The Love Of Jesus

[MultifariousBirdLady]

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

 

 

I'm glad you're enjoying it. It was a real breath of fresh air for me.

[Antlerman]

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.

This is exactly correct. A show of hands from participants this what we are all saying is welcome. Here's mine:

 

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 start of the religion. That's my own perception based on my own observations and reading about the history of the religion.

Count me in as one of your followers. Or are you supposed to be one of mine? I can't remember which way that goes.

 

Yes BTW, we do see eye to eye on a quite a number of points and I appreciate it. I can also see areas I see things differently, and I also appreciate that. There will be none of this 'you're either for me or against me' in my relations with others.

 

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."

That's a great analogy. If you don't mind, I'll use that one myself. What I like is the metaphor of trying to lay ownership of the Aesthetic, which is its own to itself.

[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.

 

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.

This is exactly correct. A show of hands from participants this what we are all saying is welcome. Here's mine:

 

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 start of the religion. That's my own perception based on my own observations and reading about the history of the religion.

Count me in as one of your followers. Or are you supposed to be one of mine? I can't remember which way that goes.

 

Yes BTW, we do see eye to eye on a quite a number of points and I appreciate it. I can also see areas I see things differently, and I also appreciate that. There will be none of this 'you're either for me or against me' in my relations with others.

 

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."

That's a great analogy. If you don't mind, I'll use that one myself. What I like is the metaphor of trying to lay ownership of the Aesthetic, which is its own to itself.

 

So in essence, there are partial truths contained in the Bible, but it is just a work of man that skews the intent of the Entity of God.....and there is no Christ Jesus? But through these partial truths we may ascend, transcend into the essence that is God?

[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.

 

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.

This is exactly correct. A show of hands from participants this what we are all saying is welcome. Here's mine:

 

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 start of the religion. That's my own perception based on my own observations and reading about the history of the religion.

Count me in as one of your followers. Or are you supposed to be one of mine? I can't remember which way that goes.

 

Yes BTW, we do see eye to eye on a quite a number of points and I appreciate it. I can also see areas I see things differently, and I also appreciate that. There will be none of this 'you're either for me or against me' in my relations with others.

 

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."

That's a great analogy. If you don't mind, I'll use that one myself. What I like is the metaphor of trying to lay ownership of the Aesthetic, which is its own to itself.

 

When am I going to get a welcome into the fold....you know, a showing of the hands?

 

I want to go to a socio-centric pot luck....do y'all have one? I love home cooking

[Rev R]

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.

 

But that is only half of what I said AM. We can also get hung up on the symbols being symbols and in turn use that to separate as well.

 

Consider my story above, Senzaki sensei and the Murshid could have gone on all night sparring over terminology and the differences in their particular methods ending up with a very similar discussion to what you and End are having now. Instead monk Senzaki was able to communicate the essence of his experience with a look and a smile rather than getting bogged down in a pointless argument. Perhaps they were simply being polite, perhaps Senzaki was telepathic, perhaps be that both men were truly masters of the formless, perhaps the old man is a liar.

 

"I see Zen in you."

"I see a Sufi in you."

"I see a Christian in you."

"I see the ONE in you."

 

 

End, if you see Keith's experience as being from God (as you describe God to be) and in line with the book, what difference does it make if he doesn't turn to the book?

 

Keith, if End's experience is the ONE, what difference does it make that he turned toward the book?

 

Do you not both agree that the essence is the same?

[Guest end3]

In all seriousness. I don't want to deny anyone healing and happiness. That in itself would be evil. I do find however, that since the differing opinions are by definition different, then they almost have to be exclusive to the person subscribing to that opinion.

 

So, by no means, say that Christianity holds exlusive purchase on exclusion. Jimminy Crickets.....and don't say that you are above it either. That is utter arrogant bullshit.

 

Finally, someone with enough umph to say what they believe...hat's off to you Ms. Bird!

[Antlerman]

 

Keith, if End's experience is the ONE, what difference does it make that he turned toward the book?

