Guest end3 Posted October 20, 2009 Share Posted October 20, 2009 Got a question that I think belongs to this discussion. Given the scientific principles that we enjoy on some level....more enjoyment for some than others ......how can it be that the force, the "finding it within youself" that AM describes doesn't originate from the exterior? Also, what is the "it"? Define "it" please. Edit: If you then define "it" as not within the natural, then you are defining a "god" that is separate, yet belongs in the group of all the other religions. How can you then condemn any? A special spiritual "god" that is defined by AM alone? ...yet not natural....yet not Christian...yet not Islamic....yet not...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abiyoyo Posted October 20, 2009 Author Share Posted October 20, 2009 Got a question that I think belongs to this discussion. Given the scientific principles that we enjoy on some level....more enjoyment for some than others ......how can it be that the force, the "finding it within youself" that AM describes doesn't originate from the exterior? Also, what is the "it"? Define "it" please. You two typically lose me in translation, but I will take a stab at it It, is the inner essence of you, of me, or anyone that is able to think, reason, process thoughts, as the human mind is able to do. It, can be of itself, free of any dogmatic constraints, or it, can be full of dogmatic constraints. But, It, even within constraints of religion is still ,it, your inner essence. I think the example from Christ's verse above is displaying the connection of inner essence and that 'it' isn't conformed to the world, or any standards, policies, constraints therein, but in and of itself. Normally, one would have to smoke alot of wacky tobaccy to understand the concepts, but there are those special occasions that we may just understand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotBlinded Posted October 20, 2009 Share Posted October 20, 2009 Got a question that I think belongs to this discussion. Given the scientific principles that we enjoy on some level....more enjoyment for some than others ......how can it be that the force, the "finding it within youself" that AM describes doesn't originate from the exterior? Also, what is the "it"? Define "it" please. Edit: If you then define "it" as not within the natural, then you are defining a "god" that is separate, yet belongs in the group of all the other religions. How can you then condemn any? A special spiritual "god" that is defined by AM alone? ...yet not natural....yet not Christian...yet not Islamic....yet not...... I think Abi had a great answer. I'll address the edit part of your post. This spiritual "God" is within the natural, but not so much a part of the whole but being a part of every part. It could also be that it transcends the natural but only to the extent that it exists in order to substain the natural. I'm not saying that very good. It may be that consciousness is a fundamental aspect of reality. If this is so, it is natural and transcendent at the same time, yet one can't exist without the other. I'm pretty sure that Catholics understand God to be imanent in creation, yet somehow forget this. It is the force of persuasion, not an outside force of coersion. It a unity of god and "man" or god and everything. A separate God works by coersion with threats, an indwelling God works by gentle persuasion. If love isn't obtained, there is no threats, only consequences to the person themselves. It's a non-dual perspective that places God in creation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
par4dcourse Posted October 20, 2009 Share Posted October 20, 2009 Normally, one would have to smoke alot of wacky tobaccy to understand the concepts, Nope, I still don't understand. Actually, that was well stated, Abi. .....If only you weren't a xian. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mongo Posted October 20, 2009 Share Posted October 20, 2009 Got a question that I think belongs to this discussion. Given the scientific principles that we enjoy on some level....more enjoyment for some than others ......how can it be that the force, the "finding it within youself" that AM describes doesn't originate from the exterior? Also, what is the "it"? Define "it" please. Edit: If you then define "it" as not within the natural, then you are defining a "god" that is separate, yet belongs in the group of all the other religions. How can you then condemn any? A special spiritual "god" that is defined by AM alone? ...yet not natural....yet not Christian...yet not Islamic....yet not...... Life is lived not imagined. This is why monks (xtian, bhuddist or whatever) mystify the hell out of me. I never searched for god but upon believing that I'd discovered him I accepted god as a way of life. Something to be lived out. This is no small point and separates "my kind" from other kinds. God was to be understood and his precepts applied. The problem is that this approach becomes a two step external influence. Figure out what god wants (attitude wise not whether I should go to college or wear a blue shirt) and then do it. The benefits of being god's child and loving his precepts will flow to the same measure that they are learned and applied. It worked for a while and then up down up down... As