The Love Of Jesus

[Guest end3]

 

 

The desception ...

 

DECEPTION - do you not have spell check? Copy that and paste it into your replies as needed.

 

btw 'satan' or any analogue thereof does not exist.

 

thank you

[Antlerman]

By deceived, my view of your life is a severalfold thing. Let me paraphrase:

 

1) God reveals Himself.

2) Humans can't see that this is the Truth....the two ministers you spoke of that maybe were stuck in orthodoxy, in good faith or maybe bad in their practice.

3) You searched elsewhere in your faith because you knew it to be true.

4) You go to Bible School.

I continued searching because the power of it was too great to be denied. I met those who held up the Bible with confidence proclaiming it to be that Truth I was seeking. I bit. (If there was any deception, it was that point, with them, for they only had a Bible and their humanly fallible interpretations embraced as absolute, undeniable Truth™, a claim so many today make as well...).

 

5) When hit with the difficult concepts of Christianity, then because you are more apt to reject the orthodoxy as you did before, then this path becomes the better option. Not only rejecting orthodoxy, but rejecting the Name of the Truth.

And now you go swerving off towards Endsville, a small one-person town hiding down some winding gravel road behind some distant snow capped mountains.

 

How do you leap to me being "more apt to reject the orthodoxy as I did before"? You think because I said I talked to two ministers, a couple of days after my first experience that that was it?? You don't know the whole story. That is true, but then following that there were many more before I hit the fundis. Go look back at my account you're quoting and read it again:

 

I saw people walking by me, and rather than feeling darkness and shame in my heart and averting my eyes away as in my past, instead I felt pure love and joy. No thoughts of darkness were in me anywhere at that moment, and I felt truly alive for the first time in my life.

 

From this point began the life-long quest of mine that I stumbled about to build upon, again making the mistake of looking for answers from ministers

.

Two years later, and no further towards finding answers I happened upon a very charismatic Biblical literalist whose convictions of truth inspired me. I was caught into the snare, and found myself convinced somehow that all this was somehow God calling me to serve him in the ministry. I enrolled in Bible College and graduated top of my class with a degree in theology, all the while being ripped apart inside by the conflict of what was in my heart, and what was being portrayed about God.

I didn't talk to just two "orthodox" ministers End... read it. Two years of going to orthodox ministers, searching, longing, hoping for, asking, knocking... then after two years of not receiving light, then I find the fundi who basically is your "We've got the Truth™ in this here, God's Owner's Manual" drivel that we are all too familiar with.

 

So I did not 'reject' the orthodox and developed some pattern of behavior - which you skipping off over stardust in your imaginations about me trying to make sense of this story of mine to fit it into your view of reality. I looked to them, and continued to look to them, thirsting for truth of God and Spirit as I have ever since that first Awakening. It has never left me, and it can't be suppressed. I didn't just walk away and quit looking.

 

I kept looking, and those "difficult concepts of Christianity" that I simply rejected them? Hardly! I forced myself to accept them out of a deep desire to know and understand God to the fullest! I believed them (things like eternal torture, blah, blah...), because I thought I needed to conform my thoughts and beliefs to "correct thinking" in order to "know God". Just like so, so many Evangelicals who grace these doors here proclaim is necessary.

 

But here's the big catch End, I couldn't deny what was in me. That thing in me that set me on this path from that first exposure to Light. It was in fact that "Love of God" in me that could not accept this lack of Spirit, this lack of Light, and Love and Truth of Heart that I had to then work to unravel, to deconstruct all these theological structures I had work so damned hard to construct in order to reach God!! Damn it End! You have no idea!

 

I had to reject it. I had to leave it because that Truth in me could not be denied. It has been a long road of deconstruction, outright distancing myself for the sake of clarity, and finally building on bring it all together, and begin now where I began then and walk in that Light. Did I reject the Name of Truth? Hardly. I embraced it by rejecting the Name of Religion claiming it owned Truth. I have honored it, and done so it seeking it in Spirit and Truth.

 

You say that your end result has allowed you to find what you need, but I ask this....

 

What about the needs of others to find the Truth inside of orthodoxy. Is it right to abandon those that sit in the pews with sincere hope, trust of healing?

You've asked this before Ed. I'm still not sure how to answer. Would you suggest now that I have the ability to reconcile this spiritually for me, that I should go into a Christian church and preach, to guide them into a light that transcends the simpler understandings wrapped in mythological trappings? First I'd have to be accepted as a Christian to lead Christians, which I have first my own spirituality to be true to and the Christian system isn't where it's met for me. Secondly, I don't think I would be what they need, not necessarily best suited for that role. Take you for example, you have actually tasted the transcendent, and yet these concepts elude you! Imagine your average more traditional, conventional church attendee? This is some pretty heady and lofty stuff for Myrtle and Harold to choke on. I don't think they go church to seek transcendent enlightement.

 

But I do believe I am doing good in the world. Not just in my personal life in others I touch, but here. I support those who are trying to find truth for themselves wherever that takes them. I know how I see things for me, is not necessarily right for them in their own sorting out of stuff as they look, but we are all evolving. It's all part of it, IMO. Whether it is leaving Christianity and becoming an atheist, or some alternative religion, or an agnostic, or just living free and growing as an individual - I don't see any of it as steps backward. People leave because they weren't satisfied. And they weren't satisfied because they are looking for satisfaction. Ponder that, and then maybe you can see that truth is larger than the one concept of it you use to help you. It's greater than that. And the minute you see that, then you see the movement of everything as seeking it.

