My Fundy Ex-Wife

[Legion]

We probably won't be hearing from Abi for a while. FYI.

Why Phanta?

[Mriana]

We probably won't be hearing from Abi for a while. FYI.

Why Phanta?

 

Personal issues. Rough stuff. If anyone's inclined to send him support, I'm sure he'd appreciate it when he finds his way back on-line.

 

P

 

Bummer. I know the feeling all too well. And just when I was starting to like him. I hope he can return soon.

[NotBlinded]

We probably won't be hearing from Abi for a while. FYI.

Why Phanta?

 

Personal issues. Rough stuff. If anyone's inclined to send him support, I'm sure he'd appreciate it when he finds his way back on-line.

 

P

 

Bummer. I know the feeling all too well. And just when I was starting to like him. I hope he can return soon.

That is a bummer indeed. I hope it works out well for him.

[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!

Well, you quoted two parables, not from any translation I'm aware of (though I did manage to spot a single website that had them) but it's the next parable that is interesting (I'll post the three of them together just to show what my G.Matthew has for the other two):

 

13:44."The kingdom of heaven is like treasure hidden in a field, which a man found and covered up; then in his joy he goes and sells all that he has and buys that field

 

 

45 "Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a merchant in search of fine pearls, 46 who, on finding one pearl of great value, went and sold all that he had and bought it.

 

47 "Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a net which was thrown into the sea and gathered fish of every kind; 48 when it was full, men drew it ashore and sat down and sorted the good into vessels but threw away the bad. 49 So it will be at the close of the age. The angels will come out and separate the evil from the righteous, 50 and throw them into the furnace of fire; there men will weep and gnash their teeth.

]/quote]

The two parables seem to differ a bit from what you posted and "jesus" seems to hit the rails with his reckoning there in the third one. It's not like the first parable is all that ethical anyhow.

 

Though it's kind of strange how the "kingdom of heaven" is really different things in the above parables. Think about it.

 

In the first the KoH is "like treasure hidden in a field."

In the next the KoH is "like a merchant in search of fine pearls."

In the last the KoH is "like a net which was thrown into the sea and gathered fish of every kind."

 

In two of the three parables it is the thing that is acquiring but in the first it is the thing to be acquired.

 

In the first the man sells all and buys the field to gain the treasure (the KoH).

In the next the merchant (the KoH) sells all to acquire the perl.

In the last the net (the KoH) is something to be sorted through.

 

So what IS the KoH?

 

Looking through G.Matthew it seems someone was a little confused on exactly what it was.

 

But they can be compared to the parallel versions in G.Thomas:

109) Jesus said, "The Kingdom is like a man who had a [hidden] treasure in his field without knowing it. And [after] he died, he left it to his son. The son did not know (about the treasure). He inherited the field and sold [it]. And the one who bought it went plowing and found the treasure. He began to lend money at interest to whomever he wished."

 

76) Jesus said, "The kingdom of the Father is like a merchant who had a consignment of merchandise and who discovered a pearl. That merchant was shrewd. He sold the merchandise and bought the pearl alone for himself. You too, seek his unfailing and enduring treasure where no moth comes near to devour and no worm destroys."

 

8) And He said, "The Kingdom is like a wise fisherman who cast his net into the sea and drew it up from the sea full of small fish. Among them the wise fisherman found a fine large fish. He threw all the small fish back into the sea and chose the large fish without difficulty. Whoever has ears to hear, let him hear."

Who knows if these two intended the parables to relate to one another but appear to be nonetheless. In the case of these parables it appears that the "kingdom" is at least like a person in each case (I do find it odd that "jesus" would encourage lending money at interest). The stories are all basically about knowing the true value of a given item and doing what is necessary to gain that item.

 

But what if the price is death? There's this bit later on in G.Matthew:

16:24 Then Jesus told his disciples, "If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me

 

25 For whoever would save his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it. 26 For what will it profit a man, if he gains the whole world and forfeits his life? Or what shall a man give in return for his life? 27 For the Son of man is to come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will repay every man for what he has done. 28 Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom."

And, of course, he says similar in G.Mark 8, G.Luke 9 and G.John 12. The highlighted part is the key. If you lose your life you'll actually "find" life. And you'll get paid back (he'll gladly pay you Tuesday for a life today). So power and/or riches in this world are no good. Just trade-up. Besides, not everyone will have to "taste death" he even says so...but it's on the table.

 

mwc

[NotBlinded]

But what if the price is death? There's this bit later on in G.Matthew:

16:24 Then Jesus told his disciples, "If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me

 

25 For whoever would save his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it. 26 For what will it profit a man, if he gains the whole world and forfeits his life? Or what shall a man give in return for his life? 27 For the Son of man is to come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will repay every man for what he has done. 28 Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom."

And, of course, he says similar in G.Mark 8, G.Luke 9 and G.John 12. The highlighted part is the key. If you lose your life you'll actually "find" life. And you'll get paid back (he'll gladly pay you Tuesday for a life today). So power and/or riches in this world are no good. Just trade-up. Besides, not everyone will have to "taste death" he even says so...but it's on the table.

 

mwc

I just grabbed those verses from "The Words" site. I didn't know where they were in the bible so it's easier for me to just look through what was attributed to Jesus saying.

 

I most definitely see what you are saying, and you say it well (as always), but if I were to take that bolded part and contrast it against the next verse (26) and read it as literally giving up one's life, it wouldn't make sense to me. Even 24 says to "follow him". It appears that there is a mixture of physical death and spiritual death being talked about at the same time because of the afterlife beliefs and because of this, it's hard to discern where a distinction is being made. I don't think it's a trade up to another life elsewhere, I think it's more of an emptying of worldy riches to gain spiritual riches. There is definately a mixing of metaphors with concrete images.

 

I don't take anything from the bible that deals with the afterlife. Jesus believed it, I'm sure, but he also believed that the KoH could be experienced in real life. Maybe the Kindom of Heaven and the Kingom of God are different?

