Is It Just Me?

[Dhampir]

What's the freakin' point? You utilize terms that we can understand, then when we extrapolate accordingly, you say it is beyond our undestanding.

[duderonomy]

Is it just 'you'? I don't know. Of all the fun I've made of Amy's art, this one was the only one I couldn't (and said so) make fun of. I guess maybe it's all in the eyes of the beholder and all, but after the Jesus...what is He doing to Peter, and Sword in the Black Ass comments (the latter not hers), and sundry other comments by myself about her work, I could find no fault in this one.

I'm not saying that it depicted anything I would choose specifically, but I saw it to be true to her writing, and hence for me, damn good.

 

White Raven, you ask...

 

"Then I die tragically in a car accident.

 

"Will artists hence really need to depict me in their work with a steering wheel imbedded in my sternum?"

 

Really, they might. It depends on will the artists think such a piece to be socially relevent, or perhaps your sternum is of no more value to their view of art, than say, a portrait of me pooping.

 

It all depends on what the 'artist' determines.

 

Don't get all mad at me...I just have to wonder if you, dying in a car wreck, are as art-worthy as Jesus on a cross.

 

[white_raven23]

Don't get all mad at me...I just have to wonder if you, dying in a car wreck, are as art-worthy as Jesus on a cross.

 

 

If I make the accomplishments that I postulated in my post prior to said car wreck...hell YEAH I think I'd be art worthy!

 

They make statues of people who have accomplished less.

[KT45]

but I am not pretty by a long shot.....No I am not one of the beautiful people in the physical sense.

Do you tell yourself this or is it mostly people? I'm sure someone has called you pretty before. Could this be a reason why you are drawn closer to Jesus because he thinks your beautiful no matter what?

[Dhampir]

It is implied that the "union" will be in the form of a Marriage. That's something we can understand. We know what marriage is. Be it metaphor, or literal description, we can extrapolate that Jesus intends to marry something. How come this can't be explained?

[duderonomy]

Jesus intends to marry somebody. Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder.

Read it according to Amy in the book of Revelation.

[KT45]

It's mostly people. You know (don't laugh) like I'm standing next to my sister(especially in her teen years she was drop dead gorgeous,) and a guy looks a her and me and says. "Ewwww, she's(me) your sister?!" I won't say that no one has ever told me I'm pretty. Not very often though.

You ever see those women who are drop dead gorgeous but call themselves ugly and fat. Yeah they piss me off too. No matter how beautiful the world thinks you are or aren't the main person that needs to think they are beautiful is the person themself. Stop saying I'm not beautiful or i'm not pretty. Show a little bit more confidence in yourself. You feel that Jesus thinks your pretty and beautiful so stop saying that you aren't.

 

I know it sounds like I'm giving advice but I'm not. I just angry when people put themselves down.

[Dhampir]

Nnn...no. Sorry. The verse you quoted pretty much (to me at least) states that mariage will pretty much be a non-issue. Okay, so in heaven the bride of christ will be involved in a union that is currently incomprehensible.

 

Terms like Bride and Bridegroom invariably conjur images of marriage, and yet all you can provide regarding this is that by nature of it's being incomprehensible, that said marriage does not stand under any of the criteria for it, rendering the words Bride, Bridegroom and Marriage wholly inadequate at best, and stupid at worst.

[KT45]

[bTW most guys don't see women like that nor do women see guys like that. Appearance is the first thing we notice. That's just human nature. Wouldn't you agree?

For the most part yes. But I've seen enough beautiful people coupled with below average people to say that apperances really aren't everything. Dressing sexy, having a sexy attitude and treating your body well can even make a below average girl go up a few notches beauty wise. You can either accept who you are, or make yourself what you want to be. The mentality must change first.

[AtheistMommy]

 

Well, back to Ephesians 5, "husbands love your wives as Christ loves the church. He loved her and gave Himself for her." If you're a man. I don't know if you are or not, sorry, Christ loves us that way or more than a man loves His wife. A man loves and norishes his wife in many ways and would do just about anything for her. In return the wife loves her husband. The marriage of the soul with Christ has many similarities to earthly marriage.

 

I'm trying here...

 

I just posted another thread about marriage, I just saw this thread. What good is marriage? Couldn't we be united without being married? And when exactly was the whole sex before marriage thing made up?