 

 

The deception is not by those....it is by Satan or whatever name you wish to call evil.

By their fruits you shall know them.

 

"

By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit.

"

 

 

I am deceived into Love; deceived into Truth, deceived into Peace; deceived into Unity; deceived into Respect; deceived into Compassion; deceived into Light.

 

Do you believe these are the fruits of deception?

[Guest end3]

By deceived, my view of your life is a severalfold thing. Let me paraphrase:

 

1) God reveals Himself.

2) Humans can't see that this is the Truth....the two ministers you spoke of that maybe were stuck in orthodoxy, in good faith or maybe bad in their practice.

3) You searched elsewhere in your faith because you knew it to be true.

4) You go to Bible School.

I continued searching because the power of it was too great to be denied. I met those who held up the Bible with confidence proclaiming it to be that Truth I was seeking. I bit. (If there was any deception, it was that point, with them, for they only had a Bible and their humanly fallible interpretations embraced as absolute, undeniable Truth, a claim so many today make as well...).

 

You use the word stolid. Is it possible that your humanity and theirs contributed to your perception of your experience being the Truth as defined by Jesus? What I mean by that is, how can you view humanity as stolid after the experience. For me the high lasted about three weeks before I started slipping back into my more normal mode of thinking.....just saying. But I will take it as you say.

 

5) When hit with the difficult concepts of Christianity, then because you are more apt to reject the orthodoxy as you did before, then this path becomes the better option. Not only rejecting orthodoxy, but rejecting the Name of the Truth.

And now you go swerving off towards Endsville, a small one-person town hiding down some winding gravel road behind some distant snow capped mountains.

 

How do you leap to me being "more apt to reject the orthodoxy as I did before"? You think because I said I talked to two ministers, a couple of days after my first experience that that was it?? You don't know the whole story. That is true, but then following that there were many more before I hit the fundis. Go look back at my account you're quoting and read it again:

 

I saw people walking by me, and rather than feeling darkness and shame in my heart and averting my eyes away as in my past, instead I felt pure love and joy. No thoughts of darkness were in me anywhere at that moment, and I felt truly alive for the first time in my life.

 

From this point began the life-long quest of mine that I stumbled about to build upon, again making the mistake of looking for answers from ministers

.

Two years later, and no further towards finding answers I happened upon a very charismatic Biblical literalist whose convictions of truth inspired me. I was caught into the snare, and found myself convinced somehow that all this was somehow God calling me to serve him in the ministry. I enrolled in Bible College and graduated top of my class with a degree in theology, all the while being ripped apart inside by the conflict of what was in my heart, and what was being portrayed about God.

I didn't talk to just two "orthodox" ministers End... read it. Two years of going to orthodox ministers, searching, longing, hoping for, asking, knocking... then after two years of not receiving light, then I find the fundi who basically is your "We've got the Truth in this here, God's Owner's Manual" drivel that we are all too familiar with.

 

You said "again, making the mistake". That means you perceived the first encounter as a mistake.

 

So I did not 'reject' the orthodox and developed some pattern of behavior - which you skipping off over stardust in your imaginations about me trying to make sense of this story of mine to fit it into your view of reality. I looked to them, and continued to look to them, thirsting for truth of God and Spirit as I have ever since that first Awakening. It has never left me, and it can't be suppressed. I didn't just walk away and quit looking.

 

That's fine. I was just noticing. How can you not say that the description of your experience does not match much of what is described in the Bible...do I need to pull the verses...I will. I could even take your account into church and read it to the congregation and they would say AMEN. (I am not intentionally fighting K, just asking)

How is it that you came away from your experience not being Christ? Your first inclination, your heart maybe, was to go to a minister. Right?

 

I kept looking, and those "difficult concepts of Christianity" that I simply rejected them? Hardly! I forced myself to accept them out of a deep desire to know and understand God to the fullest! I believed them (things like eternal torture, blah, blah...), because I thought I needed to conform my thoughts and beliefs to "correct thinking" in order to "know God". Just like so, so many Evangelicals who grace these doors here proclaim is necessary.

 

I believe you and can see the conflict from the heart.

 

But here's the big catch End, I couldn't deny what was in me. That thing in me that set me on this path from that first exposure to Light. It was in fact that "Love of God" in me that could not accept this lack of Spirit, this lack of Light, and Love and Truth of Heart that I had to then work to unravel, to deconstruct all these theological structures I had work so damned hard to construct in order to reach God!! Damn it End! You have no idea!

 

I had to reject it. I had to leave it because that Truth in me could not be denied. It has been a long road of deconstruction, outright distancing myself for the sake of clarity, and finally building on bring it all together, and begin now where I began then and walk in that Light. Did I reject the Name of Truth? Hardly. I embraced it by rejecting the Name of Religion claiming it owned Truth. I have honored it, and done so it seeking it in Spirit and Truth.

So you took the potential explanations apart and looked, rejected, and then reunited with It.

 

You say that your end result has allowed you to find what you need, but I ask this....

 

What about the needs of others to find the Truth inside of orthodoxy. Is it right to abandon those that sit in the pews with sincere hope, trust of healing?

You've asked this before Ed. I'm still not sure how to answer. Would you suggest now that I have the ability to reconcile this spiritually for me, that I should go into a Christian church and preach, to guide them into a light that transcends the simpler understandings wrapped in mythological trappings? First I'd have to be accepted as a Christian to lead Christians, which I have first my own spirituality to be true to and the Christian system isn't where it's met for me. Secondly, I don't think I would be what they need, not necessarily best suited for that role. Take you for example, you have actually tasted the transcendent, and yet these concepts elude you! Imagine your average more traditional, conventional church attendee? This is some pretty heady and lofty stuff for Myrtle and Harold to choke on. I don't think they go church to seek transcendent enlightement.

