The Love Of Jesus

[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?

 

Almost there...<readies the stick>

HA!

[NotBlinded]

What really is a rose?

 

Thus

[Guest end3]

In the words of Brother Jeff.....Glory!!

 

I finally figured out what perhaps you are looking at. Go us! And a way that we can communicate better.

 

You will have to explain the <stick> ?

 

Way to go guys and gals.

 

Excellent.

[NotBlinded]

In the words of Brother Jeff.....Glory!!

 

I finally figured out what perhaps you are looking at. Go us! And a way that we can communicate better.

 

You will have to explain the <stick> ?

 

Way to go guys and gals.

 

Excellent.

end, you rock.

 

I'll let Rodney explain the stick.

[zandurian]

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

 

 

Y'all is a broad term!

 

I asked a few questions earlier that may help you with this concept of the universal Jesus. It was in response to the idea you put forth that "the love of Jesus" consists of Him giving up a conscious connection with His divinity for a few hours for us. You said:

 

 

 

I was trying to make a point. To me, God is Life and much, much more.

 

And the point, Jesus gave up His relationship to God that ALL humanity might know God in favor of "the law written on your heart".

 

When you say, "why should we" or "you are included along with any other form, but I am not giving mine up" or "no", then this is specifically not what Jesus did.

 

So you say your love is the same as Jesus Christ's? Not specifically nor in practice.

 

Is mine? Only by the fact that I play a tiny piece of the body that is Christ....in part, a part, a small glimpse. But none the less.......my grace, on small occasions, allows for that Love of Jesus to come through.....not often.

 

But my faith is, as was His, that doing this is Truly Loving your neighbor.

 

And which is Greater?

 

You seem to be saying that loving your neighbor consists of cutting yourself off from a relationship with God for that person? This is where orthodox christology totally misses the symbology of the cross/tomb experience. Who lost a conscious relationship with God?

 

It was Adam (AKA all humankind). Remember the garden thing? And the hiding thing? And the death thing? That's the only reason we are here conversing about what it all means - because we (the members of the Adamic race AKA the son of God/son of man) have lost that perfect knowledge for the sake of this little experiment (which we ignorantly view to be the entirety of reality).

 

And when you say

But my faith is, as was His, that doing this is Truly Loving your neighbor.

I believe it is a great over-complication of the issue. "Loving your neighbor" is the simplest of concepts and one that we all understand. It just means to not harm and be helpful because you care. Simple, precise and yet a billion things get in the way of acting out that neighborly love (pride, ego, fear, selfishness, insecurity etc).

 

AISI there is absolutely no reason to put a big mysterious religious supernatural connotation onto the phrase "The love of Jesus". We all know what it is - the question is, "how do we live it"?

[Guest end3]

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

 

 

Y'all is a broad term!

 

I asked a few questions earlier that may help you with this concept of the universal Jesus. It was in response to the idea you put forth that "the love of Jesus" consists of Him giving up a conscious connection with His divinity for a few hours for us. You said:

 

 

 

I was trying to make a point. To me, God is Life and much, much more.

 

 

 

And the point, Jesus gave up His relationship to God that ALL humanity might know God in favor of "the law written on your heart".

 

When you say, "why should we" or "you are included along with any other form, but I am not giving mine up" or "no", then this is specifically not what Jesus did.

 

So you say your love is the same as Jesus Christ's? Not specifically nor in practice.

 

Is mine? Only by the fact that I play a tiny piece of the body that is Christ....in part, a part, a small glimpse. But none the less.......my grace, on small occasions, allows for that Love of Jesus to come through.....not often.

 

But my faith is, as was His, that doing this is Truly Loving your neighbor.

 

And which is Greater?

 

You seem to be saying that loving your neighbor consists of cutting yourself off from a relationship with God for that person? This is where orthodox christology totally misses the symbology of the cross/tomb experience. Who lost a conscious relationship with God?

 

It was Adam (AKA all humankind). Remember the garden thing? And the hiding thing? And the death thing? That's the only reason we are here conversing about what it all means - because we (the members of the Adamic race AKA the son of God/son of man) have lost that perfect knowledge for the sake of this little experiment (which we ignorantly view to be the entirety of reality).

 

And when you say

But my faith is, as was His, that doing this is Truly Loving your neighbor.

I believe it is a great over-complication of the issue. "Loving your neighbor" is the simplest of concepts and one that we all understand. It just means to not harm and be helpful because you care. Simple, precise and yet a billion things get in the way of acting out that neighborly love (pride, ego, fear, selfishness, insecurity etc).

