiring to me, but its about them inspiring something in me, intellectually or spiritually. But I would never 'follow' them. I think for myself.

 

It's the same thing with Jesus as a teacher, or a symbol for that matter. To abandon my mind to being a subservient follower does not result in spiritual growth at all! Spirituality is the heart and the mind responding to life in a flowing and skillful dance of Form and Spirit, engaging the Will of the Individual and the Heart of the Universe.

 

The individual that relinquishes control, that relinquishes identity for another, does not serve the Spirit at all. It cheats the Spirit. It denies the heights and depths of Knowledge within each part of the whole. It is the abandonment of your individualness, your light, for the sake of mythic-membership - identity through group membership - not as the Light of the World in you, through you, and being you. You are the Light, not the group, not the leader of the group.

 

I can certainly look at Jesus, or take certain sayings we have inherited, and find truth in them for me. I'm not so short sighted as to throw out the baby of spirituality with the bathwater of mythic literalism. I certainly do not consider Jesus, let alone the Bible as 'authoritative' in all matters, but it does have value on a number of levels, as do all others expressions of the Spirit in all other disciples and religions. But to put a door stop at the end of the Bible that says, "This far, and no further", is where spiritual discovery ends, and religion begins.

 

To me, I would find much greater inspiration in the view that Jesus was a man of great spiritual depth and character who discovered a path to the realization of the divine and the fulfillment of his humanity in connection with infinite Spirit, than some divine god from the cosmos come to set an example of perfect, sinless behavior for us. No. That takes the possibility of any other human attaining complete Oneness with the Divine and removes it from them. Only the Divine Son of God who became a human can Realize that! What a shame it had to be crafted that way in the church's evolution of mythmaking. What an injustice to those who seek union with Spirit.

Didn't Jesus do exactly what you are looking for in inspiration? In my mind, Jesus did give us a path to the realization of the dinve and the fulfillment of humanity in connection with the Spirit; only that path is through Him and is Him. When we realize that path and begin to follow it we can obtain to the one thing that you claim we cannot: Complete Oneness with the Divine. This is not an injustice, but a hopeful answer to a wrecked world.

So I can become the 4th person in the Trinity? I want that. I want to become Deity. You think I jest?

 

I more than believe it is possible. Oneness with God means there is no longer you and God, but complete indissolubility. You become God, and more, you become Godhead: Nondual Source and Summit, Alpha and Omega, Beginning and End. ONE. Formless, Unknowable, ALL. That is ONENESS. Beyond a relationship of subject and object, me and God. Indivisibility. That which IS.

 

Or is that not possible? Is the theologically reserved for only the man Jesus, the eternal Son of God?

 

Now I hope you don't react in any aghast recoil that this sounds blasphemous, or something. I believe that is attainable for all humans - in this life, regardless of religion.

 

I probably didn't say this as beautifully as End probably would have, nor did I say it as intelligently as AM's rebuttal probably will be, but sometimes the most basic of thoughts can give us the most profound of answers. I am looking forward to continuing this discussion.

 

Peace, Love, and Soul

Larry

I would like to come back to the subject of knowing God's love or not by virtue of being a Christian or not, in this. I think there were some points to that in my first direct response to you in this thread after you first posted.

[Antlerman]

I have thought about it. It's a bad question. You cannot begin to determine what is the Love of Jesus to a group other than those who have considered themselves to have experienced the Love of Jesus.

I don't get this. He was in fact asking this "is wondering how the Love of Jesus can be missed by so many people." to those who were Christians, who were part of the group. Not sure I follow you here.

[Guest end3]

I have thought about it. It's a bad question. You cannot begin to determine what is the Love of Jesus to a group other than those who have considered themselves to have experienced the Love of Jesus.

I don't get this. He was in fact asking this "is wondering how the Love of Jesus can be missed by so many people." to those who were Christians, who were part of the group. Not sure I follow you here.

 

I don't mean literally bad. But as a Christian, based on the discussion, we/I am defending Christianity as a symbol for some greater god/experience of humanity. The love of Christ is defined, IMO, as a description by Christians who feel they have been "reborn".....a description of that reality in relation to the Story, and the reality of those in relation to these reborn people. Essentially, the Love of Christ flows from Christ outward through those that believe.