 

I'm more the philosophical type in trying to understand the way of living life in it's fullest. The afterlife? Eehh, just a passing thought once in awhile. I cherry pick from the Bible what deals with living here and now and let the afterlife, heaven and hell, thing just be there like a thorn on a rose bush.

[Guest end3]

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!

Well, you quoted two parables, not from any translation I'm aware of (though I did manage to spot a single website that had them) but it's the next parable that is interesting (I'll post the three of them together just to show what my G.Matthew has for the other two):

 

13:44."The kingdom of heaven is like treasure hidden in a field, which a man found and covered up; then in his joy he goes and sells all that he has and buys that field

 

 

45 "Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a merchant in search of fine pearls, 46 who, on finding one pearl of great value, went and sold all that he had and bought it.

 

47 "Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a net which was thrown into the sea and gathered fish of every kind; 48 when it was full, men drew it ashore and sat down and sorted the good into vessels but threw away the bad. 49 So it will be at the close of the age. The angels will come out and separate the evil from the righteous, 50 and throw them into the furnace of fire; there men will weep and gnash their teeth.

]/quote]

The two parables seem to differ a bit from what you posted and "jesus" seems to hit the rails with his reckoning there in the third one. It's not like the first parable is all that ethical anyhow.

 

Though it's kind of strange how the "kingdom of heaven" is really different things in the above parables. Think about it.

 

In the first the KoH is "like treasure hidden in a field."

In the next the KoH is "like a merchant in search of fine pearls."

In the last the KoH is "like a net which was thrown into the sea and gathered fish of every kind."

 

In two of the three parables it is the thing that is acquiring but in the first it is the thing to be acquired.

 

In the first the man sells all and buys the field to gain the treasure (the KoH).

In the next the merchant (the KoH) sells all to acquire the perl.

In the last the net (the KoH) is something to be sorted through.

 

So what IS the KoH?

 

Looking through G.Matthew it seems someone was a little confused on exactly what it was.

 

But they can be compared to the parallel versions in G.Thomas:

109) Jesus said, "The Kingdom is like a man who had a [hidden] treasure in his field without knowing it. And [after] he died, he left it to his son. The son did not know (about the treasure). He inherited the field and sold [it]. And the one who bought it went plowing and found the treasure. He began to lend money at interest to whomever he wished."

 

76) Jesus said, "The kingdom of the Father is like a merchant who had a consignment of merchandise and who discovered a pearl. That merchant was shrewd. He sold the merchandise and bought the pearl alone for himself. You too, seek his unfailing and enduring treasure where no moth comes near to devour and no worm destroys."

 

8) And He said, "The Kingdom is like a wise fisherman who cast his net into the sea and drew it up from the sea full of small fish. Among them the wise fisherman found a fine large fish. He threw all the small fish back into the sea and chose the large fish without difficulty. Whoever has ears to hear, let him hear."

Who knows if these two intended the parables to relate to one another but appear to be nonetheless. In the case of these parables it appears that the "kingdom" is at least like a person in each case (I do find it odd that "jesus" would encourage lending money at interest). The stories are all basically about knowing the true value of a given item and doing what is necessary to gain that item.

 

But what if the price is death? There's this bit later on in G.Matthew:

16:24 Then Jesus told his disciples, "If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me

 

25 For whoever would save his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it. 26 For what will it profit a man, if he gains the whole world and forfeits his life? Or what shall a man give in return for his life? 27 For the Son of man is to come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will repay every man for what he has done. 28 Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom."

And, of course, he says similar in G.Mark 8, G.Luke 9 and G.John 12. The highlighted part is the key. If you lose your life you'll actually "find" life. And you'll get paid back (he'll gladly pay you Tuesday for a life today). So power and/or riches in this world are no good. Just trade-up. Besides, not everyone will have to "taste death" he even says so...but it's on the table.

 

mwc

 

with due respect, I see it as the 1) treasure, 2) pearl, 3) the good fish

 

thoughts?

[Antlerman]

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?

I apologize for my absence from this thread. I'm busy with my work trying to replace failing pieces of critical systems creating potential high-dollar crisis's in an IT environment the last days, migrating their function to a new infrastructure I've been designing for deployment over the last several months. I have been reading this thread however in my spare moments. I've been pondering this fair observation above and feel a need to speak to it.

 

I understand very well what you are talking about. I am a lover of music, as anyone here well knows. I find deep spiritual connections through music, both in the listening and in the creating of it as a composer. All the above, the scents of incense, the ambiance of candles, the purity of music, the embrace of the breeze on the skin, the sounds of the world, etc. As I write at the moment I am drinking a nice red wine, my stereo is playing a CD of a local artist whose voice and guitar are an expression of an art that is his to say. I find great connection to the world these ways.

 

That said, one comment to something you said. You said, "I don't think one has to seek it when all they need do is find something that stimulates their aesthetic sense." I hear you saying in this that 'all they need do is find something," but what is that, if not seeking? We do want to seek something, find something, to bring that sense to us, no? And what is that 'sense', but experience? You refer to that "IT", which I mentioned that others responded to, and refer to it as "just a human concept. Nothing more..".

 

I can without any reservations say it is no mere theoretical, conceptual thing. It is experiential. As music, yet not music. As poetry, yet not poetry. "IT" is what poetry and music come from. Poetry, music, the aesthetic of the world into the soul, and from the soul, are beautiful expressions, existentially, not theoretically or conceptually, of 'It". It is Source.

 

As someone who identifies as an aesthetic in the bridging the natural world, the individual, and the community of others, I can say with confidence that for all its vision and embrace, the aesthetic is the expression of the Heart that transcends it. Beauty is expression of It. It is not simply conceptual, but the experience of the Source of the aesthetic.

 

 

If time permits, I'd like to respond to some other posts here, but I can't promise that. It's no offense to those who have addressed me. It's just timing. BTW, I hope YoYo is OK. I respect his heart.