 

Do you not both agree that the essence is the same?

I don't know how many more ways I can say that. It is in Spirit that we are connected, but we, meaning all of us, every person alive, has to get past holding their symbols to the exclusion of the Spirit in others with different symbols. Every thing I have said to End is to reach him that Spirit beyond the symbols. Am I missing something?

 

I point back to Sojourner. Never has there been a difficulty in this understanding with her. But End continues to see me denying the experience because I don't accept the symbols he uses for me. The symbol is that reality and cannot be seen past. And in that, I am outside Spirit to him.

 

I accept End's use of his symbols. I accept his experience. I also accept he doesn't use mine. Does he do the same? Does Pastor?

 

Perhaps the fault is mine in my own lack of wisdom to not accept what I know, but resist. I was planning to talk about it today with some other things, but will just throw it in here into the big stew. It's a quote from Sri Arubindo I wanted to lay out there, that I believe has the answer I know in spirit as true, but desire wishes otherwise:

But the right goal of human progress must be always an effective and synthetic reinterpretation by which the law of that wider existence may be represented in a new order of truths and in a more just and puissant working of the faculties on the life-material of the universe.

 

For the senses, the sun goes round the earth; that was for them the centre of existence and the motions of life are arranged on the basis of a misconception. The truth is the very opposite, but its discovery would have been of little use if there were not a science that makes the new conception the centre of a reasoned and ordered knowledge putting their right values on the perceptions of the senses. So also for the mental consciousness God moves round the personal ego and all His works and ways are brought to the judgment of our egoistic sensations, emotions and conceptions and are yet useful and practically sufficient in a certain development of human life and progress.

 

They are a rough practical systematization of our experience of things valid so long as we dwell in a certain order of ideas and activities. But they do not represent the last and highest state of human life and knowledge. “Truth is the path and not the falsehood.” The truth is not that God moves round the ego as the centre of existence and can be judged by the ego and its view of the dualities, but that the Divine is itself the centre and that the experience of the individual only finds its own true truth when it is known in the terms of the universal and the transcendent.

 

Nevertheless, to substitute this conception for the egoistic without an adequate base of knowledge may lead to the substitution of new but still false and arbitrary ideas for the old and bring about a violent instead of a settled disorder of right values. Such a disorder often marks the inception of new philosophies and religions and initiates useful revolutions. But the true goal is only reached when we can group round the right central conception a reasoned and effective knowledge in which the egoistic life shall rediscover all its values transformed and corrected. Then we shall possess that new order of truths which will make it possible for us to substitute a more divine life for the existence which we now lead and to effectualize a more divine and puissant use of our faculties on the life-material of the universe.

[Paragraph breaks mine. From The Life Divine, pgs 58,59]

 

I'm just going to put that out there for consideration and discussion later...

[MultifariousBirdLady]

In all seriousness. I don't want to deny anyone healing and happiness. That in itself would be evil. I do find however, that since the differing opinions are by definition different, then they almost have to be exclusive to the person subscribing to that opinion.

 

If you consider every single point that someone believes, then yes, perhaps every person really is an island unto themselves. But there are lots of times when people of different faiths can find enough in common to deeply respect and appreciate the ways each person's religion frames reality, even if they don't agree with it.

 

So, by no means, say that Christianity holds exlusive purchase on exclusion. Jimminy Crickets.....and don't say that you are above it either. That is utter arrogant bullshit.

 

Every religious group -- like every social group -- has ways of defining their boundaries and identity, although for some of those there is a great deal of overlap and fuzziness as opposed to a sharply-defined inside vs. outside the faith. And it's natural for people within each of those groups to feel that theirs is "right," or else they wouldn't be involved. You're correct that I've seen exclusivist tendencies pop up in many other religious contexts to widely varying degrees, and there are times when I notice it in myself (after all, I'm right! as we all think we are). There does seem to be a really big difference between those religions -- or individuals -- which emphasize or defend that exclusivity and those which notice it and actively question it, or make a real effort to go beyond their boundaries and appreciate / understand what they can about religions that are not their own. One of the things I appreciate about Unitarian Universalism (and the people who practice it), for example, is its consistent willingness to explore and appreciate other faiths.