[Purple]

I don't think of myself as ugly but I am not pretty by a long shot. You're right when you say that beauty is not found by outward appearance. Absolutely! However the reality is that people very much judge by outward appearances and respect beauty. You're not going to see "ugly" people on the covers of our magazines, in the media etc.

 

No I am not one of the beautiful people in the physical sense.

 

I say that for the ones that may not feel attractive, those that have been the target of jokes and ridicule, the outcasts from the popular crowd, the ones that walk down the street and others yell curses and words that hurt. When you look for acceptance and the walls come up and hearts won't open it feels good too know that Someone thinks your beautiful, loves you and accepts you totally and completely.

 

Um I see ugly people on the cover of magazine all the time. Thin to the point of sick is physically, VERY unattractive to me. Some see fashion as simple vainity, a nothing. Not I, I see high fashion as a form of art, one, in my opnion, currently plauged by sameness and these ugly distorted creatures. There are a few exceptions, but very few. My point is, you are not unattractive, you have just accepted someone elses ideal of beauty. If Jesus was real, and he thought you were beautiful, then you would be beautiful, period, no qualification. Maybe you need to look up who the beautiful people are according to your holy book. I guess I am peeved by your double think here. The way the truth and the life, according to you thinks you are beautiful, but you say you are not beautiful cuz you do not meet magazines ideal of beauty. In the long run physical beauty really REALLY doesn't matter, you will age, even with the best plastic surgeons in Beverly Hills eventually all beauty fades.

 

As for appealing to those that are outsiders, well, wouldn't it be better to go to them as you are and say "I am beautiful" unqualified? Also, who is going to love these outcasts? Your Jesus? Sweetheart I've been there, and while there I worked with children, Jesus is only in your imagination. I watched time and again while beautiful, young women, were rejected by "the chosen" tried to cling to Jesus, and just got more and more sad and isolated. People indeed need to be loved, and they need to be touched, AmyMarie, your imaginary friend cannot hug you, or anyone, not really. Here's the thing though, I am not just critsising you, you believe you have something to share, right? Well, while here, and while you've got my attention, why not learn how to share what you got in a way you will at least not be met with hostility?

 

First lesson, believe what you believe. The God that created the universe says you are beautiful, stop saying you are not, if you don't trust his opnion, why should your audience? A lot of people here think my lifestyle is wrong, not the Christians, the exChristians and others, not all, but some. I do not get met with hostility. First they are not hostile with me, cuz I'm not telling anyone to be like I am or they are wrong. Second though, it's hard to be negitive to a person who is as positive about something as I am about my Erus. I believe what I believe. Would Jesus agree that you are not pretty? Would Jesus think someone just like you doesn't belong on the cover of a magazine? Would Jesus say you are not one of the beautiful people? No? Are you sure? See, you don't seem sure, you seem to think Jesus is just being nice when he says that, but in reality, you are not pretty, not by a long shot. Or maybe, and this is the cincher, you don't really believe all this Jesus stuff, you are only clinging to it because it makes you feel better, but when someone comes along and says "ppfftthhh AmyMarie you aren't pretty, not by a long shot" all this Jesus says I am a Princess goes out the window. Since you cannot trust Jesus, why should I? Since you do not really believe what you want me to believe why should I?

 

I think I'll stick with my Erus, TYVM. I am beautiful, I am pretty, my face should be on every magazine cover there is. I am loved, for real, by real people who hug me, and help me, people who are actaully here. No, they are not perfect, I do not expect them to be, I wouldn't want them to be. that's not real. When they make a mistake, it gives me a chance to love them, help them, hug them, and that feels good.

 

On a side note, I find it abbhorent how Christianity purposefully tries to evangelise people while they are down, and weak. Bleh, I got verbose again.

[Unknowing1]

I'm going to add my two cents to this.

 

Amy Marie, I don't care what anyone looks like on the outside, I only care about what is on the inside. How a person treats other living things makes me decide whether they are beautiful or not. Some of the most physically beautiful people in the world can also be some of the meanest.

 

I too had a sister who was quite pretty and was quite popular when we were growning up but she could also be mean spirited. She only thought about herself. When I was younger I have to admit I was a bit jealous but what I realized was that the clique she belonged too had no substance. They didn't care about real issues, they only worried about how pretty and popular they were.