[Mriana]

Yes, but since whatever it is that gives us that feeling generally finds us at an early age, what is it we need to seek? It wasn't like you went looking for music. Music was there at birth and even before, because your parent surely listened to music long before they gave birth to you.

[Antlerman]

Yes, but since whatever it is that gives us that feeling generally finds us at an early age, what is it we need to seek? It wasn't like you went looking for music. Music was there at birth and even before, because your parent surely listened to music long before they gave birth to you.

The words that comes to mind are participation, development, depth. It is true that music was there, and we found it without looking for it. But it also true that once it was discovered, we began to seek it out, as I well suspect most are doing when they try to find a piece of music that brings inspiration to them. At any given time, you will say "I need to listen to some music." That is on one level seeking it.

 

The other level is to explore the depths of it more fully. Not just as a passive listener, but an active participant within it. As a participant, you explore its interior - not just the mechanics of it. And within that interior, the experiential world, the depths that are found and exposed to you adds to your overall development of your person; your perception, your consciousness, your awareness, your sense of self. You seek that out because it gives you something. You don't just seek for music, you seek for more depths in music. And as you do that, what you hear in music, what you experience in music grows and deepens and affects your overall person.

 

I should make a distinction however using the analogy of music that there is music as art and music as entertainment. I'm speaking more the art side of things, the existentially expressive, even though as a social form it also contains depths.

 

So in exploring the inner dimensions of music, what it evokes from within and how that is understood internally, its that knowledge of 'self' that is revealed that we seek, myself specifically am drawn to seek, as an exploration into the nature of reality inside. That is a process of development, of growth, that deepens and strengthens the 'spirit'. It's not mere passive entertainment, some emotional distraction, but a taking of oneself inside, and though the inside to the outside.

 

And it's that outside and inside we seek. What I say is that music is not just something there, but something that comes from something, from everything even, and if you pursue the nature of it inside, you will eventually come to its Source. And in apprehending the depth of it, you become more part of it and it of you.

 

A note on the idea of development. Part of the nature of the universe as I see it is that we are drawn to move upwards, towards higher levels and greater depth. Theorists call this an Omega point, that one level pushes upward to, and in self-transformation we move to a new level, then upward to the next level, and up and up to infinity it seems. So to say we aren't drawn to seek transformation, is to practically say we have ceased in our desire to grow. And that leads to a breakdown and collapse downward following the path that we came up from - in other words death.

 

As long as we live, we continue to seek growth. And point in case that there is more than the body, more than the material, after a certain age our bodies are no longer drawn to higher levels, yet our mind through our spirit is. That Omega point must be something not the physical for that to continue moving upwards, once the body has begun falling back on itself. What is that? What is that Omega point?

[Mriana]

Humm... I can see what you are saying, but I think it is also true that some of us are more susceptible to these feelings. While not as strong as being in a liturgical service, I can basically trigger these feelings on a whim, if I want. No, I don't have epilepsy or alike. I've just always been susceptible to feelings of the aesthetic. I don't go anywhere without my iPod and I can go for a walk while listening to my chosen music, view the world around me and I can suddenly have that numinous feeling. I might not always be striving for it, but none the less it happens. So, I don't necessarily have to consciously do anything special to suddenly feel it. It just happens.

 

Music that does it to me most often is Native American music. I don't really have to make any conscious effort to get that feeling when I listen to it. I just suddenly feel one with nature, clear up and including to the point, that if I wanted to (and stupid enough to) do so, I could pet a wolf in total harmony with it. I'm not that stupid though, even when I'm in the moment. Although my son has. It was a "domesticated" wolf pup, that was almost a year old. He petted it and it was an overwhelming awesome experience for him.

 

BTW, exploring the inner dimensions of music takes away from the experience. You don't do that and expect that feeling- Or that is, I don't. You just let it happen, when it happens, if it happens. The feeling comes to you when it comes to you. You can't force it to happen. Sometimes getting a hug from a special person, for whatever reason, gives a sense of transcendence too. So, I truly do not believe one needs to go looking for it. It will find you.

[Guest end3]

The feeling comes to you when it comes to you. You can't force it to happen. Sometimes getting a hug from a special person, for whatever reason, gives a sense of transcendence too. So, I truly do not believe one needs to go looking for it. It will find you.

 

Let's start here:

 

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."

 

 

Now let's think about this:

 

Regardless of the knowledge base, the spirit or Spiriual base, there always remains a level above our understanding.......Grace, intelligence, wisdom.

 

Four dollar statements that bypass true communication.

 

Please note the alternate form of communication Mriana so insightfully presents.

 

What say you AM?

[Antlerman]

Humm... I can see what you are saying, but I think it is also true that some of us are more susceptible to these feelings. While not as strong as being in a liturgical service, I can basically trigger these feelings on a whim, if I want. No, I don't have epilepsy or alike. I've just always been susceptible to feelings of the aesthetic. I don't go anywhere without my iPod and I can go for a walk while listening to my chosen music, view the world around me and I can suddenly have that numinous feeling. I might not always be striving for it, but none the less it happens. So, I don't necessarily have to consciously do anything special to suddenly feel it. It just happens.

 

...

 

BTW, exploring the inner dimensions of music takes away from the experience. You don't do that and expect that feeling- Or that is, I don't. You just let it happen, when it happens, if it happens. The feeling comes to you when it comes to you. You can't force it to happen. Sometimes getting a hug from a special person, for whatever reason, gives a sense of transcendence too. So, I truly do not believe one needs to go looking for it. It will find you.

I wouldn't say that exploring the inner dimensions takes away from the experience, especially in the context of participant. To be a passive receiver is wonderful, of course. To simply breath and let if flow over you and fill you. But as participate in it, where it comes from you, then there is a definite exploration of depths that adds to the experience of it. You're no longer simply enjoying the cool drink, you become the fountain.