[Rev R]

I don't know how many more ways I can say that.

I'm a simpleton, "yes" would have sufficed.

 

 

It is in Spirit that we are connected, but we, meaning all of us, every person alive, has to get past holding their symbols to the exclusion of the Spirit in others with different symbols. Every thing I have said to End is to reach him that Spirit beyond the symbols. Am I missing something?

Keith, I can understand the motivation here. I too am driven to share my experience for the betterment of others- hell it's part of my vows to an extent. However, what I see in this discussion is not people wishing to be taught.

 

What I see here is End wanting to come to the table as equal. Not as a Christian in a den of non-Christians but as a man with a deep spiritual experience that drives him- not unlike you or I. In this we find the unity.

 

Perhaps one day End will change his path, free himself from relying on the symbols and doctrines of Christianity. Perhaps one day he will become a mystic who rivals John of the Cross or Miester Eckhart. Perhaps one day you will free yourself from Ken Wilber Inc. and get your ass on a zafu ( ). Perhaps not.

 

This sort of evolution takes it's own course. Sometimes, we meet a person at just the right time who can give us just a little bump. My experience is that "seeing" and "helping someone else see" are two entirely different skill sets.

 

I point back to Sojourner. Never has there been a difficulty in this understanding with her.

Aye, but Soj and End are two entirely different folks with entirely different conditions and experiences. You can't communicate with one the same way as the other no more that I can communicate with you the same way I do other folks (case in point: Legion's new favourite verse).

 

But End continues to see me denying the experience because I don't accept the symbols he uses for me. The symbol is that reality and cannot be seen past. And in that, I am outside Spirit to him.

Perhaps, but perhaps he is having a difficult time due to his own changes or the multitude of hands trying to reach him.

 

I accept End's use of his symbols. I accept his experience. I also accept he doesn't use mine. Does he do the same? Does Pastor?

 

If I had that sort of insight into people's minds, you might be paying me for this conversation.

 

Perhaps the fault is mine in my own lack of wisdom to not accept what I know, but resist.

Perhaps, but as I recall this is all fairly fresh (not to imply that it's old hat for me...though sometimes it sure feels like it) and some degree of resistance is to be expected. Try not to belittle yourself over it, just loosen the grip a bit.

 

It's a quote from Sri Arubindo...

I've give it a read and an impression a bit later.

[Neon Genesis]

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.

 

But does the bible directly say that? Notice what it says in Mark 9:38-40

John said to him, ‘Teacher, we saw someone* casting out demons in your name, and we tried to stop him, because he was not following us.’ 39But Jesus said, ‘Do not stop him; for no one who does a deed of power in my name will be able soon afterwards to speak evil of me. 40Whoever is not against us is for us. 41For truly I tell you, whoever gives you a cup of water to drink because you bear the name of Christ will by no means lose the reward.

The apostles had approached Jesus about someone who was casting out demons in Christ's name who wasn't apart of their group. The apostles asked Jesus what they should do about him but notice that in this account, Jesus does not agree with the apostles. Instead, Jesus rebukes the apostles and tells them that anyone not against him is with him. Mark's gospel portrays Jesus as recognizing that the "love of Christ" could be experienced by people who were not with his group and that the love of Christ was not something that was exclusive but could be expressed by different groups in different ways.

[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.

 

But does the bible directly say that? Notice what it says in Mark 9:38-40

John said to him, ‘Teacher, we saw someone* casting out demons in your name, and we tried to stop him, because he was not following us.’ 39But Jesus said, ‘Do not stop him; for no one who does a deed of power in my name will be able soon afterwards to speak evil of me. 40Whoever is not against us is for us. 41For truly I tell you, whoever gives you a cup of water to drink because you bear the name of Christ will by no means lose the reward.