 

AISI there is absolutely no reason to put a big mysterious religious supernatural connotation onto the phrase "The love of Jesus". We all know what it is - the question is, "how do we live it"?

 

If I am reading you right, you are placing the blame on the men responsible for the story?

 

You all are going to have to give me a little time to mix my understanding an language to yours....or some of yours.

 

To you Zan, I don't currently believe what you are proposing....but I see it as a possiblility....if I am understanding you correctly.

[Guest end3]

I'll let Rodney explain the stick.

 

You've seen the people sleeping in the pews? Right?

[NotBlinded]

You've seen the people sleeping in the pews? Right?

HA! You don't need an explanation at all!!

[Deva]

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?

 

Congratulations End3. You are close.

 

"It" cannot be defined or described in words, it cannot be contained - everywhere and nowhere. In one moment and in all moments. Time and space do not apply.

 

Despite what I just said about it not being describable, I think the feeling of Spaciousness (no limits) and the quality of compassion comes close - I could throw out some fancy language if I wanted to but I think I will leave it at that. Really the less said about it the better.

[zandurian]

 

If I am reading you right, you are placing the blame on the men responsible for the story?

Well, no and yes. The "no" is: I'm saying the story (universal Jesus) is there if you can look at it through a non-religious lens. The "yes" would be that all writings from the fall on are clouded with ignorance. For example "God was sorry that He made man" is a view from a fallen darkened understanding. How could an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent eternal being be sorry for something done? Obviously the writers are attributing flawed characteristics to God.

 

You all are going to have to give me a little time to mix my understanding an language to yours....or some of yours.

I understand what you are asking for but, again - there is no "you all" creed language going on here. Just the insights of various individuals.

 

To you Zan, I don't currently believe what you are proposing....but I see it as a possiblility....if I am understanding you correctly.

Well, it transformed me (in the biblical sense). You mentioned the "seeds that satan planted" etc and I understand all that but have a different understanding of what it means. "Satan" literally = the opposer/adversary of man. It is ignorance of reality, that which separates us from perfect 'God knowledge' and is responsible for all man's ills.

[Ouroboros]

We are Nature trying to figure itself out.

 

We are God looking back at himself/ourselves.

 

Like the body analogy in the NT

That's not bad. Yeah, something like that, I guess.

[Ouroboros]

We are Nature trying to figure itself out.

 

We are God looking back at himself/ourselves.

 

"We are a way for the Cosmos to know itself."

 

- Carl Sagan

Exactly. And I believe that view.

[Antlerman]

One of the things I think has been difficult in this discussion is really a struggle over thinking in very linear terms, it is this or it is that; this or not this; that or not that. Larry, being a product of our culture as much as any of us, looks at his experience of God, and because it is in a Christian context, understood mentally and experienced spiritually in that Light. His embrace of the person of Jesus in a religious context allows the experience of God to be realized for him, and that validates the legitimacy of the beliefs - and in a sense, they are valid.

 

What happens next however is that the mentality of a science/rational thinking culture imposes itself into this religious system of thought/experience and is evaluated in those terms of perception of truth. If what he experiences is true within his system, then what we experience outside that system of necessity, as part of that equation of truth, is not truth, not what he experiences. It is a rational conclusion on his part, within a certain framework of reason.

 

But that framework of reason is invalid when it comes to the experience and understanding of the Divine in a transcendent context. There is something I want to share that I came accross some time ago that I think says a lot to this. What we see is not per se entirely a flaw in human reasoning and its perceptions and understandings of existential truth, but a product of a culturally conditioned mindset that corrals thought into this type of thought, which when applied to the spiritual, the religious, treats in entirely out of context - both for the critic, and for the participant. This much is clear, at least to me in the inability to accept what the heart hears, whether that's rationalizing away with irrational logic, or in plain not seeing the blazing light of day streaming down everywhere surrounding everyone and everything.

 

This is from a professor of comparative religions here in our area. I'm hoping Larry will read this from a fellow Christian and take some of it to heart.

 

Link

 

 

Biblical Literalism: Constricting the Cosmic Dance

 

by Conrad Hyers

 

Dr. Hyers is professor of comparative mythology and the history of religions at Gustavux Adolphus College, St. Peter, Minnesota. This article appeared in the Christian Century August 4-11, 1982, p. 823. Copyright by the Christian Century Foundation and used by permission. Current articles and subscription information can be found at www.christiancentury.org. This material was prepared for Religion Online by Ted & Winnie Brock.

 

Woe to him who strives with his Maker,

an earthen vessel with the potter!

