My Fundy Ex-Wife

[NotBlinded]

I agree, I am stemming from the reality that someone else, Jesus in this case, took my punishment, for something that I actually deserved. And the remarkable thing......I didn't even understand the mechanism for my transgression. And then, when finding out, you think, oh shit, not only have I hurt the creation, I have hurt the one that created it. And in this case, crucified someone else. Now, how could there be tremendous relief in this knowing? My relief is real, knowing that God can identify with what I have done, and that He says in effect, "I have you covered, son". Jesus is a way to steer you from evil.

End, I don't see this as something to feel guilty about. I have experienced extreme unhappiness and sorrow at hurting others unintentionally and I also somethimes have felt horror. The latter comes from the fear of being judged by the one that I didn't mean to hurt.

 

I think it is horrible to feel such pain at something unintended, but I think we all do. We can only forgive ourselves and move on knowing that we make mistakes and not to take it as something against our image of ourself. We can't hurt the "Creator". We only hurt others that are a part of the same creation.

 

I think maybe you are multiplying your grief by adding in another being that is hurt by one untintended transgression. Is it possible that by having forgiveness from this "Other" takes the place of forgiveness of yourself or from the one that was originally harmed?

[Guest end3]

I agree, I am stemming from the reality that someone else, Jesus in this case, took my punishment, for something that I actually deserved.

 

Hm. We were talking about guilt...fear of some bad consequence. Jesus or not, I suspect you experience consequences when you screw up. He didn't take your punishment, at least not all of it.

 

Yes we experience consequences....but I used the word steer on purpose. There are worldly consequences and Spiritual conseqences from my God concept, Christianity.

 

So, we still experience the worldly consequences, but Jesus steers us away from spiritual consequences?

 

Yes?

 

P

 

I think we have choices, choices congruent to God and those that are not. I believe God is in the mode of helping us see His choices, but not intervening in our selection. The selection is our choice. There are tangible results in both the physical and spiritual/Spiritual.

[NotBlinded]

In your initial post, you are talking about guilt for spiritual consequences only? P

I'm a little confused too about this.

[Mriana]

See, I am going to go ahead and agree here. But with this understanding, that is it not rational to think that my behavior towards everything worthy was just.

 

And again, the beauty of Jesus, is that upon the repentance to Him, it has been accomplished through Him, the redemption from my transgression. It is freeing, with no remaining guilt calling myself a sorry soul every day. No, it is a joy to realize the beauty of the creation/Creator and LIVE in that manner. The guilt is done. It was a season. Stop with that understanding.

 

Nature is freeing too and brings great joy. One doesn't have to have an imaginary friend to have this. It seems to me, you place your feelings on something outside yourself, in this case a god concept, instead of owning them and taking responsibility for them. You can live in a manner that celebrates life, loves life in all forms, and cares for others (including animals and the earth) without such a concept and at the same time face reality. It is within you, not outside of you in some human concept. It is also within animals, the earth, and the universe, but I can see you don't have the concept of which I was referring to several pages ago and I can't give you that concept, because there are no human words to describe it accurately and any attempt to do so, is to not describe it at all. I can tell you what it is not though- it is not found in any religious text, it is not Jesus, or even the God you conceive of, for it imposes nothing and does nothing, except give good feelings and sometimes numinous ones (see definition #3 in Webster referring to aesthetic feelings). Everything else is up to you and with these feelings you can bring up courage to preserver even in the worse to troubles, without prayer or alike. It is felt/experienced via a animals and humans, time in nature, and the awe and wonder of the universe, but it is not what you are saying, because there is not guilt, control, or shame involved. It is not external, but internal to everything and everyone on earth, even the earth itself and until you quit attributing everything to something outside yourself- like an imaginary being, you'll have no clue what I am talking about.

 

However, one can feel guilt due to what they do to another (including animals), but this is again internal and imposed upon oneself because they knew they did something wrong. Of course, society can impose guilt too, but this again is not what you are talking about. Thus, rule #1 is do no intentional harm, not even to animals, which your book does not include with all the animal and human sacrifices, war, and alike. To do no intentional harm perpetuates the feelings I was talking about above and to do harm diminishes it, because you start to justify the harm- again, that is all within you, not external or imposed upon you by some human concept.