I matured I found that other problems did not resolve themselves with more religion. How I got along with people and how I navigated and negotiated life. Religion did not make me more mature. The other thing it didn't do is help me like my natural self. This too is important. When I let go of all the religious crap and the emotional manipulation there was me and what I did about it. Incredibly... that WAS enough. Just me figuring out the natural me and being happy being me. It came from inside, not from god and not from emotional religion. Le me explain about me being "me". I remember living in a small town where my friends were all Pentecostals. As I moved away from religion I expanded my reach. I attended secular concerts and at one I met a guy who I kinda thought was gay but was friendly and seemed fun. I think he hoped I was gay. I remember liking the crowd he hung with and these people are more like the natural me than the Pentecostals. But in the early 80s, straight single men didn't hang out with gay men. The next two times I ran into him and he invited me out, I push him away. I fet bad about that because I felt manipulated by society and religion. I let society push away someone who wanted to be my friend (yes I'm sure he wanted more). The real me rejects this kind of prejudice. Since then I've found gay men in the work place to be the nicest of all coworkers. I genuinely like them unless they are artsy fartsy. So over the course of time and my own maturity, I have reached into myself and decided who I like and accept and not let that be defined externally. It never came from god but from within and I like who I am better now than before. I'm more genuine. Mongo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mriana Posted October 20, 2009 Share Posted October 20, 2009 It, is the inner essence of you, of me, or anyone that is able to think, reason, process thoughts, as the human mind is able to do. It, can be of itself, free of any dogmatic constraints, or it, can be full of dogmatic constraints. But, It, even within constraints of religion is still ,it, your inner essence. I think the example from Christ's verse above is displaying the connection of inner essence and that 'it' isn't conformed to the world, or any standards, policies, constraints therein, but in and of itself. I think Abi had a great answer. I think he did too, except I would not say it is your inner essence. I would be more precise, short and sweet, and just say it is brain chemistry. Then if one wanted to know more about how it contributes to feelings of transcendence, we could go from there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlerman Posted October 20, 2009 Share Posted October 20, 2009 Got a question that I think belongs to this discussion. Given the scientific principles that we enjoy on some level....more enjoyment for some than others ......how can it be that the force, the "finding it within youself" that AM describes doesn't originate from the exterior? In a sense, yes, But in a sense, no. Does your body, come from the exterior? Yes. It comes from the matter of the universe. Does this mean that because you come from matter, that matter is external to you and you are not somehow matter? Or is it both surrounding you, in you, and you in it, and that it is all matter? And so what about spirit? Is it something that is 'out there', or 'in here', or both? To access what is in you, is to also access what is greater than you because you are from that. But if you view it as exterior to you, you will only ever see it removed from you. Outside. That you don't already posses its full nature. You see yourself as lacking possession of it, whereas it's more a matter of apprehending what is there - in you and the entire Universe. Also, what is the "it"? Define "it" please. Spirit. Ground. Source. Edit: If you then define "it" as not within the natural, then you are defining a "god" that is separate, yet belongs in the group of all the other religions. How can you then condemn any? All of what is, is in it and from it. Nature is defined by it. It is the natural, as manifestation. It's not separate from it, but not it. But I am not just my physical body either, and I am not supernatural. All that I am, matter, body, mind, spirit, self is all part of the Universe. It's not just a material universe. What is love? What is truth? Are those material reality? Are those therefore supernatural? A special spiritual "god" that is defined by AM alone? ...yet not natural....yet not Christian...yet not Islamic....yet not...... I don't condemn anyone for how they believe. I only judge their actions and the effect it has on the world. I condemn those who would prevent others from freedom, not who seek it for themselves and others. It's ironic actually, how that the Christian claims Christ opened the door of access to God, and then go and place barriers between them and God. You can never stand face to face with God in this life. Only Jesus could do that and intercedes in your lowly behalf through proper petition and faithfulness to doctrines. You must live your life here without hope of union with God in this life, and must believe for it after your death possibly, but only if you lived your life doing the right thing and following the rules of the church. Frankly, its offensive. And itself