Does the clay say to him who fashions it,

‘What are you making?’

or ‘Your work has no handles?’ [isa. 45:9].

 

 

 

With all the decades of scientific research and biblical scholarship that have intervened since the Scopes “monkey trial” in 1925, one might have thought that the issues were by now passé. Yet the recent wave of school-board hearings, legislative bills and court cases suggests that literalism is a persistent phenomenon. Indeed, we may be seeing only the top of the turnip.

 

The literalist mentality does not manifest itself only in conservative churches, private-school enclaves, television programs of the evangelical right, and a considerable amount of Christian bookstore material;

one often finds a literalist understanding of Bible and faith being assumed by those who have no religious inclinations, or who are avowedly antireligious in sentiment

. Even in educated circles the possibility of more sophisticated theologies of creation is easily obscured by burning straw effigies of biblical literalism.

 

But the problem is even more deep-rooted. A literalist imagination -- or lack of imagination -- pervades contemporary culture. One of the more dubious successes of modern science -- and of its attendant spirits technology, historiography and mathematics -- is the suffusion of intellectual life with a prosaic and pedantic mind-set. One may observe this feature in almost any college classroom, not only in religious studies, but within the humanities in general.

Students have difficulty in thinking, feeling and expressing themselves symbolically

.

 

The problem is, no doubt, further amplified by the obviousness and banality of most of the television programming on which the present generation has been weaned and reared.

Not only is imagination a strain; even to imagine what a symbolic world is like is difficult. Poetry is turned into prose, truth into statistics, understanding into facts, education into note-taking, art into criticism, symbols into signs, faith into beliefs

. That which cannot be listed, out-lined, dated, keypunched, reduced to a formula, fed into a computer, or sold through commercials cannot be thought or experienced.

 

Our situation calls to mind a backstage interview with Anna Pavlova, the dancer. Following an illustrious and moving performance, she was asked the meaning of the dance. She replied, “If I could say it, do you think I should have danced it?” To give dance a literal meaning would be to reduce dancing to something else. It would lose its capacity to involve the whole person. And one would miss all the subtle nuances and delicate shadings and rich polyvalences of the dance itself.

 

The remark has its parallel in religion. The early ethnologist R. R. Marett is noted for his dictum that “religion is not so much thought out as danced out.”

But even when thought out, religion is focused in the verbal equivalent of the dance: myth, symbol and metaphor.

To insist on assigning to it a literal, one-dimensional meaning is to shrink and stifle and distort the significance

. In the words of E. H. W. Meyer- stein, “Myth is my tongue, which means not that I cheat, but stagger in a light too great to bear.” Religious expression trembles with a sense of inexpressible mystery, a mystery which nevertheless addresses us in the totality of our being.

 

The literal imagination is univocal. Words mean one thing, and one thing only. They don’t bristle with meanings and possibilities; they are bald, clean-shaven. Literal clarity and simplicity, to be sure, offer a kind of security in a world (or Bible) where otherwise issues seem incorrigibly complex, ambiguous and muddy. But it is a false security, a temporary bastion, maintained by dogmatism and misguided loyalty. Literalism pays a high price for the hope of having firm and unbreakable handles attached to reality. The result is to move in the opposite direction from religious symbolism, emptying symbols of their amplitude of meaning and power, reducing the cosmic dance to a calibrated discussion.

 

One of the ironies of biblical literalism is that it shares so largely in the reductionist and literalist spirit of the age. It is not nearly as conservative as it supposes. It is modernistic, and it sells its symbolic birthright for a mess of tangible pottage. Biblical materials and affirmations -- in this case the symbolism of Creator and creation – are treated as though of the same order and the same literary genre as scientific and historical writing. “I believe in God the Father Almighty” becomes a chronological issue, and “Maker of heaven and earth” a technological problem.

 

To suggest that the first chapters of Genesis ought to be read in the classroom as an alternative to evolutionary theories presupposes that these chapters are yielding something comparable to scientific theories and historical reconstructions of empirical data. Interpreting the Genesis accounts faithfully, and believing in their reliability and significance as divine revelation, is understood to mean taking them literally as history, as chronology, as scientific truth. In the words of Henry Morris, a leading “scientific creationist”: “The Biblical record, accepted in its natural and literal sense, gives the only scientific and satisfying account of the origins of things. . . . The creation account is clear, definite, sequential and matter-of-fact, giving every appearance of straightforward historical narrative” (The Remarkable Birth of Planet Earth [bethany, 1978], pp. iv, 84).