 

I agree that to try to force those things to happen is incorrect. If you do it to seek a feeling; some emotional response, you are not in the place you should be. It's not about seeking a 'high'. It's about seeking depth for the sake of development, like you would in exercise for the body. The aesthetic opens you up, it helps to move you beyond, and its that place of self that it opens you to that is the point of seeking within. It's really more seeking the depth in you.

 

There are levels of transcendence beyond the experience of the aesthetic. And that's my point. They are experiential in nature, not theoretical or conceptual, and are arrived at through development, seeking it. And this is why I say that the aesthetic is not the Source of the aesthetic. The aesthetic indeed connects us to the world and to each other, but it does not integrate them. And that comes to my other point of a worldview, a philosophy, of spirit and reason. The aesthetic, as deeply as I embrace it, is like a perfect broth that the ingredients of a dish are blended together in, but the integration of ingredients in measure and proportion by the chef(s) allows everything, to speak and work together as a whole.

 

So back to your original thought:

 

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?

 

Again, the aesthetic is not the end. And what it does do, is help to open oneself up to the inner depths of their own spirit. Beauty is beauty, but it is not ALL. Beauty is manifestation. There is something beyond Beauty.

 

 

P.S. Sorry end, not ignoring you. Will get to you...

[Mriana]

Ah, but Antlerman, I am the fountain without even trying or analysing it. I am at one with and within the universe. I don't need to do all that other stuff and take from the experience. It only destroys the experience and makes it non-existent or not even happen. It is far better to let it happen and become it rather than analyse it. It completely disappears when you explore it and one is hardly a passive receiver when they become it. There is nothing passive about it.

 

Even my Buddhist son agrees with me. You don't explore it or analyse it or you get a totally different experience . He also agrees what I am talking about is not passive.

[mwc]

with due respect, I see it as the 1) treasure, 2) pearl, 3) the good fish

 

thoughts?

You're exactly right. That's what it appears they should be but that's not what it says. That's why I quoted them..."The kingdom is like <whatever>." Like someone who mixed metaphors or is doing some paraphrasing the author gets a tad confused as to what the kingdom is like. That's why I also including G.Thomas for comparison.

 

Fortunately they're not so complicated that we can't decipher them but what if we toss in the mustard seed that grows so birds can nest in it? Now the KoH is no longer a treasure, or object of value, but something different entirely. There are quite a few analogs used for the KoH in G.Matthew.

 

mwc

[Antlerman]

Sorry for the LNC-style time delay responses, but at least this is only 3 days, and not 3 months!

 

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.

No. I never was it. I came from it. But it IS and I became, and IT is in me. If you move to IT, then I cease to be me and fold back into IT. But IT simply IS.

 

No, you can't define it as spirit, ground, source, and then say it is not supernatural.

Why not? Because 'spirit' is not an object for study by the empirical sciences and therefore doesn't exist naturally? What about the square root of 1? Can you find that out in the woods or floating about in the cosmos? Is that a supernatural thing? How about love, value, morality, etc? Are those supernatural too? What about culture? Is that supernatural?

 

Methinks the error is in allowing the Christian church to define the nature and set the stage of understanding for these things to the world. Yes, their sort of ideas do make it supernatural and remove it from the world. And therein lies their deepest flaw, and all else comes tumbling down behind it.

 

Were you seeking "it" when "it" came to you?

I wasn't seeking 'it' specifically, as an identifiable object or experience. But I was seeking for life. Life manifest itself to me and in me and through me and from me and in, though, and from everything everywhere. From that point on however, I was seeking to build on it and move deeper within an understanding and embrace of it, and that is what was denied me because of the flaw of the system - for me where I was at and what I was seeking. It worked as a social structure, but failed as a system for spiritual growth. Myths are necessary for some, I was already beyond the need of them, but didn't understand that. So in that sense, it wasn't a waste. It was a lesson.

 

The problem comes when someone is trying to grow beyond, that they exercise a denial of it to them in order to keep them where the rest of them are. So I may in part reconsider my objection and criticism and acknowledge that those actions would be in keeping with the system at that level, and for someone to recognize the need of an individual to leave for person development, would in fact be rare. Most people don't see anything beyond where they are at, so to see someone not finding satisfaction within their sphere, would seem to them as error and not growth. To recognize something higher, would be they are aware there is, which usually only occurs once you've moved there yourself. Prior to that, it just seems mysterious and foreign, or "just wrong".

 

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.

I wouldn't go with the house metaphor. It's more the door from the cave of shadows to the world of light outside.

 

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.

No it's not, according to Christian theology. I agree we must live sincerely, and that entails making true choices. But the complaint is that the system of symbols that the Church is, arranges those symbols in such a way as to put a ceiling on ascent, and themselves and their system as the only way to approach God which you can never apprehend fully in this life because of the sin of the flesh. You have to physically die before union with God. Only one man has attained that according to them, which is Jesus, and the rest will have to wait until they are raised from the dead.

 

Like I said, the system's symbols are arranged in such a way as to put a ceiling on it, to create the belief it is unattainable - in this life where it matters.

 

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...

I did on purpose. It is a sin against their own nature.

[Antlerman]

Ah, but Antlerman, I am the fountain without even trying or analysing it. I am at one with and within the universe. I don't need to do all that other stuff and take from the experience. It only destroys the experience and makes it non-existent or not even happen. It is far better to let it happen and become it rather than analyse it. It completely disappears when you explore it and one is hardly a passive receiver when they become it. There is nothing passive about it.

 

Even my Buddhist son agrees with me. You don't explore it or analyse it or you get a totally different experience . He also agrees what I am talking about is not passive.

I did not say analyze. I said explore, and by that I mean you go there experientially. Certainly, I am fully aware of the difference between existential experience, and critical analysis. That is central to my entire thrust in embracing the nature of being, beyond rationality. Knowing, not analyzing.