 

Doesn't the bible say, paraphrasing, "becoming like them". Yes, that is why they are sitting there. By your standards, why is their search any less valid than your rejection of other forms for yourself? By your own understanding, the mythic means of touching the elephant doesn't mean that maybe they aren't touching the elephant?

 

AM said "But I do believe I am doing good in the world. Not just in my personal life in others I touch, but here. I support those who are trying to find truth for themselves wherever that takes them. I know how I see things for me, is not necessarily right for them in their own sorting out of stuff as they look, but we are all evolving. It's all part of it, IMO. Whether it is leaving Christianity and becoming an atheist, or some alternative religion, or an agnostic, or just living free and growing as an individual - I don't see any of it as steps backward. People leave because they weren't satisfied. And they weren't satisfied because they are looking for satisfaction. Ponder that, and then maybe you can see that truth is larger than the one concept of it you use to help you. It's greater than that. And the minute you see that, then you see the movement of everything as seeking it".

 

You just said everything, so why if we all are growing towards it, then what keeps us from moving forward, growing? Why would there be a need to reject for stolid or stagnant? A counter force maybe?

 

AM quoted "By their fruits you shall know them".

This also frustrates me. How can you take your experience and then label it as not being something that was bestowed upon you? And then, accepting people stuck in their knowledge, stuck in myth worship? Do you place the responsibility of knowing your experience on them by them being lazy or faulty? Where do you place yourself in the mix?

 

I am also frustrated that we, even through experience cannot find unity.

[Neon Genesis]

If I had met someone like Bishop Spong, perhaps I would be a Christianity. But it is precisely the attitude displayed that calls my road "Deceived" as you did, that demonstrates a lack of connection with Spirit. It is that that I left Christianity over. That is incompatible with God on the level of my experience of the Divine.

I've often felt the same way. I've sometimes wonder if I had discovered the writings of Bishop Spong before Richard Dawkins I might have converted to liberal Christianity instead of atheism, but Dawkins spoke to me at the time in a way that Christianity didn't when I still had a lot of anger at religion.

[Antlerman]

 

You use the word stolid. Is it possible that your humanity and theirs contributed to your perception of your experience being the Truth as defined by Jesus? What I mean by that is, how can you view humanity as stolid after the experience. For me the high lasted about three weeks before I started slipping back into my more normal mode of thinking.....just saying. But I will take it as you say.

Again, you misrepresent/don't see my words, I'm sorry to point this out again. (BTW, if you misinterpret what I say so much, being part of the same culture, using the same language, and having direct one on one discussions, how can you possibly lean on an interpretation of an ancient book from another culture, a different langauge, written to others, as a basis of understanding reality? It sort of put that into a queer light, doesn't it?)

 

I did not say that I viewed "humanity" as stolid after the experience. Here's my words again, highlighting what I really said:

 

I openly shared my experience with wonder and puzzlement in my voice, to

the stolid looks

of the minister

who gave little response. The following day I spoke to another, this time a Catholic priest, who likewise sat with a blank stare and his offering what I learned later to be the typical Catholic response of asking if I had anything to confess.

 

I left feeling discouraged, lost, and confused, yet with this knowledge in my heart. Suddenly, without any warning or indication, the entire Universe opened to me before my eyes, as if a great curtain opened in an instant. I suddenly saw for the first time in my life - color. The world was full of color, with vibrant greens and blues everywhere!

The World was full of light and love and color, and permeated everything as a sort of living joy that surrounded me, moved through me, and began flowing out of the most unimaginably deepest part of my being out into the world in a sort of song, as can only be described as utter, living love.

 

I saw people walking by me, and rather than feeling darkness and shame in my heart and averting my eyes away as in my past, instead I felt pure love and joy. No thoughts of darkness were in me anywhere at that moment, and I felt truly alive for the first time in my life.

 

And now quoting back from my testimony I posted 4 years ago:

 

In the middle of the day, following a period of introspective struggle trying to find answers to the deepest questions of my very existence, I was walking along outside and without any sort of precipitous event, suddenly the world burst forth upon me. The sky opened up and I saw blue! The grass was green! I could smell the air and it flooded every inch of my soul. I felt for the first time in my life, Love!!! Love in its absolute purest essence.

It was coming out of the entire being of who I am and beaming out without restraint into the world, with peace, joy, meaning, wisdom, understanding, patience, and gentle strength!. It surrounded me in all that is life! Everything was alive! Everything was peace. Everything was joy. There were no fears, no worries, no anger, and no hostilities. Just understanding, just knowledge, just joy, around me and in me, flowing forth out of the most unimaginably deepest part of my soul I have ever known!

What do you notice in there? That the stolid looks I saw were from the two ministers, not humanity, which mind you is how I interpret their looks from the lens of today looking back at their expressions at that time - it was not my interpretation of them at the moment in time for me. At that time I was merely sitting their open handed looking for knowledge, and I left feeling discouraged because I walked away from them with nothing.

 

It was then, shortly afterward, minutes afterward that the Universe opened to me as I described. Then, all darkness disappeared everywhere, and everything, opened before me exposing vibrant, vitality of Love, Life, Light, Joy, Peace, Knowledge, etc. It was in everything, through everything, from everywhere to Itself. Where I would normally see darkness it was all pushed out. I saw others, people, humanity, and was amazed to see that Light that was there's, even if they weren't seeing it themselves. I did not perceive humanity as stolid at that time.