 

Two further ironies result from such literalism. The biblical understanding of creation is not being pitted against evolutionary theories, as is supposed; rather, evolutionary theories are being juxtaposed with literalist theories of biblical interpretation. Doing this is not even like comparing oranges and apples; it is more like trying to compare oranges and orangutans. Even if evolution is only a scientific theory of interpretation posing as scientific fact, as the creationists argue, creationism is only a religious theory of biblical interpretation posing as biblical fact. And to compound the confusions, these biblical ‘facts” are then treated as belonging to the same level of discourse and family of concerns as scientific facts, and therefore supportable by scientific data, properly interpreted. Yet if one is unable to follow all these intertwinings, let alone bow the knee, a veritable Pandora’s box of dire fates awaits:

 

Belief in evolution is a necessary component of atheism, pantheism, and all other systems that reject the sovereign authority of an omnipotent personal God. [it] has historically been used by their leaders to justify a long succession of evil systems -- including fascism, communism, anarchism, nazism, occultism, and many others. [it] leads normally to selfishness, aggressiveness, and fighting between groups, as well as animal is-tic attitudes and behavior by individuals [ibid., vii].

 

But the greatest irony is that the symbolic richness and power -- the religious meaning -- of creation are largely lost in the cloud of geological and paleontological dust stirred up in the confusion.

If one were to speak of a hermeneutical fall, it would have to be the fall into literalism. Literalism diverts attention from, as well as flattening out, the symbolic depth and multidimensionality of the biblical texts. The literalist, instead of opening up the treasurehouse of symbolic imagination, digresses into more and more ingenious and fantastic attempts at defending literalism itself. Again and again the real issue turns out to be not belief in divine creativity but belief in a particular theory of Scripture, not faith but security.

The divine word and work ought to have better handles!

 

Even among interpreters who do not identify with the literalism of the creationists, one often finds a sense of relief expressed in noting that the sequence of days in Genesis 1, if viewed as eons, offers a rough approximation to modern reconstructions of the evolution of matter and life. It is a very rough approximation, considering such difficulties as that the sun, moon and stars were not created until the fourth “eon,” following the earth and vegetation in the third. And even if all rough correlations could be made smooth by convoluted arguments about cloud covers and the like, the two Genesis accounts themselves, taken as chronologies, do not agree. In Genesis 2, for example, Adam is created before plants and animals, and Eve after. Still, no matter how close the approximations, the entire line of argument is a lapse into literalism and its assumption that this account is in some way comparable to a scientific, historical one.

 

A case in point is the supposition that the numbering of days in Genesis is to be understood in an arithmetical sense. The use of numbers in ancient religious texts was usually numerological rather than numerical; that is, their symbolic value was more important than their secular value as counters. To deal with numbers in a religious context as an actual numbering of days, or eons, is an instance of the way in which a literal reading loses the symbolic richness of the text.

 

While the conversion of numerology to arithmetic was essential for the rise of modern science, historiography and mathematics, in which numbers had to be neutralized and emptied of any symbolic suggestion in order to be utilized, the result is that numerological symbols are reduced to signs. The principal surviving exception is the number 13, which still holds a strange power over Fridays, and over the listing of floors in hotels and high rises.

 

Biblical literalism, in its treatment of the days of creation, substitutes a modern arithmetical reading for the original symbolic one. Not only does the completion of creation in six days correlate with and support the religious calendar and Sabbath observance (if the Hebrews had had a five-day work week, the account would have read differently), but also the seventh day of rest employs to the full the symbolic meaning of the number seven as wholeness, plenitude, completion.

 

The religious meaning of the number seven is derived in part from the numerological combination of the three zones of the cosmos (heaven, earth, underworld) seen vertically, and the four directions, or zones, of the cosmos seen horizontally. Thus seven (adding three and four) and twelve (multiplying them) are recurrent biblical symbols of totality and perfection. The liturgically repeated phrase “And God saw that it was good,” and the final capping phrase “And behold it was very good,” are paralleled and underlined by being placed in a structure climaxed by a seventh day.

 

A parallelism of two sets of three days is also being employed, with the second set of days populating the first: light and darkness (day one) are populated by the greater and lesser lights (four); firmament and waters (two) by birds and fish (five); earth and vegetation (three) by land animals and humans (six). Two sets of three days, each with two types of created phenomena, equaling 12, thus permitted the additional association with the corresponding numerological symbol of wholeness and fulfillment. The totality of nature is created by God, and is to be affirmed in a hymn of celebration and praise for its “very goodness.”