 

My sister recently told me that she was jealous of me when we were growning up. Why because I didn't let superficial things bother me, that I put others first instead of myself. That I got involved in causes that I believed in and tried to make a difference for others. Here was someone who when I was younger because of her looks and popularity telling me that she was jealous of me. She lost part of her life because of her ways and is just now starting to realize it was all for naught. As she is aging she is losing her beauty and she is losing those so called friends. Not a nice way to end up.

 

While you may say you aren't beautiful outside from what I have seen by what you have stated in your posts and your paintings, you are beautiful. You care about your beliefs and while the majority of us here don't share your beliefs you have never come across as mean spirited when debating your beliefs.

 

I would much rather attract someone to me based on my inner beauty and not my outer beauty because someone who puts more emphasis on outer beauty has more potential to be a fake person and not truly someone of substance.

[Purple]

Is it just 'you'? I don't know. Of all the fun I've made of Amy's art, this one was the only one I couldn't (and said so) make fun of. I guess maybe it's all in the eyes of the beholder and all, but after the Jesus...what is He doing to Peter, and Sword in the Black Ass comments (the latter not hers), and sundry other comments by myself about her work, I could find no fault in this one.

I'm not saying that it depicted anything I would choose specifically, but I saw it to be true to her writing, and hence for me, damn good.

 

I wasn't making fun of it. The art work itself is fine, I was questioning the message of it.

[♦ ficino ♦]

 

 

Legion, His love is unconditional. There would be no chance of salvation if it wasn't so. Just because someone rejects His free gift and perishes, doesn't mean He ceases loving them.

 

 

"Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated." St. Paul quotes this from Malachi to describe God's attitude toward Jews, whom He is damning because they didn't meet his conditions. Combine that with other stuff in Romans and you see their failure to meet his conditions was itself predestined by God. He also quotes this from Exodus, the book where God hardens Pharaoh's heart (I know sometimes it says Pharaoh hardened his heart): "I will have mercy on whomever I have mercy, and I will pity whomever I pity." Paul quotes this about Pharaoh: "for this I raised you up, that I may display my power in you, and so that my name may be announced in all the earth." Just like when Tony Soprano punches out some unsuspecting underling to show his power to his capos.

 

No one rejects God's high-priced gift (not a free gift) without God having predestined that rejection. The love is not unconditional, nor is it universal - God only loves the elect, He hates those who are not the elect (see the word "I hated" that Paul thinks it worthwhile to repeat).

 

Scott, this picture doesn't jive with what you understand of God? I am convinced that's because we all import our intuitive, kindly human impulses into our reading of scripture. Read it without your genuine moral preconceptions and you see it for the hugely flawed, human document that it is. Its God is a humanified oriental potentate.

[J.S.]

God does not only love the elect. If that were the case God wouldn't have loved the world so much that He wanted to make a plan of redemption for us.

[mwc]

mwc, I can't even express how much I disagree with that. I will end this here, unless you seriously want to discuss that here or in another thread.

Well, if you seriously wanted to discuss it I feel that you would have. My reading is accurate and based entirely in an honest reading of the text. The ball is in your court if you feel that you are up to actually expressing, honestly, any errors I may have made.

 

mwc

[Antlerman]

I'm just curious Scott if you were to see the image above where the woman's arms were not down at her sides, but were clearly up holding his face at the same time, along with the wounds in the hand no longer bleeding, but were a faint distant scar, what would that image say to you? I'm asking this quite sincerely.

 

As far as becoming a minister to be able to put things into words, that really has more to do with education. With education comes a greater vocabulary. The greater your vocabulary, the more you are able to conceptualize, IMO. I am all for that! By all means continue to expose yourself to ideas.

 

That may look like something sexual then. I believe it's because we live in a sex saturated world, and many times we can't see pure love, like Jesus', because this world has so much sex in it {Not that sex is bad if it's between a married couple}.

 

I didn't mean that I was going to become a Minister to put things into words. I mean if I am going to become a Minister, I better learn how to put things into words to get the message across.

That’s an interesting response. It actually surprised me a little. Touching the face, if it is going to be sexual, would be so if it were one or two people touching the face. For myself I didn’t see any sexual touching of the face in the painting from the male. What I saw was affection and love, but to me it conveyed very much a submissive feminine response to the stronger male. Her hands being down are a visual queue of giving away power to the other, submitting to his control.