a sin against masses of humanity who otherwise might live free in spirit and mind. Whatever truth it has, is muddled and obscured to the masses beneath layers of doctrine called 'orthodoxy'. YoYo is right, it is a sad contradiction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abiyoyo Posted October 21, 2009 Author Share Posted October 21, 2009 A special spiritual "god" that is defined by AM alone? ...yet not natural....yet not Christian...yet not Islamic....yet not...... 20 ¶ And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation: 21 Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you. And,...the Gospel of Thomas I am the light that shines over all things. I am everywhere. From me all came forth, and to me all return. Split a piece of wood, and I am there. Lift a stone, and you will find me there, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 In a sense, yes, But in a sense, no. Does your body, come from the exterior? Yes. It comes from the matter of the universe. Does this mean that because you come from matter, that matter is external to you and you are not somehow matter? Or is it both surrounding you, in you, and you in it, and that it is all matter? It was it, before you were it, no? Yes. And so what about spirit? Is it something that is 'out there', or 'in here', or both? To access what is in you, is to also access what is greater than you because you are from that. But if you view it as exterior to you, you will only ever see it removed from you. Outside. That you don't already posses its full nature. You see yourself as lacking possession of it, whereas it's more a matter of apprehending what is there - in you and the entire Universe. We possess it's full nature, do you think? You had just described it as greater one sentence before. I am not lacking posession, but acknowledging that the fullness is greater than my part. Spirit. Ground. Source. Hard to describe for sure. All of what is, is in it and from it. Nature is defined by it. It is the natural, as manifestation. It's not separate from it, but not it. But I am not just my physical body either, and I am not supernatural. All that I am, matter, body, mind, spirit, self is all part of the Universe. It's not just a material universe. What is love? What is truth? Are those material reality? Are those therefore supernatural? No, you can't define it as spirit, ground, source, and then say it is not supernatural. I don't condemn anyone for how they believe. I only judge their actions and the effect it has on the world. I condemn those who would prevent others from freedom, not who seek it for themselves and others. Were you seeking "it" when "it" came to you? It's ironic actually, how that the Christian claims Christ opened the door of access to God, and then go and place barriers between them and God. You can never stand face to face with God in this life. Only Jesus could do that and intercedes in your lowly behalf through proper petition and faithfulness to doctrines. Sure, you have the option to open the doors, but the one that built the house is greater than the house. You must live your life here without hope of union with God in this life, and must believe for it after your death possibly, but only if you lived your life doing the right thing and following the rules of the church. No, no......as you described, you must choose to live`within the rules, the congruency of the house, the universe, no? Is not the church desparately trying to descibe the house for people? Access is just a the turn of the knob. Frankly, its offensive. And itself a sin against masses of humanity who otherwise might live free in spirit and mind. Whatever truth it has, is muddled and obscured to the masses beneath layers of doctrine called 'orthodoxy'. YoYo is right, it is a sad contradiction. You left out the sin against the Greater... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 I would like to know for everyone's sake here.....I have seen a river of hurt people here K.....tell us the mechanism to finding "it" inside yourself. It supplys freedom. Free these people K......Hans, Chef, Phanta. It's in them, give it to them. edit: you accessed it by finding it yourself....no, that is not what you had reported...it was given to you I recall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shyone Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 I believe that Genesis is the Sumerian creation story with their God added to it and evolved into monotheism. I see it possible that the Bible is not the direct words of God but more the words of writers throughout time describing their God and their heritage. I am amazed that you are willing to admit what to me was obvious when I read the accounts. Apologists have made some really twisted explanations for the "similarity" of the texts. There are tons of similar texts however, and when you read more extensively the available Sumerian and Babylonian literature you see that virtually all of the books of the bible are influenced by those cultures, and in some cases there is direct plagiarism. I had a big problem accepting that if the Sumerian gods were false, and their literature of praise and lamentations and wisdom wound up in the bible that the bible itself was inspired by a real god. It seemed more likely that the myths of the region were incorporated