[Mriana]

Ah, but Antlerman, I am the fountain without even trying or analysing it. I am at one with and within the universe. I don't need to do all that other stuff and take from the experience. It only destroys the experience and makes it non-existent or not even happen. It is far better to let it happen and become it rather than analyse it. It completely disappears when you explore it and one is hardly a passive receiver when they become it. There is nothing passive about it.

 

Even my Buddhist son agrees with me. You don't explore it or analyse it or you get a totally different experience . He also agrees what I am talking about is not passive.

I did not say analyze. I said explore, and by that I mean you go there experientially. Certainly, I am fully aware of the difference between existential experience, and critical analysis. That is central to my entire thrust in embracing the nature of being, beyond rationality. Knowing, not analyzing.

 

Maybe the problem is how we interpret and phrase what we are saying. My son is use to my form of communication, so we do well, but even the word "explore" seems to kill it for him too because you become it, whatever it is, during the experience.

[Guest end3]

The problem comes when someone is trying to grow beyond, that they exercise a denial of it to them in order to keep them where the rest of them are. So I may in part reconsider my objection and criticism and acknowledge that those actions would be in keeping with the system at that level, and for someone to recognize the need of an individual to leave for person development, would in fact be rare. Most people don't see anything beyond where they are at, so to see someone not finding satisfaction within their sphere, would seem to them as error and not growth. To recognize something higher, would be they are aware there is, which usually only occurs once you've moved there yourself. Prior to that, it just seems mysterious and foreign, or "just wrong".

 

I can see this, but sometimes people stay to help others to a new understanding. And I don't see this as any different than the grace of it showing up in my life helping me to see "life".

 

I believe our "its" are very much the same, but the path is what I am questioning.

 

No it's not, according to Christian theology. I agree we must live sincerely, and that entails making true choices. But the complaint is that the system of symbols that the Church is, arranges those symbols in such a way as to put a ceiling on ascent, and themselves and their system as the only way to approach God which you can never apprehend fully in this life because of the sin of the flesh.

 

I will consider this, but how can you become completely congruent with it, by form expressly, and lack of knowledge, grace, intelligence, wisdom. Ascent is by it, through it....your words..."Life manifested itself in me...."

 

I think the search is what is called for no doubt, but what irks me specifically K, is, if we don't understand the mechanism of it, then how can we become congruent except by faith.....that, and a grace that recognizes this lacking.

[Antlerman]

The problem comes when someone is trying to grow beyond, that they exercise a denial of it to them in order to keep them where the rest of them are. So I may in part reconsider my objection and criticism and acknowledge that those actions would be in keeping with the system at that level, and for someone to recognize the need of an individual to leave for person development, would in fact be rare. Most people don't see anything beyond where they are at, so to see someone not finding satisfaction within their sphere, would seem to them as error and not growth. To recognize something higher, would be they are aware there is, which usually only occurs once you've moved there yourself. Prior to that, it just seems mysterious and foreign, or "just wrong".

 

I can see this, but sometimes people stay to help others to a new understanding. And I don't see this as any different than the grace of it showing up in my life helping me to see "life".

Yes, but I think those may be the exception to the rule. Where you do see people who are far enough beyond that level to be of help to those within it, they usually risk being branded a heretic, or some other sort of rejection. I think of someone like John Shelby Spong. How do people in your church talk about him? Favorably?

 

There are certain 'acceptable' levels of progressive thought that are allowed, but the problem is that if you can't accept things like blood shed for sins to appease the God, it makes your ability to be heard by those who take this very literally almost impossible. How effective can you be, if you are sincere to yourself and them?

 

Would you accept me as your minister if I said to you that all those things were an early culture's way of trying to relate to God, but none of them are really factual and that we are better served in today's culture to imagine God in less primitive ways? And that in fact, God is not a person at all, who keeps a tally sheet of your deeds that you will have to talk to him about some day after death, but the nature of truth and life in all? Imagine it End. Seriously, how would you respond to me in your church teaching this?

 

So that's my point. Stay behind and help? Certainly I agree with you about grace. But I see only insincere compromise happening, in which case it becomes more enabling. Only if you start a new church in which you speak the truth as you see it. Then if people came, great.

 

I believe our "its" are very much the same, but the path is what I am questioning.

It would be really interesting for me to take the Christian theology as you understanding it, and open it up from inside to see what it really is saying if you get underneath the outer layer of literal interpretation. I don't deny early Christians had spiritual insight, but that doesn't make all the myth it was framed with literal fact that must be accepted as true. It makes whatever spiritual truth there is in it, obscured by a way of looking at the world that no longer fits the reality of the world to us today. It may have been functional 2000 years ago, but that was their world and this is ours.

 

How do you imagine the path is that I would see?

 

No it's not, according to Christian theology. I agree we must live sincerely, and that entails making true choices. But the complaint is that the system of symbols that the Church is, arranges those symbols in such a way as to put a ceiling on ascent, and themselves and their system as the only way to approach God which you can never apprehend fully in this life because of the sin of the flesh.

 

I will consider this, but how can you become completely congruent with it, by form expressly, and lack of knowledge, grace, intelligence, wisdom. Ascent is by it, through it....your words..."Life manifested itself in me...."

You lost me on this, as good as I am at interpreting.

 

I think the search is what is called for no doubt, but what irks me specifically K, is, if we don't understand the mechanism of it, then how can we become congruent except by faith.....that, and a grace that recognizes this lacking.

I think your use of the congruent is throwing me off. Let me try to get what you're saying here. From the context I think you mean 'realize' it, 'apprehend' it or become 'in touch with' it. With that in mind...

 

"If we don't understand the mechanism of it..." What I hear, and what bothers me about Christian theology, is that there is a prescribed, acceptable method of approach to God. That ascribes a certain anthropomorphic character to God, or even some sort of mechanical nature that 'requires oil to operate' (substitute blood for oil). What you sound like you're looking for is an "Owner's Manual" for God. I have heard that metaphor specifically used by Christians as the held the Bible high aloft in their hand from the pulpit.