 

When I imagined a mutual touch, it to me would represent two individuals of equal power in a relationship. When the woman is to represent the Bride of Christ, to me I would envision that relationship to be one of full and complete unity, an indivisible “one body”, as the Bible puts it. The marriage would be just that, marrying of two into one, not one submitting to another’s control of them.

 

I guess if this were a representation of the church on earth, it might be more representative in my mind of the idea of the body of believers being in willing submission to the authority of their deity, as a gentle shepherd leading his sheep, but a marriage is something beyond this. In the Bible the marriage takes place after this life, in which case I had always envisioned it being a relationship of full empowerment and equality.

 

Rather than seeing a new world, a new relationship in this portrait, I see a continuation of the philosophy of a patriarchal society into heaven. A patriarchal mindset doesn’t represent a full a complete marriage of individuals where each person is allowed to be fully self-realized within the relationship. Any individual being over the other in a relationship is not a marriage of two into one, and consequently cannot translate into true, mutual love.

[Japedo]

 

That may look like something sexual then. I believe it's because we live in a sex saturated world, and many times we can't see pure love, like Jesus', because this world has so much sex in it {Not that sex is bad if it's between a married couple}.

 

 

 

 

Which leads me to ask, did the Holy ghost marry Mary before he planted his seed in her? If not I guess even he broke his own rule.

[Asimov]

God does not only love the elect. If that were the case God wouldn't have loved the world so much that He wanted to make a plan of redemption for us.

 

Why didn't he love the world so much that he created things where we wouldn't need redemption?

 

Which leads me to ask, did the Holy ghost marry Mary before he planted his seed in her? If not I guess even he broke his own rule.

 

That would kind of negate the whole virgin birth thing, Japedo....I don't think they had sex.

[white_raven23]

Which leads me to ask, did the Holy ghost marry Mary before he planted his seed in her? If not I guess even he broke his own rule.

 

That would kind of negate the whole virgin birth thing, Japedo....I don't think they had sex.

 

Biblegod still endangers Mary's life within the custom of the culture of the society she was a part of. She was unmarried, and god made her pregnant.

 

Of what value is the virginity supposed to be anyway? Does biblegod really need to behave like a stage magician to bring his son into the world? Would the value of the words attributed to Jesus be less valuable if his mother was an alcoholic prostitute?

 

"Gee Jesus, that 'meek shall inherit the earth' thing really sounds great, but it's not worth squat since your mom is working the lower east side of Jerusalem."

[Japedo]

 

 

Which leads me to ask, did the Holy ghost marry Mary before he planted his seed in her? If not I guess even he broke his own rule.

 

That would kind of negate the whole virgin birth thing, Japedo....I don't think they had sex.

 

Well his seed ( sperm ) had to end up there somehow did it not? Didn't it say the Holy ghost came to her or some such? Do Christian claim that Christ only came out of Mary's egg.. and there was no sperm? Isn't the father of Christ suppose to be god himself? (Which if that was the case in Luke they trace back his heritage to the house of David thru his worldly father.. Joseph which is another contradiction in and of itself)

 

OR...

 

Was Christ in vitro? Mary's really not the mother the Christ was placed in her womb by a spirit as is? Was Christ made out of dust like Adam? Seriously.. isn't this along the same lines as debating if Rudolph's nose is a really a light bulb or some natural phenomenon?

 

If the Christians are going to argue that sex is only allowed during marriage, in turn.. sex is a means to pro-create only (So say's a large majority of Xtin doctrine) , They still have a procreation problem with out marriage that is at the core of their belief system. I don't care if they had 'sex', the point is procreation happened outside of marriage, which is against their doctrine, which what they feel gives them the right to bash anyone not in their narrow view rights to parent. Gays, Single parents, in Vitro pregnancy's and so forth. By their own standards Christ is a bastard child, and there is no fancy footwork to dance around that fact, God broke his own standard again, yet it goes largely ignored or excused by the masses.

[NotBlinded]

Could someone explain to me how the terms Bride and Bridegroom, even used metaphorically, have ANY application except in the romantic sense? Additionally, how it such imagery not at least partially homoerotic?