The apostles had approached Jesus about someone who was casting out demons in Christ's name who wasn't apart of their group. The apostles asked Jesus what they should do about him but notice that in this account, Jesus does not agree with the apostles. Instead, Jesus rebukes the apostles and tells them that anyone not against him is with him. Mark's gospel portrays Jesus as recognizing that the "love of Christ" could be experienced by people who were not with his group and that the love of Christ was not something that was exclusive but could be expressed by different groups in different ways.

 

 

1Jo 2:18 Dear children, this is the last hour; and as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come. This is how we know it is the last hour.

1Jo 2:22 Who is the liar? It is the man who denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a man is the antichrist-he denies the Father and the Son.

1Jo 4:3 but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world.

2Jo 1:7 Many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist.

[Neon Genesis]

Are you suggesting that the gospel of Mark is the anti-Christ, End?

[Antlerman]

I don't know how many more ways I can say that.

I'm a simpleton, "yes" would have sufficed.

I was just feeling frustrated after that round of failures on my part. Didn't mean that as a dig at you. You're hardly a simpleton. Quite the contrary. I bow to you in this in honor.

 

Keith, I can understand the motivation here. I too am driven to share my experience for the betterment of others- hell it's part of my vows to an extent. However, what I see in this discussion is not people wishing to be taught.

 

What I see here is End wanting to come to the table as equal. Not as a Christian in a den of non-Christians but as a man with a deep spiritual experience that drives him- not unlike you or I. In this we find the unity.

I hear that as well and it frustrates me because I feel I am very much wanting that. And no matter what I say, it gets turned on its ear into something I've never said nor thought. I'm a communicator and have greater passion and depth of spirit. Yet, what I hear back is anything but what I'm saying.

 

I've spent many, many years in deep pursuit of understanding and freeing this, and somehow I can't take that and reach over at this point, to what I guess I see as myself standing raw in the face of that Ineffable. I would that I could have come to this then. But then, I know that I had to go, to walk where I had to walk. As I said, it is a process, and it is for each to come to. Yet in it all, there is always truth, in whatever form - at our heart, always there.

 

Yes, I do find unity with him in this, even if he can't bridge that over to me, or us. And the same holds true for Pastor. I felt it from the outset and why I invited him to the table for this discussion. There is Beauty, even in our disagreements.

 

Perhaps one day End will change his path, free himself from relying on the symbols and doctrines of Christianity. Perhaps one day he will become a mystic who rivals John of the Cross or Miester Eckhart. Perhaps one day you will free yourself from Ken Wilber Inc. and get your ass on a zafu ( ). Perhaps not.

Wilber. Yes, I find a great deal of good in him for me at this point. But I certainly recognize his limits. I would never call myself a follower of him, a "Wilberite". I jumped from him to a primary source in getting Sri Aurbindo. Quite wonderful at this point. Almost like reading what you might imagine a real Jesus would have written, had that been a medium for him. For Jesus instead we have to extract what was there through the bits and pieces of the mythmakers. Anyway, I will at some point no doubt happen upon other sages and mystics and come to yours. We'll see where it all goes...

 

This sort of evolution takes it's own course. Sometimes, we meet a person at just the right time who can give us just a little bump. My experience is that "seeing" and "helping someone else see" are two entirely different skill sets.

Indeed. I can see you know that...

 

But End continues to see me denying the experience because I don't accept the symbols he uses for me. The symbol is that reality and cannot be seen past. And in that, I am outside Spirit to him.

Perhaps, but perhaps he is having a difficult time due to his own changes or the multitude of hands trying to reach him.

As I said, I am sensing the voice of Wisdom pulling gently against the urges that seem to be rising in the passions of my mind. I recognize it. It's always a balance to find. To use the familiar language, to listen to that "still small voice". There is truth to that. It is indeed a dance.

 

I accept End's use of his symbols. I accept his experience. I also accept he doesn't use mine. Does he do the same? Does Pastor?

 

If I had that sort of insight into people's minds, you might be paying me for this conversation.

 

Perhaps the fault is mine in my own lack of wisdom to not accept what I know, but resist.