 

That is bothersome to me on untold levels. Not the least of which is them then talking about this specific practice or that specific rule, or worse that you can't come to God until you accept Jesus as your savior, get baptized, live as a Christian following 'this here owner's manual', etc. This is all so trivializing of the entire Nature of Everything. It's like a child's view of the world with magic beings such as elves and gnomes. That may be good and fine for that stage of life, but to use Paul's own words, "When I was a child, I thought as a child... but when I became and adult I put away childish things". God is no elf, nor some deity that you have to eat a wafer symbolizing a blood sacrifice that was made him in order for him to operate properly.

 

How then do we 'realize' it, if there is no 'owner's manual' prescribing this rite, or that ritual, or this magical incantation? You know End, there are several verses within the Bible that speak something way beyond the mythical wrappers. Here's one such verse. "In that day shall my law be written on the tablet of your heart." Whether the writer was intending it or not, the principle is valid. If we are in tune with our nature, sincere with ourselves, embracing love, beauty, respect, grace, and moreover embracing life in us and around us as Source, then it all comes from inside naturally without having to examine in some book what "God's will for us is". Those are social/cultural substitutes for existential living.

 

It is this phenomenon of knowing inner life resulting in peace, grace, compassion, and love to the world that leads me to understand a deeper reality to existence than the physical mechanics of it. Religious doctrines or adherence to membership of a system is not the path to this. It is the individual before the world, and before the nature of existence within and without. The path in, is the path out. "love God with all your heart... love your neighbor as yourself." It starts in, then naturally flows out. The law written in the heart.

 

This is not a Christian truth. It's universal.

[Guest end3]

Yes, but I think those may be the exception to the rule. Where you do see people who are far enough beyond that level to be of help to those within it, they usually risk being branded a heretic, or some other sort of rejection. I think of someone like John Shelby Spong. How do people in your church talk about him? Favorably?

 

There are certain 'acceptable' levels of progressive thought that are allowed, but the problem is that if you can't accept things like blood shed for sins to appease the God, it makes your ability to be heard by those who take this very literally almost impossible. How effective can you be, if you are sincere to yourself and them?

 

Would you accept me as your minister if I said to you that all those things were an early culture's way of trying to relate to God, but none of them are really factual and that we are better served in today's culture to imagine God in less primitive ways? And that in fact, God is not a person at all, who keeps a tally sheet of your deeds that you will have to talk to him about some day after death, but the nature of truth and life in all? Imagine it End. Seriously, how would you respond to me in your church teaching this?

 

So that's my point. Stay behind and help? Certainly I agree with you about grace. But I see only insincere compromise happening, in which case it becomes more enabling. Only if you start a new church in which you speak the truth as you see it. Then if people came, great.

 

I suppose if one is sincere in this view, then what can you say. Existing outside a group is surely difficult.

 

It would be really interesting for me to take the Christian theology as you understanding it, and open it up from inside to see what it really is saying if you get underneath the outer layer of literal interpretation. I don't deny early Christians had spiritual insight, but that doesn't make all the myth it was framed with literal fact that must be accepted as true. It makes whatever spiritual truth there is in it, obscured by a way of looking at the world that no longer fits the reality of the world to us today. It may have been functional 2000 years ago, but that was their world and this is ours.

 

How do you imagine the path is that I would see?

 

But I am certain Christianity remains functional today. I discussion involving the depths of experience vs. the written or even "neo" would be a wonderful discussion if you are open to that.

 

How then do we 'realize' it, if there is no 'owner's manual' prescribing this rite, or that ritual, or this magical incantation? You know End, there are several verses within the Bible that speak something way beyond the mythical wrappers. Here's one such verse. "In that day shall my law be written on the tablet of your heart." Whether the writer was intending it or not, the principle is valid. If we are in tune with our nature, sincere with ourselves, embracing love, beauty, respect, grace, and moreover embracing life in us and around us as Source, then it all comes from inside naturally without having to examine in some book what "God's will for us is". Those are social/cultural substitutes for existential living.

 

It is this phenomenon of knowing inner life resulting in peace, grace, compassion, and love to the world that leads me to understand a deeper reality to existence than the physical mechanics of it. Religious doctrines or adherence to membership of a system is not the path to this. It is the individual before the world, and before the nature of existence within and without. The path in, is the path out. "love God with all your heart... love your neighbor as yourself." It starts in, then naturally flows out. The law written in the heart.

 

This is not a Christian truth. It's universal.

 

I hear you saying that these principles are valid, but not leading to the Christian God, but one that is universal.

 

I will ask you this question in light of this comment. "Love God with all your heart" seems like faith to me. "Love your neighbor as yourself" is part of the mechanism for ascribing "it" for others. Christianity derives the Love for others through the sacrifice of Christ on the cross....a call to Grace.

 

I am no bible scholar, but I am remembering these being the words of Jesus that seem to mesh with the sovereignty described in John 3.

 

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."

 

Again, what I hear you saying is that you have received the experience of Spiritual birth, but don't subscribe to Christ/Christianity. And again, I don't pretend to know how God manifests Himself to everyone....but I think it would be helpful to decide whether we are talking about the Christian God.

[Guest end3]

I'm not trying to be intentionally slow, just trying to understand.

 

You are saying that aspects of God are within the Christian language, but the description or language is version 3.0 and needs to be updated?

 

What I am saying is, I am not understanding how you can make a viable separation. Can we rely on one description to verify a new understanding?

[Antlerman]

I suppose if one is sincere in this view, then what can you say. Existing outside a group is surely difficult.

Yes, and no. It's more difficult to try to belong when you don't. It's harder to be insincere. But the lack of a community is a factor. I just need to find one on my level that enhances me, and I them. I don't see any sort of Christian community working, no matter how progressive they may be. Even a church like Spong would lead. Not that I don't respect him, but my focus is different enough for it to not have enough common ground for regular discourse.