 

You have noticed that Mr. Larry and I keep saying "yet" and "yes, but" blah, blah "Jesus". Phanta even puts it in her parody. Now the point is, I don't know how to attempt to agree with or discuss something with specific accounts/relationships and then disregard that account.

 

How can Jesus be missed by so many people? Through humanity and the disgusting lack of love we have for each other, which speaks specifically to the account of Christianity.

 

Is this symbolic of something greater than the current explanation? Maybe, but I can't relate other than you and me and anyone else that shares an experience sitting down and meticulously describing their accounts and deciding if they match. I can tell you right now they don't because my account involves the presence of Christ.

 

Mr. Larry's statement is, IMO, a condemnation of the church, the human church. As little as I like to think about the last verse of this passage, I am putting it out here:

 

Jhn 3:3 In reply Jesus declared, "I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again. [fn]"

 

 

Jhn 3:4 "How can a man be born when he is old?" Nicodemus asked. "Surely he cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb to be born!"

 

 

Jhn 3:5 Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit.

 

 

Jhn 3:6 Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit [fn] gives birth to spirit.

 

 

Jhn 3:7 You should not be surprised at my saying, 'You [fn] must be born again.'

 

 

Jhn 3:8 The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit."

 

 

The bible also says that He won't put more on you than you can bear and says remain in Me. We fail, I fail, in the attempt to be obedient or hear and act accordingly to this Spirit. You yourself talk about how large, how great is/was your account with "it". Do you perceive that you fully account for transmitting "it" to others as you have received? I don't. If you don't think it greater, go push on the nearest wall and see if you can push it down. So there, there is the reason for people missing God's love. It's my fault. I don't say that because God controls me with fear or I am not adequate or the countless other reasons listed for rejection of Christ. I say that out of a responsibility for humanity.

[Deva]

I have thought about it. It's a bad question. You cannot begin to determine what is the Love of Jesus to a group other than those who have considered themselves to have experienced the Love of Jesus.

 

To elaborate, I think it would be better described as a wrong question rather than a "bad" question. I was applying it to myself, of course, when I said I agreed with you, End3. I have never actually experienced the love of Jesus. Maybe others have. I was taught that the fear of God was the beginning of wisdom. I always just had fear. Fear and love do not go together as far as I am concerned.

[Ouroboros]

Fear and love do not go together as far as I am concerned.

I think the Bible even say that: love drives out fear.

[Antlerman]

Is this symbolic of something greater than the current explanation? Maybe, but I can't relate other than you and me and anyone else that shares an experience sitting down and meticulously describing their accounts and deciding if they match. I can tell you right now they don't because my account involves the presence of Christ.

How can you say they are of a different nature? Because I don't say "Christ"? I could, from your point of view - if I were you. But I'm not you, and another would say Brahman, still another some other mythical figure. But they all describe the ineffable. And End.. ineffable means it defies description. From one view I could say I experienced "God the Father", I could also say "Logos" or Christ. I could also say Brahman. God. ONE (which is more appropriate for me actually). It was the apprehension of the Unknowable.

 

As I said before, as NotBlinded as said very well herself, the more you move into it, the symbols began to dissolve into pure Being. I would take anyone encountering the Lord Krishna as equal in value and importance with your encounter with Jesus. All forms, and "Jesus" as well as you, as well as me are forms, enfold into ONE. At that state there are no forms but ALL. There are levels of this awareness. What is different, is the symbols.

 

And that comes exactly full circle to the point of this discussion. There is no legitamate way for the Christian to say we don't understand, have experienced what they describe as "the Love of Jesus", when you look at what that describes. Words are not the experience. Words are signs pointing to something. And we could have a thousand signs all pointing to one thing. That is what I believe. And how we determine that is not by the words, but the Spirit in the Heart. It's learning to hear with that. It setting aside our sad fixations on symbols and signs and gaining "ears to hear" and "eyes to see". It's not through symbols, but Spirit, End.

 

All you verses you quote can easily be understood by me. I can agree with them, as pointers. I could translate them for you if you don't see how I can apply them universally? I'd be happy to.