Perhaps, but as I recall this is all fairly fresh (not to imply that it's old hat for me...though sometimes it sure feels like it) and some degree of resistance is to be expected. Try not to belittle yourself over it, just loosen the grip a bit.

It's what I'm knowing, and always a case of relaxing that mind into spirit, isn't it? I thank you for your voice.

[Abiyoyo]

 

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.

 

 

 

 

I have found in my walk of life that to fully understand the concepts of Jesus Christ and his teachings there is a minimal requirement of at least knowing what Christ said in the first place. Without that seed, the rest is moot. I have read, and read, and read, and I still come to conclusion every time that Christ was one who accepted virtue over label. A good example is the Roman solider in the Gospels where Christ said,

 

9 When Jesus heard these things, he marveled at him, and turned him about, and said unto the people that followed him, I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel.

 

So, here we have a man, not a Jew to our knowledge, that had more faith than all of God's people.

 

So, AM, to say that Christianity is not the One^TM is fair game, but IMO, I certainly believe that it pertained to any walk of life.

 

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.

 

 

As for End3, we dont know what people really feel, think, dream, or believe other than what they say, and sometimes I think people may be walking around as they did back in this example of the soldier, observing the movement, possibly being effected, possibly not; but, Jesus already knew that this man believed (even in the slightest degree) before the encounter, and also Jesus was performing miracles in his presence, and preaching the Gospels.

 

So, point is that people, though they may not proclaim Jesus to be the Christ, or walk right beside the religion; they, according to what Christ said, can and possibly do have faith, possibly greater than the ones that should have faith in Him

 

Lu 13:30 And, behold, there are last which shall be first, and there are first which shall be last.

[Pastorl5]

I've been reading these posts over the last couple of days and I have to say that there is nothing here that I need to say that End hasn't (well done my friend). Yet I do wish to say this to those quoting Scriptures (Abiyoyo and Neon-Genesis specifically speaking):

 

Please use context when referring to the Bible. Both of you asserted that Jesus was stating that you could have faith without believing in Jesus as Christ:

 

Abiyoyo you said, "So, point is that people, though they may not proclaim Jesus to be the Christ, or walk right beside the religion; they, according to what Christ said, can and possibly do have faith, possibly greater than the ones that should have faith in Him"

 

 

Neon-Genesis you said, "Mark's gospel portrays Jesus as recognizing that the "love of Christ" could be experienced by people who were not with his group and that the love of Christ was not something that was exclusive but could be expressed by different groups in different ways"

 

 

That is a horrible exegesis of the text because in both of those texts you are referring to, both are referring to a belief in the name of Jesus Christ. Now, had these miracles occurred outside of the name of Jesus and Jesus would have had the same response I might agree; but read your Bibles correctly people! Jesus only blesses the work of someone that does work in His name (as He did in Mark) and only declares someone's faith great when they are declaring their faith in His work (as He did in Luke's account of the Roman Soldier).

 

 

AM, I'm waiting for that post of yours but until then if there is something I haven't responded to yet that you would like me to do, let me know.

 

 

Peace, Love, and Soul

 

Larry

[Shyone]

 

So, point is that people, though they may not proclaim Jesus to be the Christ, or walk right beside the religion; they, according to what Christ said, can and possibly do have faith, possibly greater than the ones that should have faith in Him

 

Lu 13:30 And, behold, there are last which shall be first, and there are first which shall be last.

I don't understand what you wrote, but welcome back.

 

You have been missed.

[Antlerman]

 

So, AM, to say that Christianity is not the One^TM is fair game, but IMO, I certainly believe that it pertained to any walk of life.

 

Not a one understands what I have said...

[Rev R]

I said the following to End in a PM, but I think it applies here as well.

 

Scriptures and theologies are cages made from the bones of dead scholars. When these drop away, what we are left with is a living experience.

 

This living experience is what Keith is referring to. Unfortunately this is a poor medium for discussing such things. It would be much better if we were sitting around a table with beer and peanuts, but this is what we have.