 

Perhaps you are confused how that following the previous experience at the beginning of that account, that within a few days I was feeling so confused? I haven't really thought about that too much until this moment. I would say the first experience is what took me from fear and death into Awareness of Life and Knowledge. But it was a catharsis, a purging time, a cleansing, a Realization.

 

It's effect was to begin, to turn around. There were great tears of cleansing that happened. But I was left then with my eyes and hands open to be filled. The second experience several days later was what exposed me to that Living Vitality in ALL. You could call that my 'born again' moment. The two were distinct, yet Transcendent. The latter is where there were the long lingering sense that lasted, and the combination of the two is what I would consider the whole of it for me. It was one thing, but two parts.

 

Ever since, I have seen the world differently and it is Source and Center. All the religious system was to seek to understand it and build on it in my life. Some systems work better than others depending on a huge and complex number of variables. But as I've said through this whole thing touching on symbols, it's not what you believe, but what you embrace. It's through the fruits that the judge of truth lies, not the doctrines. I don't know how that can be any more obvious or clearer.

 

I didn't talk to just two "orthodox" ministers End... read it. Two years of going to orthodox ministers, searching, longing, hoping for, asking, knocking... then after two years of not receiving light, then I find the fundi who basically is your "We've got the Truth™ in this here, God's Owner's Manual" drivel that we are all too familiar with.

 

You said "again, making the mistake". That means you perceived the first encounter as a mistake.

I actual said 'making the mistake' back when I was talking to Kratos some time ago about my going to talk to ministers. It was how I expressed it at that time with where I was at when I recounted this to him.

 

I would probably not say it was a mistake now that I talked to them. It was part of my process to come to where I am today. It was natural I sought them out being part of a Christian culture and "God" is represented by the symbols of that religion in the culture I am part of. I can wish now that I had found the right sort of direction that suits me now, but in all honesty, where I ended up was where I seem to have needed to go for the time being in order to correct other aspects of my life first.

 

I have always said "I outgrew it", and that is true. But at that time, at that stage of my development, that highly structured, "This is true, that is not" approach appealed to me because of need. But spiritually, it became too restricting and working against me at that point - think of it in terms of this, "when the time had fully come, God sent his Son... to redeem those under law, that we might receive the full rights of sons."

 

Even in what Paul says about religious light shows a progressive development, "When the time had fully come...". I'll get to this later in that other post I want to make, but for now to just say that we develop as individuals and a societies as a whole. Paul imagines a progress of understanding from the early days of the laws of priests, to the inner life of spiritual development. In the same way, we move from those structures of our childhood (mythic systems) into more developed identities of Self. When the fullness of time had come for me, I broke free from the yoke of the law for my childhood into discovering the truth of the Spirit within. At that in a tiny nutshell is what all of this is about. Growing.

[MultifariousBirdLady]

If I had met someone like Bishop Spong, perhaps I would be a Christianity. But it is precisely the attitude displayed that calls my road "Deceived" as you did, that demonstrates a lack of connection with Spirit. It is that that I left Christianity over. That is incompatible with God on the level of my experience of the Divine.

I've often felt the same way. I've sometimes wonder if I had discovered the writings of Bishop Spong before Richard Dawkins I might have converted to liberal Christianity instead of atheism, but Dawkins spoke to me at the time in a way that Christianity didn't when I still had a lot of anger at religion.

 

To some extent, this actually happened to me, or at least started to, before I realized that even this approach would still result in a lot of difficulty within a normal church context. As mentioned before, I did reconsider other, more mystical and liberal forms of Christianity at one point after I had been out of fundamentalism for maybe five years or so. I had been a practicing Pagan but suddenly felt drawn to -- of all things -- the Eucharist... and in a form of it that as I said I had not grown up with. I did read Spong (which was very helpful), Anthony de Mello (especially so), and some other things along those lines. The rector at the church I ended up attending knew this -- I was very open about it -- and we did have several very long and helpful talks about what I was learning then vs. what I had grown up with. What I read and what I experienced during that time were very compelling, and went a long way towards assisting my healing process from Fundamentalism by showing me this other side of Christianity that I had glimpsed while still a fundamentalist but because of the dogma could never really follow up on. But I ended up realizing very clearly that the understanding I had of "Christ" through experience, and which was well articulated in the books I was reading, simply did not fit with the praxis and dogma of the religion itself, even when the community was led by a pretty liberal and open-minded rector. Saying the Apostles' Creed every week was particularly jarring, and eventually I decided that I could not in good conscience stay in the church when my own understanding was so different from what I was supposed to profess.

 

The biggest difference in leaving this form of Christianity vs. leaving the fundamentalism I had previously deconverted from is that I had no hard feelings afterwards. There was a sort-of bittersweet sadness, but none of the guilt, fear and anger that was so hellish to deal with after leaving fundamentalism.

 

As a little background, this whole process happened over the course of about a year. Things I learned during that time period not only allowed me to reconcile a lot of things in my Christian past but also allowed me to integrate this understanding with the religious beliefs and experiences I had come to know after leaving fundamentalism. When I consider the process as a whole, I have little doubt that it was prompted by nudgings of the Divine all the way through.