 

I could go on and on, but you see, we are not talking about the same thing and it could only be called a god, if that is what one wishes to call it, but it is not a god nor is it a creator. It is neurological/chemical in nature, but that is about the only description one can give it without ending up not describing it all.

[NotBlinded]

I think we have choices, choices congruent to God and those that are not. I believe God is in the mode of helping us see His choices, but not intervening in our selection. The selection is our choice. There are tangible results in both the physical and spiritual/Spiritual.

I think this is true, but it's really hard for me to see it through the language of Christianity. It's much easier with Taoism and Hinduism for me. I don't think that there is an intended mode of helping though. It's just there and it is discovered by us. It's all around us and our selection will yield the results and this is how we know. There shouldn't be any guilt in us by thinking that we chose wrongly and harmed God. No, I don't believe that. Can you harm a stream by not drinking?

[Mriana]

I think we have choices, choices congruent to God and those that are not. I believe God is in the mode of helping us see His choices, but not intervening in our selection. The selection is our choice. There are tangible results in both the physical and spiritual/Spiritual.

I think this is true, but it's really hard for me to see it through the language of Christianity. It's much easier with Taoism and Hinuism for me. I don't think that there is an intended mode of helping though. It's just there and it is discovered by us. It's all around us and our selection will yield the results and this is how we know. There shouldn't be any guilt in us by thinking that we chose wrongly and harmed God. No, I don't believe that. Can you harm a stream by not drinking?

 

I may have been talking Taoism for all I know- esp the part where I said to describe it is to not describe it at all, which is a Tao saying, but it uses the word god. By the same token, to help, relieve, give mercy, gives the feeling strength and even to receive assistance does the same thing too. Thus rule #2 can be summed with the Buddhist "right action" or be kind and gentle with others.

[Guest end3]

I agree, I am stemming from the reality that someone else, Jesus in this case, took my punishment, for something that I actually deserved. And the remarkable thing......I didn't even understand the mechanism for my transgression. And then, when finding out, you think, oh shit, not only have I hurt the creation, I have hurt the one that created it. And in this case, crucified someone else. Now, how could there be tremendous relief in this knowing? My relief is real, knowing that God can identify with what I have done, and that He says in effect, "I have you covered, son". Jesus is a way to steer you from evil.

End, I don't see this as something to feel guilty about. I have experienced extreme unhappiness and sorrow at hurting others unintentionally and I also somethimes have felt horror. The latter comes from the fear of being judged by the one that I didn't mean to hurt.

 

I think it is horrible to feel such pain at something unintended, but I think we all do. We can only forgive ourselves and move on knowing that we make mistakes and not to take it as something against our image of ourself. We can't hurt the "Creator". We only hurt others that are a part of the same creation.

 

I think maybe you are multiplying your grief by adding in another being that is hurt by one untintended transgression. Is it possible that by having forgiveness from this "Other" takes the place of forgiveness of yourself or from the one that was originally harmed?

 

Thank you for posting this....I am going to have consider this....thanks, I will answer.

[Guest end3]

I think we have choices, choices congruent to God and those that are not. I believe God is in the mode of helping us see His choices, but not intervening in our selection. The selection is our choice. There are tangible results in both the physical and spiritual/Spiritual.

I think this is true, but it's really hard for me to see it through the language of Christianity. It's much easier with Taoism and Hinuism for me. I don't think that there is an intended mode of helping though. It's just there and it is discovered by us. It's all around us and our selection will yield the results and this is how we know. There shouldn't be any guilt in us by thinking that we chose wrongly and harmed God. No, I don't believe that. Can you harm a stream by not drinking?

 

I can drink of the stream, but I can also contaminate the stream by my choice.

[NotBlinded]

See, I am going to go ahead and agree here. But with this understanding, that is it not rational to think that my behavior towards everything worthy was just.

 

And again, the beauty of Jesus, is that upon the repentance to Him, it has been accomplished through Him, the redemption from my transgression. It is freeing, with no remaining guilt calling myself a sorry soul every day. No, it is a joy to realize the beauty of the creation/Creator and LIVE in that manner. The guilt is done. It was a season. Stop with that understanding.