Here is a little something I found:

 

But no image comes across as strongly here as that of bridegroom/bride, which has been prominent also in previous Vatican writings on women. This metaphor is what theologians, philosophers and literary critics would call a “ruling” metaphor. It is the primary image that John Paul II uses for God and humanity, Christ and the church, men and women. There is much to be said in favor of this metaphor: it is quite ancient, going back to a time even before the Hebrew prophets, who drew upon neighboring Canaanite traditions and used it to describe the relationship between God and Israel. It was used extensively by St. Paul, and it was a favorite of medieval monks, who described their relationship to God in marital terms. It conveys intimacy as well as physical desire and delight in marriage. It is the stuff of poetry.

 

But as the philosopher Paul Ricoeur has written, all metaphors have both an “is” and an “is not.” And although the Vatican argues that the terms bridegroom and bride “are much more than simple metaphors,” it is in fact the Vatican that has oversimplified the interpretation of this metaphor to focus only on its gendered aspects. Metaphors are by their very nature filled with multiple meanings, but when one meaning dominates all others, the metaphor becomes nothing but an equation. This, I think, is what has happened to the metaphor of bridegroom and bride.

 

As has been traditional in all documents on women and/or sexuality, the Vatican focuses on the Genesis creation stories and shows how relationships are central to human existence. Human beings “are made for each other,” and although sin has “wounded” this relationship, the covenant between God and humanity offers the promise of healing. So far, so good. Then, in the biblical stories, we see the various ways that God has loved [God’s] people: “God makes himself known as the bridegroom who loves Israel his bride” (No. 9). In the New Testament, Mary “sums up and transfigures the condition of Israel/bride,” and Jesus “assumes in his person all that the Old Testament symbolism had applied to the love of God for his people, described as the love of the bridegroom for his bride” (No. 10).

 

It is helpful to look at how the document develops these images. Note that God is never described as bride, and women are never described as bridegroom. Men, on the other hand, are human, and as human in relation to God, can assume the role of bride in relation to God the bridegroom, as well as the role of bridegroom (as priests) in relation to the (female) church.

 

Why would it be so inappropriate to call God a “bride,” in metaphorical terms? One reason is the historical association of the bride of God with the ancient Canaanite goddesses. Both the Jewish and the Christian traditions have been uncomfortable with such an association, since it links sexuality rather too closely with God, a point Sallie McFague made some years ago in her book Models of God. Another reason would be the habits of our religious and liturgical language: God as “She” still does not ring familiar for most of us. Language is very slow to change, perhaps even slower than ideas.

 

But there is another reason for the Vatican’s use of this language for God, and it is found in the way that the document speaks of God, Christ and humanity. In this language, the divine essence is understood to be essentially and fundamentally male. Christ is male because he represents the love of God for his people. And Mary’s femaleness is representative of humanity. The logical conclusion to draw is that maleness is closer to the divine than femaleness is.

 

Now, to say that God has a spousal relationship with humanity is to draw on a rich panoply of images. Such images are found throughout the tradition, and they signal God’s tender love and care for humanity, God’s closeness with humanity, God’s willingness to give all for humanity, God’s sheer delight in humanity. They also convey God’s frustration and sometimes even anger with humanity. It is wonderful that we can draw on such images, taken from our experiences of marriage and other relationships.

 

Yet we know that these are metaphors, and metaphors are meant to be taken seriously, but not literally, as Reinhold Niebuhr once said about the myths of the Bible. If God’s relation to us is seen as spousal, we know there is an “is” and an “is not” implicit in the use of the term. But the Vatican’s way of using the term bridegroom for both God and Jesus Christ seems to say that female language could never be used of God, and that Christ’s maleness is essential to his saving work. If this is so, then men are more in the image of God than are women. Elizabeth Johnson, C.S.J., warns of this “leakage” of Christ’s humanity into his divinity: “maleness appears to be of the essence of the God made known in Jesus” (She Who Is, p. 152).

 

But we know this is not so. God is neither male nor female. Indeed, as Thomas Aquinas writes, all that we really and truly can say about God is what God is not. Our language for God is analogical, based on our own experience and then applied to God. There is a vast difference between human experience and God. It is true that the biblical and theological names for God have been primarily male. But this is not because we know God is male; it is because our language shapes and reflects our thought, which is still rooted in a male-dominated world. The movement for women’s equality in society and the church has emphasized that only in recent years have women gained voices in society and in theology, and it has challenged the idea that men rule women because God is “male.”