[MultifariousBirdLady]

Secondly, I don't think I would be what they need, not necessarily best suited for that role. Take you for example, you have actually tasted the transcendent, and yet these concepts elude you! Imagine your average more traditional, conventional church attendee? This is some pretty heady and lofty stuff for Myrtle and Harold to choke on. I don't think they go church to seek transcendent enlightement.

 

Indeed.

 

I mentioned Anthony de Mello in my previous post. There are a couple of things in one of my favorite books of his (The Song of the Bird) that speak to this. Well, there are many in there, really, but here are a couple that I really like.

 

Monkey Salvation for a Fish

 

"What on earth are you doing?" said I

to the monkey when I saw him lift a

fish from the water and place it

on a tree.

 

"I am saving it from drowning" was the

reply.

 

True Spirituality

 

The master was asked, "What is spirituality?"

 

He said, "Spirituality is that which succeeds

in bringing one to inner transformation."

 

"But if I apply the traditional methods handed

down by the masters, is that not spirituality?"

 

"It is not spirituality if it does not perform

its function for you. A blanket is no longer a

blanket if it does not keep you warm."

 

"So spirituality does change?"

 

"People change and needs change. So what was

spirituality once is spirituality no more. What

generally goes under the name of spirituality

is merely the record of past methods."

 

Don't cut the person to fit the coat.

[Guest end3]

I want to say first that it is not my intention nor has it been to hurt anyone during our discourse. I am a touch vindictive on occasion, but down deep that is not my heart.

 

I am most likely going to take a break from our conversation as any evidence that I point out bearing striking similarities to Christ has been repeatedly overlooked.

 

You say AM, that we can all access your experience vs. I am saying it is given by God to whom He chooses. Note the actual number within the population of Ex-C that even remotely claims an experience....fact.

 

As I also stated, the description of your experience is near verbatim from the Bible....ignored.

 

As I have also stated before, you say anyone can access this, yet no amount of flowery description has allowed anyone into this experience.....fact.

 

And then upon repeated attempts for me to understand, you say I don't. I cannot be missing a description that many times K. Some of what I am perceiving is accurate. Perhaps you might acknowledge a little credability from an opposing view. You can't be 100% right in your assessment. I am glad that your faith pushes you there, but as has been pointed out before, a blinding faith?

[Guest end3]

Secondly, I don't think I would be what they need, not necessarily best suited for that role. Take you for example, you have actually tasted the transcendent, and yet these concepts elude you! Imagine your average more traditional, conventional church attendee? This is some pretty heady and lofty stuff for Myrtle and Harold to choke on. I don't think they go church to seek transcendent enlightement.

 

Indeed.

 

I mentioned Anthony de Mello in my previous post. There are a couple of things in one of my favorite books of his (The Song of the Bird) that speak to this. Well, there are many in there, really, but here are a couple that I really like.

 

Monkey Salvation for a Fish

 

"What on earth are you doing?" said I

to the monkey when I saw him lift a

fish from the water and place it

on a tree.

 

"I am saving it from drowning" was the

reply.

 

True Spirituality

 

The master was asked, "What is spirituality?"

 

He said, "Spirituality is that which succeeds

in bringing one to inner transformation."

 

"But if I apply the traditional methods handed

down by the masters, is that not spirituality?"

 

"It is not spirituality if it does not perform

its function for you. A blanket is no longer a

blanket if it does not keep you warm."

 

"So spirituality does change?"

 

"People change and needs change. So what was

spirituality once is spirituality no more. What

generally goes under the name of spirituality

is merely the record of past methods."

 

Don't cut the person to fit the coat.

Who would no more about fitting the coat to a person than the Creator of the person.

 

This whole entire attitude is vane.

 

And as Legion keeps stating, everytime you have a Keith follower exposit how "great this is", it just builds his "fat head" ....Legion's words. The denial of evidence in lieu of self is disturbing.

[Antlerman]

I was just noticing. How can you not say that the description of your experience does not match much of what is described in the Bible...do I need to pull the verses...I will. I could even take your account into church and read it to the congregation and they would say AMEN.

You could also take my account to other religious settings and read it, and watch heads nodding "yes" too. Are we starting to see the picture yet?

 

What the problem is that I've learned to see through my experience, is that because people are taught the Bible is infallible, that it is God's direct communication to us, that it is authoritative, etc. That any time someone sees any conformation of something within it, they leap off to the silly doctrine of infallibility! It is circular in reason.

 

Of course it describes the ineffable. So do other religions as well. I quoted several authors earlier from various backgrounds and beliefs, both Christian and non-Christian. And each in their own way express it. Some of those human's expressions are in the Bible, some are not. But that fact that it is in the Bible doesn't not automatically change its status from human expression to confirmation of the infallibility of a book! The Bible as infallible and authoritative is a mythic creation of early church leaders. Just as my looking up at the sky and seeing a rainbow is not a confirmation of the Bible's tale of Noah's Flood because it says that's why we have rainbows today (as some sort of explanation of the natural), that the mystic expressions of the Divine found in the Bible (Gospel John always appealed most to me) is not a confirmation of the myth that the Bible is direct communication from God.

 

If it is, then one of the books I am reading write now is also God's word. And moreover, then shouldn't you conclude that my words are infallible as well, because I describe it pretty accurately too? One does not follow the other. But for what it's worth, I find value in the Bible's descriptions at times, as well as those of others.

 

(I am not intentionally fighting K, just asking)

How is it that you came away from your experience not being Christ?

I didn't come away from it 'not being Christ'. I always called it God. But my understanding of that has grown. You could call it Christ. You could call it whatever symbol of your culture helps you relate to It.