 

Nature is freeing too and brings great joy. One doesn't have to have an imaginary friend to have this. It seems to me, you place your feelings on something outside yourself, in this case a god concept, instead of owning them and taking responsibility for them. You can live in a manner that celebrates life, loves life in all forms, and cares for others (including animals and the earth) without such a concept and at the same time face reality. It is within you, not outside of you in some human concept. It is also within animals, the earth, and the universe, but I can see you don't have the concept of which I was referring to several pages ago and I can't give you that concept, because there are no human words to describe it accurately and any attempt to do so, is to not describe it at all. I can tell you what it is not though- it is not found in any religious text, it is not Jesus, or even the God you conceive of, for it imposes nothing and does nothing, except give good feelings and sometimes numinous ones (see definition #3 in Webster referring to aesthetic feelings). Everything else is up to you and with these feelings you can bring up courage to preserver even in the worse to troubles, without prayer or alike. It is felt/experienced via a animals and humans, time in nature, and the awe and wonder of the universe, but it is not what you are saying, because there is not guilt, control, or shame involved. It is not external, but internal to everything and everyone on earth, even the earth itself and until you quit attributing everything to something outside yourself- like an imaginary being, you'll have no clue what I am talking about.

 

However, one can feel guilt due to what they do to another (including animals), but this is again internal and imposed upon oneself because they knew they did something wrong. Of course, society can impose guilt too, but this again is not what you are talking about. Thus, rule #1 is do no intentional harm, not even to animals, which your book does not include with all the animal and human sacrifices, war, and alike. To do no intentional harm perpetuates the feelings I was talking about above and to do harm diminishes it, because you start to justify the harm- again, that is all within you, not external or imposed upon you by some human concept.

 

I could go on and on, but you see, we are not talking about the same thing and it could only be called a god, if that is what one wishes to call it, but it is not a god nor is it a creator. It is neurological/chemical in nature, but that is about the only description one can give it without ending up not describing it all.

Mriana, that was beautiful. I had goosebumps.

 

I think End can understand this though, but he has a need to label it. I do agree that labeling it hurts the understanding, yet behind all the symbols and labels in Christianity, if one can actually look at what those symbols are trying to say, then it's there. It's there in many religions. I also think that adding something external to us and what we are a part of is misdirecting our feelings and this too is a hindrance. But, again, it's there in his religion and I think he has glimpsed it, but he then needs to label it in order to grasp onto it and hold it. We all use the language we are familar with. Jesus used the Hebrew notion of "Father" to describe it.

 

End, I don't mean to talk about you in front of your back but I think that we can get to a common ground with all of us. I'm pretty sure we are talking about the same thing, but the language we use disquises it.

[NotBlinded]

I think we have choices, choices congruent to God and those that are not. I believe God is in the mode of helping us see His choices, but not intervening in our selection. The selection is our choice. There are tangible results in both the physical and spiritual/Spiritual.

I think this is true, but it's really hard for me to see it through the language of Christianity. It's much easier with Taoism and Hinuism for me. I don't think that there is an intended mode of helping though. It's just there and it is discovered by us. It's all around us and our selection will yield the results and this is how we know. There shouldn't be any guilt in us by thinking that we chose wrongly and harmed God. No, I don't believe that. Can you harm a stream by not drinking?

 

I may have been talking Taoism for all I know- esp the part where I said to describe it is to not describe it at all, which is a Tao saying, but it uses the word god. By the same token, to help, relieve, give mercy, gives the feeling strength and even to receive assistance does the same thing too. Thus rule #2 can be summed with the Buddhist "right action" or be kind and gentle with others.

You are speaking the language that set me free Mriana!

[NotBlinded]

I think we have choices, choices congruent to God and those that are not. I believe God is in the mode of helping us see His choices, but not intervening in our selection. The selection is our choice. There are tangible results in both the physical and spiritual/Spiritual.