 

What I see here is nothing new. We have a side pointing toward the living experience with some such as Abi and Neon attempting to harmonize Christian scripture with said experience (and met with the claim that it's incorrectly reading the book). On the other hand we have a resistance to this idea based in the institutionalized form.

 

A-man has maintained that there is truth contained within the doctrine of Christianity, just as there is truth in every other tradition...but yes, a different glossary must be used. This idea places everyone on the same spiritual playing field. A dangerous idea for the establishment, so the resistance is understandable. It is tough to break the conditioning of dogma and doctrine. It's tough to view the world without that lens. I can empathize with that struggle.

 

However, to establish Christians as spiritually higher is simply incorrect thinking. It inspires prejudice, hatred, and ignorance rather than manifests love. Love unifies (and now Capt and Tenille are playing in my head) not conditionally, but universally.

 

I leave you with a variant on an old story:

A Christian visited a Zen Master and said, “Allow me to read you the Sermon on the Mount.”

 

“I shall listen with pleasure,” said the Master.

 

The Christian read a sentence and looked up. The Master smiled and said, “Whoever said those words was truly an Enlightened Man.”

 

This pleased the Christian. He read on. The Master interrupted and said, “Those words come from a Saviour of mankind.”

 

The Christian was delighted. He read on to the end. The Master then declared, “That sermon was pronounced by someone radiant with Divinity.”

 

The Christian’s joy was boundless. He left, determined to return another day and persuade the Master to become a Christian. On the way back home he found Jesus standing by the roadside. “Lord,” he said excitedly, “I got that man to confess you are divine!”

 

Jesus smiled and said, “And did it do you any good except inflate your Christian ego?”

[Abiyoyo]

 

 

Abiyoyo you said, "So, point is that people, though they may not proclaim Jesus to be the Christ, or walk right beside the religion; they, according to what Christ said, can and possibly do have faith, possibly greater than the ones that should have faith in Him"

 

 

 

 

That is a horrible exegesis of the text because in both of those texts you are referring to, both are referring to a belief in the name of Jesus Christ. Now, had these miracles occurred outside of the name of Jesus and Jesus would have had the same response I might agree; but read your Bibles correctly people! Jesus only blesses the work of someone that does work in His name (as He did in Mark) and only declares someone's faith great when they are declaring their faith in His work (as He did in Luke's account of the Roman Soldier).

 

How else is it suppose to read? Please, by all means, enlighten me Larry. I have read the Bible, many times, in many different varieties. I saw it as a simple thing. Roman soldier was a soldier of Rome, saw Jesus, (wasn't following Jesus, nor worshiping Jesus); but the soldier was just doing his job, and HAD faith that Christ would do a healing. I am confused with where you disagree?? The soldier was not a follower of Christ by choice, not baptized, not ordained, nothing; yet Christ said this man had more faith than all of Israel.

 

Again, enlighten me as I am always open to other interpretations and views.

[Abiyoyo]

 

I don't understand what you wrote, but welcome back.

 

 

You have been missed.

 

[Abiyoyo]

 

So, AM, to say that Christianity is not the One^TM is fair game, but IMO, I certainly believe that it pertained to any walk of life.

 

Not a one understands what I have said...

 

I was just chirping in, I apologize if I didn't look deeper AM.

[Abiyoyo]

 

 

What I see here is nothing new. We have a side pointing toward the living experience with some such as Abi and Neon attempting to harmonize Christian scripture with said experience (and met with the claim that it's incorrectly reading the book). On the other hand we have a resistance to this idea based in the institutionalized form.

 

 

 

You hit the nail on the head here. It's like finding out Santa Claus was just what your parents told you for years, and with this knowledge, the intensity of Christmas is dwindled a little. The intensity of most Christians is fueled by theology, with whatever church they attend, or whatever form of logic, doctrine, they have pertained to since they have been a Christian.

 

The Pastor made the example well.