 

Doesn't the bible say, paraphrasing, "becoming like them". Yes, that is why they are sitting there. By your standards, why is their search any less valid than your rejection of other forms for yourself? By your own understanding, the mythic means of touching the elephant doesn't mean that maybe they aren't touching the elephant?

"Becoming like them" is in reference to Christ becoming like humans. But if you mean Paul saying "I am all things to all men, to the Greek I am a Greek, to the Jew I am a Jew," etc. That would not mean 'posing' as something you're not! I do the same thing now. I am able to to relate to someone who is academic on that level, and I am able to relate to people who see the world in other ways. It's being a good communicator, and I think a lot of it has to do with empathy. You tailor how you communicate to them understanding how they see the world, as best you can. It's not a perfect science, but more an art form. I certainly fail at it as well as anyone.

 

But what do you want me to do? Go and save them?? I can't. It has to come from within them to look for something. And then, as I said before, I don't make any claims to having "The Answer™" for them. There's way too much of that rhetoric already in our society, with your Christian Right on the one hand, and your Rational Materialist preachers like Dawkins on the other - each in effect saying "no this is truth!" I see truth as something that is multi-faceted, multi-dimensional, layered, textured, subtle, and a dynamic balance of inner and outer truth in an ever evolving connected reality for us as developing beings. At Source, all truth merges into ONE.

 

I don't judge their search as any less valid than mine. I've never said, nor suggested that. Go back and read me again. I think you will see I say repeated it is valid for where they are. What is invalid, is for you or Pastor to say that because we say we experience the Ineffable, the "Love of God" (or Jesus, or Krishna, etc), is to deny it to us because we don't use the same set of tools (symbols) as they do. I don't deny the Christian access to that Love. They deny it to us (or quibble about the name "Jesus" attached to it saying "it's not the same" which has yet to be demonstrated).

 

 

You just said everything, so why if we all are growing towards it, then what keeps us from moving forward, growing? Why would there be a need to reject for stolid or stagnant? A counter force maybe?

Good questions. What keeps us moving towards it? In my view, in how I believe, in how I frame it to myself, that is Spirit. Why should there be a need to reject something in favor of another? Excellent question!

 

Evolution. That's how it works. Emergence of a new level necessitates negating (but not destroying) the earlier level it is built on. Did you reject playing with toy cars and trucks in the dirt, going "vroom, vroom", in favor of a new matrix of actually driving a real one as a responsible adult? In order to build you have to "set aside the childish ways". That is in effect "rejecting" them. Why did the Christians "reject" the old temple sacrifices? Because in order to evolve their beliefs into something new, they had to find a way to put it behind them (which is why BTW, you see such 'free' interpretations of the OT in their Christology - another discussion).

 

More on this later, if I ever get to that damned post I want to put together!

 

AM quoted "By their fruits you shall know them".

This also frustrates me. How can you take your experience and then label it as not being something that was bestowed upon you?

It's all a way of looking at it. Perception. It's not one thing or the other. "Bestowed" I prefer not to use as it places it to much in some anthropocentric, anthropomorphic way of perceiving for me. You could look at it like that from that point of view - externalizing it that way.

 

And then, accepting people stuck in their knowledge, stuck in myth worship? Do you place the responsibility of knowing your experience on them by them being lazy or faulty? Where do you place yourself in the mix?

I'm not going to place blame anywhere. It's a simple matter of gained perspective. Sometimes, we may never get it, share it with someone else. Just like I couldn't wrap my mind around perceptions of the world through they eyes of someone versed in mathematics. "What we are, that only can we see". It's about perspectives.

 

I am also frustrated that we, even through experience cannot find unity.

We can if we see beyond quibbling over the symbol as truth itself. The point of this thread.

[oddbird1963]

Indeed.

 

I mentioned Anthony de Mello in my previous post. There are a couple of things in one of my favorite books of his (The Song of the Bird) that speak to this. Well, there are many in there, really, but here are a couple that I really like.

 

. . .

 

BRAVO! Such profound quotes that you shared with us. I am putting de Mello on my reading list!!

 

 

EDIT: MBL: I'm looking at The Song of the Bird in google books. This is a joyful experience!

[Antlerman]

As I also stated, the description of your experience is near verbatim from the Bible....ignored.

I hadn't ignored it dude! I just hadn't gotten to it yet. There were only so many quotes allowed per post, and plus I needed to take a break. I addressed it in my last post in this thread I was working on while you posted this.

 

I see your tendency to leap to conclusions about a whole lot of things when the fault lies entirely in your hasty assessments. Relax, or ask questions. Don't accuse.

[Antlerman]

And as Legion keeps stating, everytime you have a Keith follower exposit how "great this is", it just builds his "fat head" ....Legion's words. The denial of evidence in lieu of self is disturbing.

I humor Legion because he thinks it's clever. I'm being nice. But it's only funny if it has a basis in reality. It doesn't fit me. I don't need to imagine myself as smarter than I am. I have enough to feel good without needing to get a fat head to puff my weak ego up.

 

So, now you're stooping to ad hominems? Why so much anxiety and misunderstanding end?

[Guest end3]

So, now you're stooping to ad hominems? Why so much anxiety and misunderstanding end?

 

The relationship of self IS evidence as an answer.

[Antlerman]

Indeed.

 

I mentioned Anthony de Mello in my previous post. There are a couple of things in one of my favorite books of his (The Song of the Bird) that speak to this. Well, there are many in there, really, but here are a couple that I really like.

 

. . .