into a newer and more vibrant religion similar to what happened with Christianity, Islam and Mormonism. The prophetic literature is another thing, but not entirely different. Prophecy itself is a belief that was prevalent in ancient cultures, and seers, witches, and other "inspired" people had supernatural gifts - or claimed to have them. Even the bible has some of that crap in it. I can't recall now, but there were some kings that called together a bunch of seers (200?) and it became a pissing contest to see which seers were better. The methods of divining were also ancient from dream interpretation to the use of animal entrails (or bones). So it's all ancient drivel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shyone Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 I don't condemn anyone for how they believe. I only judge their actions and the effect it has on the world. I condemn those who would prevent others from freedom, not who seek it for themselves and others. Were you seeking "it" when "it" came to you? This question hit home. I wasn't seeking "it" (freedom?). It hit me like an unwanted ton of bricks right in the middle of a service. It's like you have all of these pieces of a puzzle - a bit of info here, a bit there, something that happened, and something you saw or read - and then it comes together. The closest thing to it would be the realization that you had been duped, or your wife had been cheating, and the sum total of the evidence is incontrovertible. But that feeling is what really inspires the search. The searching is really an attempt to see if maybe you were wrong. At least it starts out that way, but once you start to question, look for evidence, and reconsider things ln light of the possibility that you were right, the search becomes more like an autopsy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mriana Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 Something tell me, we aren't talking the same "IT" here, which once again shows it is just a human concept. Nothing more, esp when I don't think one has to seek it when all they need do is find something that stimulates their aesthetic sense and gives them the feeling of transcendence. That could be anything that stimulates the any or all of one's senses, such as music, nature, scented candles, or a combination of sensory stimulants. Why search for it when it manages to find you via your senses? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotBlinded Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 I would like to know for everyone's sake here.....I have seen a river of hurt people here K.....tell us the mechanism to finding "it" inside yourself. It supplys freedom. Free these people K......Hans, Chef, Phanta. It's in them, give it to them. edit: you accessed it by finding it yourself....no, that is not what you had reported...it was given to you I recall. Live in the now, not for the future. It can't be found anywhere except right here and right now. The more you search, the more futile your efforts will become. The future doesn't exist. The more your mind searches and yearns for something to happen at a later date, the more you will miss it because your heart and mind isn't here where eternal life is occuring. A few quotes from the Tao De Ching by Lao Tse: Those who know don't talk. Those who talk don't know. Close your mouth, block off your senses, blunt your sharpness, untie your knots, soften your glare, settle your dust. This is the primal identity. Be like the Tao. It can't be approached or withdrawn from, benefited or harmed, honored or brought into disgrace. It gives itself up continually. That is why it endures. Fill your bowl to the brim and it will spill. Keep sharpening your knife and it will blunt. Chase after money and security and your heart will never unclench. Care about people's approval and you will be their prisoner. Do your work, then step back. The only path to serenity. The ancient Masters didn't try to educate the people, but kindly taught them to not-know. When they think that they know the answers, people are difficult to guide. When they know that they don't know, people can find their own way. If you want to learn how to govern, avoid being clever or rich. The simplest pattern is the clearest. Content with an ordinary life, you can show all people the way back to their own true nature. I bolded a part that is in reference to what I spoke about above. Security for Christians and knowing God is a chase that leaves the heart clenched. Abi and AM has posted about what Jesus said about this. Here are a few more from Jesus: The kingdom of heaven is like a treasure buried in a field. One day, a poor man discovered it. Immediately he covered it over, and then joyfully sold everything he possessed, considering this a small sacrifice, in order to purchase the field where the treasure lay hidden. Those who enter the kingdom of heaven do not allow any of their former, earthly concerns to deter them. Like the merchant who searched his entire life for a pearl of great price, they joyfully sacrifice all in order to possess such a priceless treasure – new life, a new way of thinking and being, and hope in this world, and in the world to come. This isn't talking about external wealth and possessions, this is speaking of attachment to these things and without these attachments, you can experience a "new life" and a "new way of thinking and being." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotBlinded Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 I think he did too, except I would not say it is your inner essence. I would be more precise, short and sweet, and just say it is brain chemistry. Then if one wanted to know more about how it contributes to feelings of transcendence, we could go from there. I agree that there would be none of these feelings without brain chemistry, body chemistry, earth chemistry and all of the "intelligence" that interacts in everything in order for there to be any chemistry at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mwc Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 Here are a few more from Jesus: The kingdom of heaven is like a treasure buried in a field. One day, a poor man discovered it. Immediately he covered it over, and then joyfully sold everything he possessed, considering this a small sacrifice, in order to purchase the field where the treasure lay hidden. Those who enter the kingdom of heaven do not allow any of their former, earthly concerns to deter them. Like the merchant who searched his entire life for a pearl of great price, they joyfully sacrifice all in order to possess such a priceless treasure – new life, a new way of thinking and being, and hope in this world, and in the world to come. This isn't talking about external wealth and possessions, this is speaking of attachment to these things and without these attachments, you can experience a "new life" and a "new way of thinking and being." Would you feel these sayings as wise if you added in the possibility that part of the "everything" required was your life? What if these sayings are asking a person to be what we might call a martyr (though I'm hesitant to use that word but it's probably most accurate)? Is the sacrifice of the person in the here and now really such a large price to pay in return for what might be gained? mwc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 Here are a few more from Jesus: The kingdom of heaven is like a treasure buried in a field. One day, a poor man discovered it. Immediately he covered it over, and then joyfully sold everything he possessed, considering this a small sacrifice, in order to purchase the field where the treasure lay hidden. Those who enter the kingdom of heaven do not allow any of their former, earthly concerns to deter them. Like the merchant who searched his entire life for a pearl of great price, they joyfully sacrifice all in order to possess such a priceless treasure – new life, a new way of thinking and being, and hope in this world, and in the world to come. This isn't talking about external wealth and possessions, this is speaking of attachment to these things and without these attachments, you can experience a "new life" and a "new way of thinking and being." Would you feel these sayings as wise if you added in the possibility that part of the "everything" required was your life? What if these sayings are asking a person to be what we might call a martyr (though I'm hesitant to use that word but it's probably most accurate)? Is the sacrifice of the person in the here and now really such a large price to pay in return for what might be gained? mwc Jhn 15:13 Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlerman Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 I think he did too, except I would not say it is your inner essence. I would be more precise, short and sweet, and just say it is brain chemistry. Then if one wanted to know more about how it contributes to feelings of transcendence, we could go from there. I agree that there would be none of these feelings without brain chemistry, body chemistry, earth chemistry and all of the "intelligence" that interacts in everything in order for there to be any chemistry at all. My inner essence is chemicals. Bummer. Seriously though, there is truth there are physical vibrations that we can analyze in connection with music, just as there are chemicals we can identify with love. But neither of those says anything about the essence of music, or love, or my inner self. They would be a dimensionless critique, not an experiential reality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 Chemistry, shemistry. I think my essence is an immaterial pattern of organization. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 Jhn 15:13 Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends. Compelling! Serious question: what makes laying down a life for another a greater love act than every other? Again, I'm interested in people's views. Phanta It's a certainty, and rest, that God exists, and desparately wanting to pass that to others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 Chemistry, shemistry. I think my essence is an immaterial pattern of organization. Your essence is not tangible. Your essence is a system of patterns? Say I’m alive one moment, and then dead the next. What has changed? I don’t believe my “soul” has left my body. I am inclined to think that the organization which is my life has broken down, been destroyed, or otherwise ceased to be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 Yes? At the moment it works for me Phanta. But