Now, had these miracles occurred outside of the name of Jesus and Jesus would have had the same response I might agree; but read your Bibles correctly people! Jesus only blesses the work of someone that does work in His name (as He did in Mark) and only declares someone's faith great when they are declaring their faith in His work (as He did in Luke's account of the Roman Soldier).

 

What I have put in bold is the common theme of most Christians, God helps those who help him, work in his kingdom, do his will, etc. The cold hard fact is that the soldier was a soldier, just doing his job. The man was not a follower, believer, or any sort of Christian. Yet, The pastor insists the above! I am waiting patiently for how I am 'suppose' to interpret that part of the Bible according to the Pastor.

 

And besides the soldier example, there is Doubting Thomas. Thomas didn't believe that Christ was real, yet Christ showed him His hands. Maybe I misinterpreted that as well.

[Shyone]

 

What I have put in bold is the common theme of most Christians, God helps those who help him, work in his kingdom, do his will, etc. The cold hard fact is that the soldier was a soldier, just doing his job. The man was not a follower, believer, or any sort of Christian. Yet, The pastor insists the above! I am waiting patiently for how I am 'suppose' to interpret that part of the Bible according to the Pastor.

 

And besides the soldier example, there is Doubting Thomas. Thomas didn't believe that Christ was real, yet Christ showed him His hands. Maybe I misinterpreted that as well.

I'm probably kicking myself with this, but if the Roman was convinced that Jesus could do miracles, from whatever inspiration (knowing that He was a Jew), then you could say he believed - in whatever he believed. At the least he believed that Jesus could do miracles.

 

As for Doubting Thomas, my strong suspicion is that this episode was put in that particular gospel because the author felt it would convince people of Jesus' divinity and factual bodily resurrection. If he had said Jesus flew around the room, I wouldn't have been any more impressed. Nor would I necessarily believe everything written in the Gospel of Thomas. I think you know why.

[Antlerman]

I'm just going to repost these examples of what non-Christians have that Larry can't have because he is a Christian. You cannot understand the Love of God like this if you are a Christian.

 

Greetings Mary. I’m going to try something that may prove to be enlightening. Rev R had suggested to Pastor before trying explaining this without using the Christian language to describe it. I’m going to take some of the things you say and restate them and address my response to that.

 

<snip>

 

You say: ” However, the difference between a believer's experience knowing the love of Jesus and the non-believer's experience, is that the non-believer has never let that experience ignite the belief in Him, which is the seed for a real relationship with God.”

 

Translated: ‘I don’t see that those who don’t believe as I do can possibly have experienced what I do with God, because how I believe results in this for me. Therefore because they don’t believe this that means that can’t experience this. Either the switch is on, or it’s off.

 

Response: This is not the reality of life for others who don’t use the same system of belief. They do experience what you experience. And in cases, far deeper experiences of the Divine.

 

Examples:

 

1. Ralph Woodrow Emerson.

 

“Beauty in nature is not ultimate. It is the herald of inward and eternal beauty, and is not alone a solid and satisfactory good…

 

Nature is a symbol of spirit… Before the revelations of the Soul, time, space and nature shrink away… In the hour of vision there is nothing that can be called gratitude, nor properly joy. The soul raised over passion beholds identity and eternal causation, perceives the self-existence of Truth and Right, and calms itself with knowing that all things go well. Vast spaces of nature, the Atlantic Ocean, the South Seas, long intervals of time, years, centuries, are of no account…

 

Let us stun and astonish the intruding rabble of men and books and institutions by a simple declaration of the divine fact. Bid the intruders take the shoes from off their feet, for God is here within. Let our simplicity judge them, and our docility to our own law demonstrate the poverty of Nature beside our native riches.”

 

These are the words of a man who rejected Christianity.

 

2. Now the words of a Christian, however she would be considered as “not knowing God” by most Evangelical Christians because she was Catholic, a “non-Christian” according to many. The words of Mother Teresa:

 

“ And now let us see what becomes of this silkworm. When it is in this state of cessation, and quite dead to the world, it comes out little white butterfly, Oh, greatness of God, that a soul should come out like this after being closely united for so short a time – never, I think, for as long as half an hour. For think of the difference between an ugly worm and a white butterfly; it is just the same here. The soul cannot think how it can have merited such a blessing – whence such blessing could have come to it, I meant to say, for it knows quite well that it has not merited it at all.

 

….

 

But here it is like rain falling from the heavens into a river or spring; there is nothing but water there and it is impossible to divide or separate the water belongs to the river from that which fell from the heavens. Or it is as if a tiny streamlet enters the sea, from which it will find no way of separating itself, or as if in a room there were two large windows which the light streamed in: it enters in different places but it all becomes one.”

These all are, by the way, expressions of direct experience. Not a theoretical speculation. I know this for myself.

 

3. Sri Auribindo, Eastern Indian mystic/philosopher:

 

“Its first effect has been the liberation of life and mind out of Matter; its last effect has been to assist the emergence of a spiritual consciousness, a spiritual will and spiritual sense of existence in the terrestrial being so that he is no longer solely preoccupied with his outermost life or with mental pursuits and interests, but has learned to look within, to discover his inner being, his spiritual self, to aspire to overpass earth and her limitations. As he grows more and more inward, his boundaries mental, vital, and spiritual begin to broaden, the bonds that held life, mind, soul to their first limitations loosen or snap, and man the mental being begins to have a glimpse of a larger kingdom of self and world closed to the first earth-life.”

4. Sri Ramana Maharshi:

 

“The Self is known to everyone but not clearly. The Being is the Self. “I am” is the name of God. Of all the definitions of God, none is indeed so well put as the Biblical statement I AM THAT I AM. The Absolute Being is what is – It is the Self. It is God. Knowing the Self, God is known. In fact, God is none other than the Self.”

 

Again, these are expressions of humans who have experienced something that Transcendent Love, and is found regardless of religion. The effects of this are life transforming, by the way, not just for a moment like you suggested.

 

Will you continue to say that they can’t or don’t experience God the way a Christian can? One more example:

 

5. Meister Eckhart:

 

“For in this break-through I discover that I and God are one. There I am what I was, and I grow neither smaller nor bigger, for I am an immovable cause that moves all things.

 

Therefore also I am unborn, and following the way of my unborn being I can never die. Following the way of my unborn being I have always been, I am now, and shall remain eternally.”

 

Now I repeat. A Christian cannot experience the Love of the Transcendent God described above so long as they are Christians. They will always be outside of that because their beliefs are in error.

 

 

 

 

 

.....

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So, let me ask this question Larry and End? The spirit in you, how does it feel to hear someone dismissing your experience of God on the basis of being or not being a member of this group or that group? Of not being a Buddhist or some other religion?

 

This is you to us.

 

You ask what have you not answered? The Truth of the Heart. What says your heart? I'll tell you mine, and it embraces you in that Light, regardless of how your mind holds it. It is fully yours as it is mine. I believe you experience it, and in all descriptions, it is not different. I have experienced it as a Christian, and as a non-Christian.

 

And End, in no way can it be said I am against Christ. Whatever he expresses as a sign, that of the Divine, I embrace. How can you not know this, if you listen with your heart instead of the head and theologies of interpretation?

 

A bad tree cannot bear good fruits. By their fruits you shall know them. Either you accept Christ in others, in whatever form that takes, or you reject it in them. But you cannot deny it. Who is against "Christ", End? Who is against God in others???? Not I my friend. It's the Christian who sees it in others and denies it on the basis of their beliefs. To me, this that 'Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit". To call that Love in others, the Antichrist.

 

"By their doctrines you shall know them?"

 

True or false?

[Antlerman]

P.S. I'm still considering what I wanted to post, and whether or not it will mean anything since even the clear, simple bits are not understood, let alone laying out something complex. If I do, it will need to be for the benefit of us, without hope of communicating something that can't be communicated so simply as has been.

 

Sorry for the tone of frustration I'm displaying...

 

"I can't listen to my heart, it says this over here in the Bible! Right there, in black and white. See? You have to interpret it properly to know the truth."