 

BRAVO! Such profound quotes that you shared with us. I am putting de Mello on my reading list!!

 

 

EDIT: MBL: I'm looking at The Song of the Bird in google books. This is a joyful experience!

I wholeheartedly agree. I really appreciated how he puts this.

[Antlerman]

So, now you're stooping to ad hominems? Why so much anxiety and misunderstanding end?

 

The relationship of self IS evidence as an answer.

What are you talking about??

 

You mean "Self" as in God?

 

So how come you're stooping to calling me personal insults? Have I insulted you personally?

[Guest end3]

So you are saying that no description, no interpretation, no adherence, no belief, no etc... is valid describing the Truth that is God? And that we meander through life growing towards God, evolving into what, whatever is held at death? Oh wait!!! They are all valid! Damnit!, I misunderstood again!

 

Please, someone, say "oh, that is beautiful END3!"

 

Why would God BE SO ELUSIVE WTF???

 

Why would God create humanity that can't recognize Him?????????????

 

Where is the UNITY within the differernt answers????? Again, WTF????

[Guest end3]

So you are saying that no description, no interpretation, no adherence, no belief, no etc... is valid describing the Truth that is God? And that we meander through life growing towards God, evolving into what, whatever is held at death? Oh wait!!! They are all valid! Damnit!, I misunderstood again!

 

Please, someone, say "oh, that is beautiful END3!"

 

Why would God BE SO ELUSIVE WTF???

 

Why would God create humanity that can't recognize Him?????????????

 

Where is the UNITY within the differernt answers????? Again, WTF????

 

 

Let me reiterate.

 

What I hear you saying is there is no one description that is religion, no interpretation, no adherence, no whatever that is the Fullness of God, yet we mistakenly worship these instead of The Entity that is God......which includes all these things. And again, that we meander according to our evolving needs of ourselves....till death do us part?

 

Again, why would this God create humanity where we were perpetually evolving, but never finding....and the only an elusive few claim to have found?

 

Never defining, never recognizing...always in frustration?

 

Where is the unity in this God?

 

Does this not reek of some other force involved?

 

The description that you give God has all the arguments that Ex-C presents AGAINST Chritianity! Did you notice that?

 

At very least, Christianity proposes an answer for these questions.....

[Antlerman]

 

Please, someone, say "oh, that is beautiful END3!"

Describe it in your own words. Express it.

 

Why would God BE SO ELUSIVE WTF???

God isn't elusive. Only our ability to see, interpret, and translate is.

 

Why would God create humanity that can't recognize Him?????????????

We are evolving. We can, at any point, but how we recognize it is where we are at in the process. Some see God as the wind, others a blade of grass, others an idea, a god, a messiah, and so on. Those are our interpretations. Our descriptions. But those descriptions have been there all along, and what I would call recognition. It's just recognized with the context of our experience and language at the time. Just like a child sees cloud with a magical understanding, but as an adult from a developed perspective. The cloud is still the cloud and is recognized - but as what and by whom, is the question.

 

 

Where is the UNITY within the differernt answers????? Again, WTF????

I can tell you. It's in recognizing the thing behind the sign that we both share. There is where we find commonality. I can see what you do and embrace it with you, because I don't take it literally in its form it takes through language and symbol. The lack of unity is in you not seeing me over here. Remember Sojourner? She is a Christian who can fully embrace me as I can her. It's you not willing/unable at this point to move to that stage of a more pluralistic perspective. It's not my refusal to accept you.

[Rev R]

Perhaps a story may help. This is from a book entitled "Eloquent Silence: Nyogen Senzaki's Gateless Gate and Other Previously Unpublished Teachings and Letters" edited by Roko Sherry Chayat

http://www.amazon.com/Eloquent-Silence-Previously-Unpublished-Teachings/dp/0861715594/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1260637046&sr=8-2

 

From Part IV: Dharma Talks and Essays

 

A Meeting with Sufi Master Hazrat Inayat Khan

 

Senzaki and his friend Dr. Hayes, a psychologist, had gone to the San Francisco home of Mrs. Martin, the only Murshida(female Sufi teacher)in America; what follows is from a talk given later in Santa Barbara, California.

 

When we arrived, we were ushered into the meditation room. It was dimly lighted by a lamp covered with green silken cloth; fragrant Persian incense filled the air.

 

After Mrs. Martin introduced us, and after shaking hands with Murshid Inayat Khan, we were seated at a square table, Mrs. Martin facing Dr. Hayes and the teacher facing me. My friend began talking to the teacher, asking how he liked America and its people, meanwhile selecting a cigar from his pocket, which, however, he then hesitated to light at such a meeting.

 

Inayat Khan smiled at me and asked, "Mr. Senzaki, will you tell me the significance of Zen?"

 

I remained silent for a little while, and then smiled at him. He smiled back at me. Our dialogue was over.

 

The psychologist, not having recognized what had happened, said "You see, Mr. Khan, Zen is Japanized from the Sanskrit. Its original meaning is dhyana, which means meditation and..."

 

At that point, Inayat Khan waved his right hand gracefully, and stopped the psychologists speech.

 

Mrs. Martin then interposed, "I will get a book which describes Zen very well. It is an English translation from Japanese of The Twelve Sects of Buddhism. I will get it for you." Before she could rise from her seat, Inyat Khan again waved-this time with his left hand-gracefully stopping the Murshida. He looked at me.

 

His eyes were full of water-not the tears of the world, but water from the great ocean-calm and transparent. I recited an old Zen poem by Jakushitsu-not with my mouth, not with my mind, but with a blink of my eyes, like a flash.