I think this is true, but it's really hard for me to see it through the language of Christianity. It's much easier with Taoism and Hinuism for me. I don't think that there is an intended mode of helping though. It's just there and it is discovered by us. It's all around us and our selection will yield the results and this is how we know. There shouldn't be any guilt in us by thinking that we chose wrongly and harmed God. No, I don't believe that. Can you harm a stream by not drinking?

 

I can drink of the stream, but I can also contaminate the stream by my choice.

Will Its waters be contaminated at the source? Not at all. It washes away all contamination.

[Mriana]

Mriana, that was beautiful. I had goosebumps.

 

I'm glad I made sense. It is often difficult to convey, but if I succeed in conveying something, it makes me happy.

 

I think End can understand this though, but he has a need to label it. I do agree that labeling it hurts the understanding, yet behind all the symbols and labels in Christianity, if one can actually look at what those symbols are trying to say, then it's there. It's there in many religions. I also think that adding something external to us and what we are a part of is misdirecting our feelings and this too is a hindrance. But, again, it's there in his religion and I think he has glimpsed it, but he then needs to label it in order to grasp onto it and hold it. We all use the language we are familar with. Jesus used the Hebrew notion of "Father" to describe it.

 

End, I don't mean to talk about you in front of your back but I think that we can get to a common ground with all of us. I'm pretty sure we are talking about the same thing, but the language we use disquises it.

 

Yes, labeling it kills it and even changes it, makes it something that is not. Sometimes the best language is no language at all, but rather a picture, if one can draw one or convey feelings we have. I don't think we are talking about the same thing though- he attributes it to something external and makes it fit his religion, which makes it something it is not.

[Mriana]

You are speaking the language that set me free Mriana!

 

Thank you. I never actually lost it, but they tried to "beat" it out of me.

[NotBlinded]

Mriana, that was beautiful. I had goosebumps.

 

I'm glad I made sense. It is often difficult to convey, but if I succeed in conveying something, it makes me happy.

 

I think End can understand this though, but he has a need to label it. I do agree that labeling it hurts the understanding, yet behind all the symbols and labels in Christianity, if one can actually look at what those symbols are trying to say, then it's there. It's there in many religions. I also think that adding something external to us and what we are a part of is misdirecting our feelings and this too is a hindrance. But, again, it's there in his religion and I think he has glimpsed it, but he then needs to label it in order to grasp onto it and hold it. We all use the language we are familar with. Jesus used the Hebrew notion of "Father" to describe it.

 

End, I don't mean to talk about you in front of your back but I think that we can get to a common ground with all of us. I'm pretty sure we are talking about the same thing, but the language we use disquises it.

 

Yes, labeling it kills it and even changes it, makes it something that is not. Sometimes the best language is no language at all, but rather a picture, if one can draw one or convey feelings we have. I don't think we are talking about the same thing though- he attributes it to something external and makes it fit his religion, which makes it something it is not.

Yes, he does. Yet, I believe he experienced "it", he just attibutes it to something else. I think the experience is the same though.

 

I believe that faith comes in letting go and letting "It" be whatever it is. Most religions give us something to hold on to. We are never informed that in order to grow we need to let the images go so we cling with all our might. This is belief, not faith.

 

I don't know if the experience itself is less geniune by holding images and mental idols or not though. I tend to think that the feeling of the experience is just as geniune as those that don't hold images. I'm also not sure of the harm it does to others or to the ones that do hold onto something after having a geniune experience. I can see a few areas that causes distress to individuals that do in seeing themselves as harming an external entity along with someone else. That's a horrible burden for one to live with, yet they can get forgiveness from this external diety while they may not be able to give it to themselves or receive it from the one that was harmed. So, I really don't know. I know it made me feel horrible when I thought I was continuing to crucify Christ everytime I "sinned". I just wish that more people would realize that to crucify him again is to not understand that we too are "God".

[Mriana]

Yes, he does. Yet, I believe he experienced "it", he just attibutes it to something else. I think the experience is the same though.

 

I believe that faith comes in letting go and letting "It" be whatever it is. Most religions give us something to hold on to. We are never informed that in order to grow we need to let the images go so we cling with all our might. This is belief, not faith.