From here: http://www.americamagazine.org/gettext.cfm...amp;issueID=502

[♦ ficino ♦]

God does not only love the elect. If that were the case God wouldn't have loved the world so much that He wanted to make a plan of redemption for us.

 

Scott, you have not addressed what Paul says in Romans, Ephesians and elsewhere - as in the passages I referred to above. There is much range of meaning in vague words like "world," as there is even in "love." I can admit that God loved Esau in a certain way, insofar as Esau was a creature and any creature has at least the good of its existence. But the text says God hated Esau and now rejects Israel as part of a predestined plan. The very plan of redemption you refer to is not operative toward those who are predestined to hell, except in that their punishment reveals God's glory the way the plagues upon innocent Egyptians revealed God's glory in Exodus.

 

I think you want God to be moral because you have decent moral sensibilities. There is much about the character "God" in the texts that make up the Bible that you're glossing over.

[NotBlinded]

That’s an interesting response. It actually surprised me a little. Touching the face, if it is going to be sexual, would be so if it were one or two people touching the face. For myself I didn’t see any sexual touching of the face in the painting from the male. What I saw was affection and love, but to me it conveyed very much a submissive feminine response to the stronger male. Her hands being down are a visual queue of giving away power to the other, submitting to his control.

 

When I imagined a mutual touch, it to me would represent two individuals of equal power in a relationship. When the woman is to represent the Bride of Christ, to me I would envision that relationship to be one of full and complete unity, an indivisible “one body”, as the Bible puts it. The marriage would be just that, marrying of two into one, not one submitting to another’s control of them.

 

I guess if this were a representation of the church on earth, it might be more representative in my mind of the idea of the body of believers being in willing submission to the authority of their deity, as a gentle shepherd leading his sheep, but a marriage is something beyond this. In the Bible the marriage takes place after this life, in which case I had always envisioned it being a relationship of full empowerment and equality.

 

Rather than seeing a new world, a new relationship in this portrait, I see a continuation of the philosophy of a patriarchal society into heaven. A patriarchal mindset doesn’t represent a full a complete marriage of individuals where each person is allowed to be fully self-realized within the relationship. Any individual being over the other in a relationship is not a marriage of two into one, and consequently cannot translate into true, mutual love.

Antlerman, you continue to amaze me with your insights.

 

Going back to the top part of what you said...could you imagine what the prime minister of Germany would do if Bush touched her face like that? We saw what happened when he rubbed her shoulders! I don't want to turn this into a political sidetrack...I just wanted to expand on what you said.

 

Do you know what is missing in the image below (rhetorical...I know you do)? That representation of submission. I don't want to be deragatory to Amy because her Art reprensents the image she needs at this time in her life. This is the image that many people need. They need the strong, parental figure that can love them for who they are no matter what the world thinks about them. It is a security measure that their mind needs in order to cope. There are many times that I would just love to run to my mother to protect me and support me when I need her. I can't do that because she has passed away. But, I can't allow myself to be comforted by something that doesn't interact with me. That is missing the whole point of interaction, IMO.

 

Maybe some evolutionary feature has been disabled in myself that allows me to find comfort in something unknown and unseen and with many others. The comfort whether real or imagined is the same to the mind. It doesn't know the difference.

 

But, holding on to an idea that someone or something is needed to support us is crippling and will never allow us to stand on our own. Sure, it's nice to have someone supporting us, but it isn't necessary. A union between two individuals that regard their other part as an equal is much more rewarding for both people.

[Alice]

AmyMarie,

 

all this reminds me of some questions I have posed many times when talking to people who are still christians about the power of 'stories'.

 

In many ways I can relate to the way you relate to and 'experience' your relationship with Jesus. For many years one of my most 'powerful experiences' was coming to accept myself and feel lovable despite a 'past' that I felt deeply ashamed of. Believing that Jesus 'loved, accepted and forgave' me was a very important feature in this process (and for the time being I'll leave out reference to the fact that my 'shame' was proabably the result of another related powerful story)

 

I have had what I termed my 'mary magdalene moment'.

 

Stories can be such powerful tools. Not always for the good. They speak straight into our emotions. Our emotional responses are real - even when the stories are made up.

 

I tell you this because I want you to know that I truly understand how real the relationship you believe you have with Jesus feels. I've really been there.

 

Its a made up story.