 

It would be really interesting for me to take the Christian theology as you understanding it, and open it up from inside to see what it really is saying if you get underneath the outer layer of literal interpretation. I don't deny early Christians had spiritual insight, but that doesn't make all the myth it was framed with literal fact that must be accepted as true. It makes whatever spiritual truth there is in it, obscured by a way of looking at the world that no longer fits the reality of the world to us today. It may have been functional 2000 years ago, but that was their world and this is ours.

 

How do you imagine the path is that I would see?

 

But I am certain Christianity remains functional today. I discussion involving the depths of experience vs. the written or even "neo" would be a wonderful discussion if you are open to that.

In a sense it's still functional, in the sense that it works as a mythological system still. However, where it is broken is that it needs to be upgraded to a system that keep up with the changing environment. That it's still functional, doesn't mean that it's not outdated software that is insufficient to meet changing demands. It sure couldn't respond to my demands as an enduser!!

 

But your suggestion of discussion sounds interesting to me. Have you started one, or are wanting one? Yes I certainly would be open to that.

 

How then do we 'realize' it, if there is no 'owner's manual' prescribing this rite, or that ritual, or this magical incantation? You know End, there are several verses within the Bible that speak something way beyond the mythical wrappers. Here's one such verse. "In that day shall my law be written on the tablet of your heart." Whether the writer was intending it or not, the principle is valid. If we are in tune with our nature, sincere with ourselves, embracing love, beauty, respect, grace, and moreover embracing life in us and around us as Source, then it all comes from inside naturally without having to examine in some book what "God's will for us is". Those are social/cultural substitutes for existential living.

 

It is this phenomenon of knowing inner life resulting in peace, grace, compassion, and love to the world that leads me to understand a deeper reality to existence than the physical mechanics of it. Religious doctrines or adherence to membership of a system is not the path to this. It is the individual before the world, and before the nature of existence within and without. The path in, is the path out. "love God with all your heart... love your neighbor as yourself." It starts in, then naturally flows out. The law written in the heart.

 

This is not a Christian truth. It's universal.

 

I hear you saying that these principles are valid, but not leading to the Christian God, but one that is universal.

I'll put it this way, the Christian God is way of looking at it, of looking at "God" that is by no means the end of the story. It's a very anthropomorphic interpretation, very mythological way of looking at Spirit. It's symbols, history, culture, along with a social stage of evolution paralleling the developmental patterns of children moving into adulthood. I don't mean that as a put down, but you can see it. Kids below the age of 10 think of the world mythologically, that unseen forces control things and they try to put faces on these things, like the boogie man, angels, elves, etc.

 

I believe there is something there that is really real, but it isn't about blood sacrifice for sin. That's a hold-over included from the tribal myths systems that didn't quite shake loose as they tried to bridge the gap from the old to the new. Put it this way, would you say that the Christian God is more advanced tham the primitive Jew's God? You claim that the same God, even though your point of view is more 'updated', in the 3.0 version of Christianity.

 

I will ask you this question in light of this comment. "Love God with all your heart" seems like faith to me. "Love your neighbor as yourself" is part of the mechanism for ascribing "it" for others. Christianity derives the Love for others through the sacrifice of Christ on the cross....a call to Grace.

I wouldn't call it faith. "Love God" does not mean obedience to the Overlord, or mental ascent to theological truths. What that means is a spiritual connection inside of yourself to something that is the Source of Spirit. That's not a faith thing, it's not a belief thing, it's experiential. It's an emptying of yourself into the Source, and then from that... it flows through you to others.

 

The problem with Christianity, and theology, and doctrines, etc is that it makes this spiritual truism some sort of formulaic, mechanistic, commandment that people never quite internalize. It's much simpler to just get on your knees, say your prayer, and act nice to people. That is not transformation. That is religion. Religion is the mechanizing of the spiritual. "I hate your sacrifices" says God... I wonder why God's author there would have him say that?

 

So does "Christianity derive the Love for others through the sacrifice of Christ on the cross....a call to Grace."? How does that happen? By thinking about the blood-soaked wood, or any other such symbol? It's not about symbols, its about you communing with Spirit, and becoming that.

 

Christianity and its symbols are not the gate to this. This is experienced and realized the world over. You can say it's because of your religious figure Jesus who performed some magic in heaven to make it happen (mythological thinking), but it can't be denied that this is a Universal truth known and experienced throughout time and culture, no matter what stage they were at: magical; mythical; rational, etc. This transcends Christianity and all religions.

 

I am no bible scholar, but I am remembering these being the words of Jesus that seem to mesh with the sovereignty described in John 3.

 

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."

 

Again, what I hear you saying is that you have received the experience of Spiritual birth, but don't subscribe to Christ/Christianity. And again, I don't pretend to know how God manifests Himself to everyone....but I think it would be helpful to decide whether we are talking about the Christian God.

I think there is some truths expressed in these words, but they are not the property of Christianity, nor is Christianity a condition for their apprehension. I could go on at great length about these, but I'll leave it at this. There is some spiritual truth there, but it doesn't make all of it, the myths, etc valid. Certainly not.

 

Are we talking about the Christian God? What are all the gods talking about? What level, what layer of "God" do you mean? The cultural layer, the social layer, the natural world layer, the spiritual layer? Which one? And at what stage of our evolution? The problem I see with how you are processing all this, is that it either is this, or it is not. Nothing is so simple, let alone ideas about the world framed in transcendent terms.

 

My focus is on the spiritual, not some god who has some plan for our societies. And to put this aside, I'm not speaking of some form of Deism either.

[Antlerman]

I'm not trying to be intentionally slow, just trying to understand.

 

You are saying that aspects of God are within the Christian language, but the description or language is version 3.0 and needs to be updated?

Yes. Christianity is like Windows 3.0. We are on Windows 7 now, so it would be a good idea to consider an upgrade path, even though the Church of Rome is still offering support contracts for this legacy system because of its vast user base.

 

 

[Guest end3]

I wouldn't call it faith. "Love God" does not mean obedience to the Overlord, or mental ascent to theological truths. What that means is a spiritual connection inside of yourself to something that is the Source of Spirit. That's not a faith thing, it's not a belief thing, it's experiential. It's an emptying of yourself into the Source, and then from that... it flows through you to others.

This is particularly interesting....IMO, obedience seems like another word for "in sync" with whatever "it" is....God in my case. I see it as adherence to a choice guided by the Holy Spirit, in faith that this is the best choice for humanity. I did not subscribe to this belief before, but feel as though there is a difference between mere faith and actually being born in the Spirit. (Part of the experience discussion perhaps).

 

The problem with Christianity, and theology, and doctrines, etc is that it makes this spiritual truism some sort of formulaic, mechanistic, commandment that people never quite internalize. It's much simpler to just get on your knees, say your prayer, and act nice to people. That is not transformation. That is religion. Religion is the mechanizing of the spiritual. "I hate your sacrifices" says God... I wonder why God's author there would have him say that?

But sincerely, the point......how can we truly internalize an experience that is not ours to internalize except through acceptance. The truth in my experience K, ....I have been faithful for many years, but had never had a life changing experience until last week, that I feel certain was not under my control. I think that it were, it wwould much be like masturbation. I can no more agree in sincerity with your lack of mechanistic approach than I think you can agree with my mechanized approach.....not being critical, just true to myself.

 

So does "Christianity derive the Love for others through the sacrifice of Christ on the cross....a call to Grace."? How does that happen? By thinking about the blood-soaked wood, or any other such symbol? It's not about symbols, its about you communing with Spirit, and becoming that.

 

I can agree on some level....mostly the latter statement, but my healing was so clarifying and happened so quickly relative to my attempt at healing myself, that I have no questions that there is an entity beyond my comprehension. And to add, my rationalization of the experience seems completely rational and in unison with the bible. How do I then in all sincerity disregard the mechanism or wanting to express this mechanism in sincere efforts for others. Granted, there will always be a grace that I am lacking.....how can there not be as we don't comprehend fully. I cannot pretend to know anothers thoughts where I totally meet their internal spiritual needs.

 

Christianity and its symbols are not the gate to this. This is experienced and realized the world over. You can say it's because of your religious figure Jesus who performed some magic in heaven to make it happen (mythological thinking), but it can't be denied that this is a Universal truth known and experienced throughout time and culture, no matter what stage they were at: magical; mythical; rational, etc. This transcends Christianity and all religions.

Probably the very reason I am participating in this conversation, as I have met at least two people in my life that profess an "experience" outside of Christianity.

 

Are we talking about the Christian God? What are all the gods talking about? What level, what layer of "God" do you mean? The cultural layer, the social layer, the natural world layer, the spiritual layer? Which one? And at what stage of our evolution? The problem I see with how you are processing all this, is that it either is this, or it is not. Nothing is so simple, let alone ideas about the world framed in transcendent terms.

 

Well, I have to laugh at this point, because there seems to be difficultly regardless of framing this transcendence. And I would be lying if I said I wasn't biased, but I do see some "universal" in humanity....and it's joyful to watch and participate in.

 

Looking forward to that experiencial discussion should you have time.

[Antlerman]

This is particularly interesting....IMO, obedience seems like another word for "in sync" with whatever "it" is....God in my case. I see it as adherence to a choice guided by the Holy Spirit, in faith that this is the best choice for humanity. I did not subscribe to this belief before, but feel as though there is a difference between mere faith and actually being born in the Spirit. (Part of the experience discussion perhaps).

OK, I can understand your use of the word obedience here as meaning being 'in sync' to something inside you. Just as Deva has certain words that carry negative connotation for her from the Christian world, 'obedience' is one of those for me. My repeated exposure to it was in the context of legalism, being sure to not break the rules of the demanding, legalistic God. I can grant your use of it, but it may be easier in conversation for me to express it like 'being in tune with', or 'listening to', etc.

 

But what's interesting here is the shift in you focus to 'being born of the Spirit'. Yes, I've been saying all along for years here that there is a difference between religion and spirituality. Having a religious belief says nothing about ones heart of soul. And moreover, the spiritual reality of it does not come from religion, or mental assent to theological languages, or adoption of religious doctrines. IMO, all of those things stand in the way. They stand in the way for a long list of reasons, not the least of which is because they describe God, they define God, they give it an individualized personality like a character in a play. That is extraordinarily limiting and confusing to the Spirit or the Heart with the mind.

 

But sincerely, the point......how can we truly internalize an experience that is not ours to internalize except through acceptance.

Yes, we do have to accept it. Just like anything that we find we have be true to ourselves with, even it it may be difficult to find a way to integrate it into the rest of our lives. In my case, it's been difficult to find a way to integrate the rational with the spiritual, specifically because of ties with the mythic systems of my personal past. I let Christianity claim ownership of God. I let them define the spiritual.

 

But like a plant covered with a slab of concrete, it finds a way to break through it to the sunlight above it.

 

The truth in my experience K, ....I have been faithful for many years, but had never had a life changing experience until last week, that I feel certain was not under my control. I think that it were, it wwould much be like masturbation.

I would be interested to hear about that, if you felt OK sharing it.

 

I can no more agree in sincerity with your lack of mechanistic approach than I think you can agree with my mechanized approach.....not being critical, just true to myself.

I think we may be having another word choice difficulty here. I accept that certain disciplines being employed in spiritual development are valid. But what I mean by mechanistic, is that the methods, the rituals, the forms, etc - become the definition of the experience. That is a mechanized reality, not a means to that reality. That is replacing spirituality with religion.

 

 

... more later....