then I am short on time. I need to go mow a yard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotBlinded Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 One of my favorite quotes is "This is the only moment that is real." (Thich Nhat Hanh, Being Peace). Practicing focus on the present moment has, indeed, brought me much peace and healing, especially regarding my issues with anticipatory anxiety. However, I am unsure of what you mean by the present moment being "eternal". My understanding remains that each moment is finite according to my ability to receive it and perceive it in conscious awareness. In this way, I move from one finite moment to another. (In other words, I am measuring a "present moment" in units according to my ability to perceive each one.) Can you explain, briefly, how you see the present moment as infinite? I think measuring units is really just a way humans have of differentiating between moments. These segments of time aren't real. What I mean about the now being eternal is that as long as time as been, there has only ever been "now". When we have memories of the past or anticipations of the future, all of that is happening right now. The thing is, is that when we do those things, our mind is not in the moment. It's okay to do those things, but to understand that their existence isn't real automatically pulls oneself back to the present moment. It's a balancing act between dualites that keeps life in harmony. As Jesus said, "I Am"...he didn't say "I Was". I have been working on what Pema Chodron calls getting "comfortable with uncertainty". That can have scary overtones. The positive language of it is getting flexible with diversity. I was raised by rigid people in an environment of emotional survivor mentality. I always am inclined toward a rigid, perfect system. They ALWAYS fail me. Any rigid system that that I have tried has failed me. But the other...the groundlessness, the accepting the rug will constantly be pulled from under me...I don't know. I can't let go into it. I'm so afraid I'll "lose it", and then who will save me? What will happen when I "land"? I think I know the answer. The answer is that there is no landing, no rock bottom...just an eternal freefall. I'm interested in others' thoughts. Phanta This eternal freefall and letting go is the true meaning of faith, IMO. One doesn't cling to a rock that is falling right along beside them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotBlinded Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 Here are a few more from Jesus: The kingdom of heaven is like a treasure buried in a field. One day, a poor man discovered it. Immediately he covered it over, and then joyfully sold everything he possessed, considering this a small sacrifice, in order to purchase the field where the treasure lay hidden. Those who enter the kingdom of heaven do not allow any of their former, earthly concerns to deter them. Like the merchant who searched his entire life for a pearl of great price, they joyfully sacrifice all in order to possess such a priceless treasure – new life, a new way of thinking and being, and hope in this world, and in the world to come. This isn't talking about external wealth and possessions, this is speaking of attachment to these things and without these attachments, you can experience a "new life" and a "new way of thinking and being." Would you feel these sayings as wise if you added in the possibility that part of the "everything" required was your life? What if these sayings are asking a person to be what we might call a martyr (though I'm hesitant to use that word but it's probably most accurate)? Is the sacrifice of the person in the here and now really such a large price to pay in return for what might be gained? mwc Eeeeewwwwww.... Really though, what's is bolded above leads me to think that is was meant "for this world" which would require one to be alive. It does also say, "in the world to come" but I don't think that means that you should look for future rewards by giving your life in a selfish manner. I noticed End posted something about laying one's life down for a friend, but I don't think that has anything to do with being rewarded for doing it. I most definitly see how people might understand it that way, but I think that is a bastardization of the meaning, IMO. It would seem to go against the intent of the message which is to have no attachments. And, besides, it makes me sick to think of it that way! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 Jhn 15:13 Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends. Compelling! Serious question: what makes laying down a life for another a greater love act than every other? Again, I'm interested in people's views. Phanta It's a certainty, and rest, that God exists, and desparately wanting to pass that to others. I'm not sure what you're pronoun "It's" is referring to...? I think you're saying that by willingly laying down your life for another person, you are making the ultimate statement of love (and trust) toward God and, in this, modeling that trust for the person you are dying for and anyone else paying attention. Is that right? Phanta Let me rephrase.....God is a certainty, and rest, and joy that one desparately wishes to pass to others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts