The Love Of Jesus

[Rev R]

I believe Jesus was very divine, the true messenger of God, and the spirit upon him during his ministry was the same spirit that formed the world we live in; BUT, I do not believe that Christ is the only way of communion with God, yet I do believe it is true that if you believed in any form of a God that created all things, of all things, etc, and looking at all the facts of Christ, history, other writings about Christ, etc; one who would not consider Christ to at least be a prophet from God, or doing God's work in general, doesn't either fully know God, nor believe in God.

 

That little phrase says a lot.

 

If I can come to the table discuss my thoughts on humanity, compassion, and how I view the nature of reality in general; and you can hear it (better yet directly perceive it) and harmonize it with your own beliefs, thinking "yes this is a path to god", then our dialogue will be more open though not a word need be said.

 

As soon as thoughts of "sinner", "hellbound", "false god", "false religion", "transgressor on the law", "anti-Christ" arise in the mind, the heart becomes darkened and love cannot dwell there.

[Guest end3]

As soon as thoughts of "sinner", "hellbound", "false god", "false religion", "transgressor on the law", "anti-Christ" arise in the mind, the heart becomes darkened and love cannot dwell there.

 

 

You left out "formlessness" in your list.

 

 

BTW, what is the difference between Perfect Grace in human form vs. formlessness as the essence of a flower.

[Antlerman]

As soon as thoughts of "sinner", "hellbound", "false god", "false religion", "transgressor on the law", "anti-Christ" arise in the mind, the heart becomes darkened and love cannot dwell there.

 

 

You left out "formlessness" in your list.

How does the word formless exclude anyone, judge anyone, condemn anyone, reject anyone?

 

"Formless" is simply an, ironically descriptive word to describe what is beyond description. In has no form, is is expressed in all forms. Source of form.

 

There is no 'us and them', object/subject dualism in this, like you have with "sinner, hell-bound, Antichrist", etc.

 

BTW, what is the difference between Perfect Grace in human form vs. formlessness as the essence of a flower.

Both would expressions of the formless. I wouldn't say however that 'formlessness is the essence of a flower', rather the essence of the flower expressed from the formless.

 

So the more in the image of Christ we become, the more transformed we are into that, the more we exhibit the depths of the formless in our forms. Christ is the form of God. So says your scripture.

[Ouroboros]

I don't get it. Is God formless or formed? If God is formless, then God is always changing and never predictable, which really doesn't match the Bible's rock metaphor. But if God is formed, then God is given, structured, knowable, and not really so amazing and beyond comprehension. ... I think...

[Guest end3]

Yesterday, I was thinking about the Harmony that is the Creation, yet I don't see perfect grace in this as death as evidence. How do you then account for formless in the strict sense of existence on earth?

[Antlerman]

Yesterday, I was thinking about the Harmony that is the Creation, yet I don't see perfect grace in this as death as evidence. How do you then account for formless in the strict sense of existence on earth?

Death is understood by us from our perception as a negative, which from the individual perceptive it can be. And that perception is expressed in our language and in our myths of the fall from paradise. But another perception is instead of seeing it as a result of a fall and our condemnation, it is rather the conditions of our progress. Pain, and death, and evil, are the realizations of what is to be overcome in order to be united with that sense of completeness 'built into' us - that Omega point to which all is drawn.

 

As much as there are degrees of incompleteness or error in the world, there are also degrees of completeness and truth. Creation moves from lesser to the higher, and the higher moves down from the Whole to into the incomplete, to the simplest of form. And inherent in it is movement. It is Becoming. And all aspects of that interior movement through the manifest world is aspects of the Expression of the ONE.

[Guest end3]

Yesterday, I was thinking about the Harmony that is the Creation, yet I don't see perfect grace in this as death as evidence. How do you then account for formless in the strict sense of existence on earth?

Death is understood by us from our perception as a negative, which from the individual perceptive it can be. And that perception is expressed in our language and in our myths of the fall from paradise. But another perception is instead of seeing it as a result of a fall and our condemnation, it is rather the conditions of our progress. Pain, and death, and evil, are the realizations of what is to be overcome in order to be united with that sense of completeness 'built into' us - that Omega point to which all is drawn.

 

As much as there are degrees of incompleteness or error in the world, there are also degrees of completeness and truth. Creation moves from lesser to the higher, and the higher moves down from the Whole to into the incomplete, to the simplest of form. And inherent in it is movement. It is Becoming. And all aspects of that interior movement through the manifest world is aspects of the Expression of the ONE.

 

 

Rev 22:1 Then the angel showed me the river of the water of life, as clear as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb

Rev 22:2 down the middle of the great street of the city. On each side of the river stood the tree of life, bearing twelve crops of fruit, yielding its fruit every month. And the leaves of the tree are for the healing of the nations.

[Antlerman]

Yesterday, I was thinking about the Harmony that is the Creation, yet I don't see perfect grace in this as death as evidence. How do you then account for formless in the strict sense of existence on earth?

Death is understood by us from our perception as a negative, which from the individual perceptive it can be. And that perception is expressed in our language and in our myths of the fall from paradise. But another perception is instead of seeing it as a result of a fall and our condemnation, it is rather the conditions of our progress. Pain, and death, and evil, are the realizations of what is to be overcome in order to be united with that sense of completeness 'built into' us - that Omega point to which all is drawn.

 

As much as there are degrees of incompleteness or error in the world, there are also degrees of completeness and truth. Creation moves from lesser to the higher, and the higher moves down from the Whole to into the incomplete, to the simplest of form. And inherent in it is movement. It is Becoming. And all aspects of that interior movement through the manifest world is aspects of the Expression of the ONE.

 

 

Rev 22:1 Then the angel showed me the river of the water of life, as clear as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb

Rev 22:2 down the middle of the great street of the city. On each side of the river stood the tree of life, bearing twelve crops of fruit, yielding its fruit every month. And the leaves of the tree are for the healing of the nations.

For you: http://www.amazon.com/Mystic-Heart-Discovering-Universal-Spirituality/dp/157731140X

[Neon Genesis]

 

Jesus as God as a Person, is a theological interpretation. Period. It is nothing Jesus directly stated, but is an interpretation of various sayings. It is a mental interpretation used to symbolically embody, represent, express, a spiritual perception. I feel that understanding can be extended to any who become One with God, but I don't exclude people from their relationship with the Divine based on their agreement with that belief I have.

What's ironic is that this absolutist view of Jesus as God might not even be the point of the Trinity. In her book The Case For God, Karen Armstrong argues that one of the purposes early Christians saw in the Trinity doctrine was to get people to stop thinking of God in absolutes and she compares the Trinity doctrine to poetry. Just when you thought you understood the Trinity, you're faced with another paradox that forces you to realize you can't really comprehend God. God was beyond comprehension in the Trinity and this was part of the "mystery" of the Trinity.

[Shyone]

 

 

Rev 22:1 Then the angel showed me the river of the water of life, as clear as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb

Rev 22:2 down the middle of the great street of the city. On each side of the river stood the tree of life, bearing twelve crops of fruit, yielding its fruit every month. And the leaves of the tree are for the healing of the nations.

That sounds remarkably like some passages from the Koran.

 

[39.75] And you shall see the angels going round about the throne glorifying the praise of their Lord; and judgment shall be given between them with justice, and it shall be said: All praise is due to Allah, the Lord of the worlds.

[Guest end3]

 

 

Rev 22:1 Then the angel showed me the river of the water of life, as clear as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb

Rev 22:2 down the middle of the great street of the city. On each side of the river stood the tree of life, bearing twelve crops of fruit, yielding its fruit every month. And the leaves of the tree are for the healing of the nations.

That sounds remarkably like some passages from the Koran.

 

Hey, haven't I opened mind mind up enough for one day? I won't qualify as a redneck if I don't stop.

 

Thank you K for the book reference.

[Rev R]

You left out "formlessness" in your list.

Perhaps I did since after all I did say that "it" is destroyed once conceived as a thought/ spoken of.

 

 

BTW, what is the difference between Perfect Grace in human form vs. formlessness as the essence of a flower.

For that we have to go back to the beginning. What is the purpose of Perfect Grace in human form?

[NotBlinded]

I don't get it. Is God formless or formed? If God is formless, then God is always changing and never predictable, which really doesn't match the Bible's rock metaphor. But if God is formed, then God is given, structured, knowable, and not really so amazing and beyond comprehension. ... I think...

I would answer that God is both. All form is infused with the formless. There would be no forms without it. It is unchanging in Its formless state, but the forms in which It flows through is in constant change. This is why one always suffers when they become attached to the world of form and this is also why many people long for something stable. It can't happen here because of the nature of all forms, so they project this into the afterlife to where forms will never change or die.

 

Our only known existence is in the world of dualities and forms (because we can't perceive the formless...but it's there). This Oneness transcends duality. The only way we can even hope to "perceive" this is by, I can't think of a good word to use, but maybe, intuition? It's like viewing the 3rd dimension within a drawing on a 2 dimensional piece of paper drawn in perseptive. What is talked about in the bible, IMO, is from both perspectives. One has to be able to "see" beyond the worlds of form to understand that there isn't a contradiction when they switch from one to the other.

 

We can try to separate the forms from the formless, but it does about as much good as trying to cut the south pole off a magnet.

 

This is where the main argument is, IMO. To have knowledge is to have security, and to let go of that knowledge is frightening. Yet, knowledge is what is stopping us from "perceiving" God. After all, the tree in the garden isn't called the Tree of Knowledge for nothing. The entire legend is a great one that, if we look at closely, it tells us just what happens when we take knowledge for the truth. We, in our own understanding but not in truth, become separated from God.

 

We are the awareness in which knowledge happens.

 

From the Upanishad:

 

Not that which the eye can see, but that whereby the eye can see: know that to be Brahman the eternal, and not what people here adore;

 

Not that which the ear can hear, but that whereby the ear can hear: know that to be Brahman the eternal, and not what people here adore;

 

Not that which speech can illuminate, but that by which speech can be illuminated: know that to be Brahman the eternal, and not what people here adore;

 

Not that which the mind can think, but that whereby the mind can think: know that to be Brahman the eternal, and not what people here adore.

[Guest end3]

You left out "formlessness" in your list.

Perhaps I did since after all I did say that "it" is destroyed once conceived as a thought/ spoken of.

 

 

BTW, what is the difference between Perfect Grace in human form vs. formlessness as the essence of a flower.

For that we have to go back to the beginning. What is the purpose of Perfect Grace in human form?

 

It's the thing that binds us together....let me give you an example as I have seen it. The Spirit between the people during "greet each other time" in church; the swaying of the flowers, the bugs, the animal under the tree during the summer; the joy of dancing in unity; the moment of holding your child in the middle of a crowded store and hearing nothing except for the moment.

[Guest end3]

So is there an explanation/rationalization past "it" just being "it" in your beliefs?

[Ouroboros]

Is God, Hans, in this case? There is much in the natural universe that has been beyond our knowledge, that we eventually grew enough to understand, and we found it structured. I reckon there is more out there in the natural universe, possibly more complex than our brains can ever handle comprehending. We have computers to seek patterns beyond the human brain capacity to see. So perhaps there is a God who is structured in a manner that is so complex that our brains can never know the full complexity of It, only the parts (the trunk, the tail, the ear, the leg).

We are Nature trying to figure itself out.

 

We are God looking back at himself/ourselves.

[Guest end3]

Is God, Hans, in this case? There is much in the natural universe that has been beyond our knowledge, that we eventually grew enough to understand, and we found it structured. I reckon there is more out there in the natural universe, possibly more complex than our brains can ever handle comprehending. We have computers to seek patterns beyond the human brain capacity to see. So perhaps there is a God who is structured in a manner that is so complex that our brains can never know the full complexity of It, only the parts (the trunk, the tail, the ear, the leg).

We are Nature trying to figure itself out.

 

We are God looking back at himself/ourselves.

 

 

Like the body analogy in the NT

[NotBlinded]

So is there an explanation/rationalization past "it" just being "it" in your beliefs?

I'm not sure who you are asking, so I'll jump in. Yes, but it's based on an understanding of what our nature is when we are born. We are naturally loving and live only in the moment. When we're hungry, we want to eat. When we're tired, we want to rest. We reach out to those around us to be loved and we feel love back. This was before we had any knowledge at all...before we ate any apples.

 

"To enter the Kindom of Heaven, one must become as a child."

 

I'm not real sure what you are asking though. It's all based on feelings because the intellect can't comprehend "It". It's a state of being.

[NotBlinded]

 

End3,

I'm not sure you understand the connection between Jesus and Adam. Do you understand that it was Adam who gave up a conscious relationship with God by purposely eating of the polaristic fruit as it was ordained for him to do?

 

The whole garden story is an obvious OBVIOUS setup, right?

 

Do you understand that everything written from that point forward is engulfed in darkness?

 

Just curious at this point.

 

I believe there is a reason why all this (Christianity) resonates with you so much - but I'm not sure you understand why.

Oh, I wanted to say something on this, but I moved on through the pages and forgot. I'd like to hear what you are thinking here. I have an idea, but I could be miles off.

[Guest end3]

I want to try to attempt to communicate what y'all are saying.

 

I am understanding that what you see as "It" is not humanity, but it is. It is not Jesus, but that he would be an enlighten person.

 

It is the Spirit of Interaction and also the Creation at the same time. It is the Source.

 

We can see It and access It in action, but if you disturb it, it's gone by loss of the moment....."oh, shit, we ruined It" Lol...and the laughter afterwords, is It returning.

 

Am I any closer?

[NotBlinded]

I want to try to attempt to communicate what y'all are saying.

 

I am understanding that what you see as "It" is not humanity, but it is. It is not Jesus, but that he would be an enlighten person.

 

It is the Spirit of Interaction and also the Creation at the same time. It is the Source.

 

We can see It and access It in action, but if you disturb it, it's gone by loss of the moment....."oh, shit, we ruined It" Lol...and the laughter afterwords, is It returning.

 

Am I any closer?

 

Creation is interaction...yes.

 

See how contradictions can disappear?

 

It's when we notice it in action is when it disappears. It's the noticing that interupts our perceiving it because we turn that noticing into a thought that becomes knowledge. We become aware of ourselves as something outside that experience. This happened in the Garden. They became self-aware and covered themselves.

[Rev R]

It's the thing that binds us together....let me give you an example as I have seen it. The Spirit between the people during "greet each other time" in church; the swaying of the flowers, the bugs, the animal under the tree during the summer; the joy of dancing in unity; the moment of holding your child in the middle of a crowded store and hearing nothing except for the moment.

 

Then we can agree at this point, but what difference does it make as to what someone calls "it"?

Do you see why I never speak of "it" (let alone call "it" god)?

 

I can sling metaphysics, philosophy, scripture, and meta-commentary until I'm blue in the face, you can do the same. It's a wasted effort.

 

What is important is right here and right now, developing a genuine heart of compassion to benefit all people, no matter what. Not because my religion demands it, not because I can see the root of dukkha, but because it is what the world needs.

 

People doing what they can to help people- asking for nothing, craving for nothing.

 

"I undertake to perform all actions in loving-kindness for the benefit of all beings."

 

This is the vow I took when I shaved my head almost three years ago (well one of them). It is a vow I take very seriously- though I am not always successful.

 

I don't know how much simpler I can make it, do you understand me now?

[NotBlinded]

Then we can agree at this point, but what difference does it make as to what someone calls "it"?

Do you see why I never speak of "it" (let alone call "it" god)?

I hope you can understand why I want to call it God. I want the mystery to return to the label. That is something that I never experienced during my life before fairly recently. God was always named and meant something specific. I so enjoy using it now to represent the mystery of everything. Actually, any word we use is only a label to a greater mystery. What really is a rose?

[Rev R]

I want to try to attempt to communicate what y'all are saying.

 

I am understanding that what you see as "It" is not humanity, but it is. It is not Jesus, but that he would be an enlighten person.

 

It is the Spirit of Interaction and also the Creation at the same time. It is the Source.

 

We can see It and access It in action, but if you disturb it, it's gone by loss of the moment....."oh, shit, we ruined It" Lol...and the laughter afterwords, is It returning.

 

Am I any closer?

 

Almost there...<readies the stick>

[Rev R]

What really is a rose?

 

Thus