 

No living soul comes near that water.

A vast sheet of water as blue as indigo!

The abyss has a depth of ten thousand feet.

When all is quiet and calm, at midnight,

Only the moonlight penetrates the waves

And reaches the bottom easily and freely.

 

"Murshid," I then said, "I see Zen in you."

 

"Mr. Senzaki, I see a Sufi in you," he replied.

 

Both of us then smiled, each at the other.

 

Mrs. Martin again interposed, "Mr. Senzaki, you should practice your English. Why don't you talk more about Zen?"

 

At this both the Murshid and I laughed loudly. The Murshida and the psychologist both joined in, without knowing why. The happy interview was over. I should have gone home at this time, but the psychologist seemed to wish to talk further with the Murshid, and continued his "whys" and "wherefores," while the Murshida had to show her collection of books and documents. So we remained there the whole evening in a discussion of "life," "death," "humanity," and "the universe."

 

March 3, 1935

 

A very timely lesson no?

[Antlerman]

Let me reiterate.

 

What I hear you saying is there is no one description that is religion, no interpretation, no adherence, no whatever that is the Fullness of God, yet we mistakenly worship these instead of The Entity that is God......which includes all these things.

Go back to what Rev said about the symbols. You can use those just fine, and I have no problem with them. It's when they become IT, to the exclusion of all others, that it in fact becomes idolatry. And the fruits make that known: Exclusion, Divisiveness, War.

 

Exclusion is the opposite of Unity. All signs, all descriptions are united in ONE. By all means, embrace what brings you to God. But if you exclude me, you are not embracing God. You are worshiping an idol of your ego. It's fruits are division.

 

Again, why would this God create humanity where we were perpetually evolving, but never finding....and the only an elusive few claim to have found?

Ahh... you just described the nature of existence. The whole of creation is ever reaching towards That which is ever retreating.... There is a reason it is called INFINITE. It's how it works.

 

Never defining, never recognizing...always in frustration?

Growth is through pain. It's how it works. Always stretching, always developing, always growing, always evolving. That is everywhere in everything.

 

Where is the unity in this God?

In Spirit.

 

Does this not reek of some other force involved?

Nope.

 

The description that you give God has all the arguments that Ex-C presents AGAINST Chritianity! Did you notice that?

No. Explain.

 

At very least, Christianity proposes an answer for these questions.....

It does. I accept that as true. It does as well as any of our efforts. It is a way to talk about it, describe it, and... to relate to it. But not the only "right" way. At that point, it turns from God to itself and down it falls to earth and ego and war.

[Guest end3]

You are entitled to your opinion, but to label The Love of Christ as something outside of centuries of interpretation of the Bible is quite a statement. Especially when it says directly that if you ain't for Him then you are anti-Him.

 

And in that, it does claim exclusivity....not some other interpretation of a meandering growth.

 

Now it could be that you are saying that God the Entity is Christ, or there is no Christ?

 

Again, this is diametrically opposed to Christianity....the followers of Jesus.

[MultifariousBirdLady]

Who would no more about fitting the coat to a person than the Creator of the person.

 

I appreciate that, and that's why I think allowing each person to work out their understanding by following whatever promptings they have from the Divine itself, rather than getting upset if others don't accept specific doctrines, is important. Making a case for it is all well and good... that's how people learn about and evaluate alternate ideas, and I think this is often instructive. But it's OK if you (or anybody else) don't agree with me.

 

Where I can get upset is when I see imposed doctrines causing people pain.

 

This whole entire attitude is vane.

 

I'm afraid I'm not understanding what you're getting at here.

 

And as Legion keeps stating, everytime you have a Keith follower exposit how "great this is", it just builds his "fat head" ....Legion's words.

 

I'm not a follower of anybody, if that's what you're suggesting. I came to my own conclusions independently. That I agree with Keith on some points just means we might be noticing some of the same things, and interpreting those things in a similar manner. I suspect we probably disagree on other things that haven't come out yet in this discussion.

 

The denial of evidence in lieu of self is disturbing.

 

What evidence are you referring to?

[MultifariousBirdLady]

A very timely lesson no?

 

I love this! Thank you!

[MultifariousBirdLady]

You are entitled to your opinion, but to label The Love of Christ as something outside of centuries of interpretation of the Bible is quite a statement.

 

For my part, what I'm saying is that the experience of what is labeled "The Love of Christ" by Christians appears to be* exactly the same experience as what many others outside of Christianity have experienced.

 

* That is, I think it appears this way, based on my own experiences of what I believe to be the Divine both inside and outside of Christianity, as well as what I have seen, heard, or read from others about their experiences both inside and outside of Christianity.

 

It also appears to me that Christians attempt to keep the label on this experience exclusive to themselves, in order to protect their socio-religious boundaries and identity and more effectively compete for followers. But in doing that, this necessarily also resulted in the institutionalization of arrogance and exclusivity, going all the way back to the codification of the religion. That's my own perception based on my own observations and reading about the history of the religion.

 

 

It's as if a perfume company got a big batch of some delightful fragrance, straight from a flower, labelled it Eau de Heaven, and patented it. Now, that flower is going to produce the same fragrance regardless of the patent, and other companies can also get a big bunch of it and call it something else. But the first company is going to defend like hell the "specialness" and "superiority" of their Eau de Heaven, and pooh-pooh the fragrances of the others, even if they are exactly the same, because they are so invested in protecting what they want to be exclusively "theirs."