 

I don't know if the experience itself is less geniune by holding images and mental idols or not though. I tend to think that the feeling of the experience is just as geniune as those that don't hold images. I'm also not sure of the harm it does to others or to the ones that do hold onto something after having a geniune experience. I can see a few areas that causes distress to individuals that do in seeing themselves as harming an external entity along with someone else. That's a horrible burden for one to live with, yet they can get forgiveness from this external diety while they may not be able to give it to themselves or receive it from the one that was harmed. So, I really don't know. I know it made me feel horrible when I thought I was continuing to crucify Christ everytime I "sinned". I just wish that more people would realize that to crucify him again is to not understand that we too are "God".

 

I agree. Some people have a hard time letting go of what they were told and the images, symbols, and mental images there of. They seem to need something tangible to hold in their mind, when it is not necessary.

[Guest end3]

I think we have a fundamental difference in that we can't view it from the same perspective. I say it is external and moves towards me, through me, and through and out from me. Each of you, as I understand, say that it moves from you, the origin, outwardly?...no initial external?

 

We can't seem to get past this, and like it or not, my real is my real, my belief. I am open for suggestions.

[NotBlinded]

I think we have a fundamental difference in that we can't view it from the same perspective. I say it is external and moves towards me, through me, and through and out from me. Each of you, as I understand, say that it moves from you, the origin, outwardly?...no initial external?

 

We can't seem to get past this, and like it or not, my real is my real, my belief. I am open for suggestions.

No, that isn't quite right. Internal and external are one. It doesn't orginate in us alone because we are a part of the One. So, it's not either or, but both. You could say that all of us were there in the beginning, the creation, the big bang. We are the eternal life force. Just not who we think ourselves to be. So yes, it moves towards us, through us and out of us because it is us and all of life.

[Mriana]

I think we have a fundamental difference in that we can't view it from the same perspective. I say it is external and moves towards me, through me, and through and out from me. Each of you, as I understand, say that it moves from you, the origin, outwardly?...no initial external?

 

We can't seem to get past this, and like it or not, my real is my real, my belief. I am open for suggestions.

 

No it is within at best it is like a fountain, but it doesn't move from me. We (including animals and the earth) are inter-connected. It can't go anywhere or do anything. It is in all of us, including animals and the earth, but it doesn't go anywhere. Think of it as life itself or energy, IF you must have some sort of label, but even that is not quite accurate.

[Mriana]

I think we have a fundamental difference in that we can't view it from the same perspective. I say it is external and moves towards me, through me, and through and out from me. Each of you, as I understand, say that it moves from you, the origin, outwardly?...no initial external?

 

We can't seem to get past this, and like it or not, my real is my real, my belief. I am open for suggestions.

No, that isn't quite right. Internal and external are one. It doesn't orginate in us alone because we are a part of the One. So, it's not either or, but both. You could say that all of us were there in the beginning, the creation, the big bang. We are the eternal life force. Just not who we think ourselves to be. So yes, it moves towards us, through us and out of us because it is us and all of life.

 

Yes, except I don't see it moving anywhere. More like our brains or hearts. They are in us, but they don't go anywhere, unless we have a transplant, yet it is one big something that connects us to each other and the earth. Maybe like the umbilical cord when the mother is carrying the child- not sure how to describe what I mean.

[Guest end3]

I think we have a fundamental difference in that we can't view it from the same perspective. I say it is external and moves towards me, through me, and through and out from me. Each of you, as I understand, say that it moves from you, the origin, outwardly?...no initial external?

 

We can't seem to get past this, and like it or not, my real is my real, my belief. I am open for suggestions.

No, that isn't quite right. Internal and external are one. It doesn't orginate in us alone because we are a part of the One. So, it's not either or, but both. You could say that all of us were there in the beginning, the creation, the big bang. We are the eternal life force. Just not who we think ourselves to be. So yes, it moves towards us, through us and out of us because it is us and all of life.

 

It appears to me that Christianity has put a face on "it"....Jesus. The difference is then it creates a relationship between it and us, one that we typically violate between ages 3 to 20...to be reconciled to "it" later. Seems easy enough.

 

Edit: then you have to ask yourself if form matters. Oy...

[NotBlinded]

I think we have a fundamental difference in that we can't view it from the same perspective. I say it is external and moves towards me, through me, and through and out from me. Each of you, as I understand, say that it moves from you, the origin, outwardly?...no initial external?

 

We can't seem to get past this, and like it or not, my real is my real, my belief. I am open for suggestions.

No, that isn't quite right. Internal and external are one. It doesn't orginate in us alone because we are a part of the One. So, it's not either or, but both. You could say that all of us were there in the beginning, the creation, the big bang. We are the eternal life force. Just not who we think ourselves to be. So yes, it moves towards us, through us and out of us because it is us and all of life.

 

Yes, except I don't see it moving anywhere. More like our brains or hearts. They are in us, but they don't go anywhere, unless we have a transplant, yet it is one big something that connects us to each other and the earth. Maybe like the umbilical cord when the mother is carrying the child- not sure how to describe what I mean.

I meant is as in maybe like love, life force, dependence, or something like that. It is there and there and everywhere!

[NotBlinded]

I think we have a fundamental difference in that we can't view it from the same perspective. I say it is external and moves towards me, through me, and through and out from me. Each of you, as I understand, say that it moves from you, the origin, outwardly?...no initial external?

 

We can't seem to get past this, and like it or not, my real is my real, my belief. I am open for suggestions.

No, that isn't quite right. Internal and external are one. It doesn't orginate in us alone because we are a part of the One. So, it's not either or, but both. You could say that all of us were there in the beginning, the creation, the big bang. We are the eternal life force. Just not who we think ourselves to be. So yes, it moves towards us, through us and out of us because it is us and all of life.

 

It appears to me that Christianity has put a face on "it"....Jesus. The difference is then it creates a relationship between it and us, one that we typically violate between ages 3 to 20...to be reconciled to "it" later. Seems easy enough.

 

Edit: then you have to ask yourself if form matters. Oy...

Ahhh...it's just a matter of form. Matter come from the word matre (or something like that) meaning to measure. We are just a measurment of form. What is at that basis of that form?

[Mriana]

It appears to me that Christianity has put a face on "it"....Jesus. The difference is then it creates a relationship between it and us, one that we typically violate between ages 3 to 20...to be reconciled to "it" later. Seems easy enough.

 

Edit: then you have to ask yourself if form matters. Oy...

 

It doesn't need a face and to do so, makes it something it is not and unless you are having a relationship with yourself, other humans, animals, or the earth, you can't have have any relationship with it. IF you are having a relationship with Jesus, you aren't having an actual relationship with anyone. And children do not violate whatever. It's the adults who do it.

 

 

I meant is as in maybe like love, life force, dependence, or something like that. It is there and there and everywhere!

 

Oh ok.

[Guest end3]

I think we have a fundamental difference in that we can't view it from the same perspective. I say it is external and moves towards me, through me, and through and out from me. Each of you, as I understand, say that it moves from you, the origin, outwardly?...no initial external?

 

We can't seem to get past this, and like it or not, my real is my real, my belief. I am open for suggestions.

No, that isn't quite right. Internal and external are one. It doesn't orginate in us alone because we are a part of the One. So, it's not either or, but both. You could say that all of us were there in the beginning, the creation, the big bang. We are the eternal life force. Just not who we think ourselves to be. So yes, it moves towards us, through us and out of us because it is us and all of life.

 

It appears to me that Christianity has put a face on "it"....Jesus. The difference is then it creates a relationship between it and us, one that we typically violate between ages 3 to 20...to be reconciled to "it" later. Seems easy enough.

 

Edit: then you have to ask yourself if form matters. Oy...

Ahhh...it's just a matter of form. Matter come from the word matre (or something like that) meaning to measure. We are just a measurment of form. What is at that basis of that form?

 

I feel like we just made a full loop.... Good conversation.

[Mriana]

Maybe you guys have, but I don't see us talking about the same thing. I say it is the adults who do it because they impose and force religion on children, as they insist "that's not God". It isn't, but they force this Jesus story on kids and that has nothing to do with it. You can't find it in Jesus/Christianity or any other religion, because that is not it, as I said before.

 

You can find it in neurology though, but not any religion.