 

While it is true that the biblical view of creation sanctifies time and nature as created by God -- and therefore good -- it does not follow that the creation accounts as such are to be understood chronologically or as natural history. And while it is true that history is seen as the context and vehicle of divine activity, it does not follow that the creation accounts are to be interpreted as history, or even prehistory. One of the symbolic functions of the creation accounts themselves is to give positive value to time and to provide the staging for history. They are no more historical than the set and scenery of a play are part of the narrative of the drama, or than the order in which an artist fills in the pigment and detail of a painting is part of the significance of the painting.

 

The symbolic function of creation in valuing time and history becomes clearer when the Genesis accounts are compared with myths whose purpose is to legitimate cyclical time (as in the Babylonian myth of the primeval conquest of Tiamat by Marduk, alluded to in Genesis 1:2), or to those in which time itself is a negative aspect of a fallen order (as in Plato’s myth of the fall of the soul, or similar myths favored by Hindu and Buddhist mysticism).

 

When one looks at the myths of surrounding cultures, in fact, one senses that the current debate over creationism would have seemed very strange, if not unintelligible, to the writers and readers of Genesis. Scientific and historical issues in their modern form were not issues at all. Science and natural history as we know them simply did not exist, even though they owe a debt to the positive value given to space, time, matter and history by the biblical affirmation of creation.

 

What did exist -- what very much existed -- and what pressed on Jewish faith from all sides, and even from within, were the religious problems of idolatry and syncretism. The critical question in the creation account of Genesis 1 was polytheism versus monotheism. That was the burning issue of the day, not some issue which certain Americans 2,500 years later in the midst of a scientific age might imagine that it was. And one of the reasons for its being such a burning issue was that Jewish monotheism was such a unique and hard-won faith. The temptations of idolatry and syncretism were everywhere. Every nation surrounding Israel, both great and small, was polytheistic; and many Jews themselves held -- as they always had -- similar inclinations. Hence the frequent prophetic diatribes against altars in high places, the Canaanite cult of Baal, and “whoring after other gods.”

 

Read through the eyes of the people who wrote it, Genesis 1 would seem very different from the way most people today would tend to read it -- including both evolutionists who may dismiss it as a prescientific account of origins, and creationists who may try to defend it as the true science and literal history of origins. For most peoples in the ancient world the various regions of nature were divine. Sun, moon and stars were gods. There were sky gods and earth gods and water gods. There were gods of light and darkness, rivers and vegetation, animals and fertility. Though for us nature has been “demythologized” and “naturalized” -- in large part because of this very passage of Scripture -- for ancient Jewish faith a divinized nature posed a fundamental religious problem.

 

In addition, pharaohs, kings and heroes were often seen as sons of gods, or at least as special mediators between the divine and human spheres. The greatness and vaunted power and glory of the successive waves of empires that impinged on or conquered Israel (Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Persia) posed an analogous problem of idolatry in the human sphere.

 

In the light of this historical context it becomes clearer what Genesis 1 is undertaking and accomplishing: a radical and sweeping affirmation of monotheism vis-à-vis polytheism, syncretism and idolatry. Each day of creation takes on two principal categories of divinity in the pantheons of the day, and declares that these are not gods at all, but creatures -- creations of the one true God who is the only one, without a second or third. Each day dismisses an additional cluster of deities, arranged in a cosmological and symmetrical order.

 

On the first day the gods of light and darkness are dismissed. On the second day, the gods of sky and sea. On the third day, earth gods and gods of vegetation. On the fourth day, sun, moon and star gods. The fifth and sixth days take away any associations with divinity from the animal kingdom. And finally human existence, too, is emptied of any intrinsic divinity -- while at the same time all human beings, from the greatest to the least, and not just pharaohs, kings and heroes, are granted a divine likeness and mediation.

 

On each day of creation another set of idols is smashed. These, O Israel, are no gods at all -- even the great gods and rulers of conquering superpowers. They are the creations of that transcendent One who is not to be confused with any piece of the furniture of the universe of creaturely habitation. The creation is good, it is very good, but it is not divine.

 

We are then given a further clue concerning the polemical design of the passage when the final verse (2:4a) concludes: “These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created.” Why the word “generations,” especially if what is being offered is a chronology of days of creation? Now to polytheist and monotheist alike the word “generations” at this point would immediately call one thing to mind. If we should ask how these various divinities were related to one another in the pantheons of the day, the most common answer would be that they were related as members of a family tree. We would be given a genealogy, as in Hesiod’s Theogony, where the great tangle of Greek gods and goddesses were sorted out by generations. Ouranos begat Kronos; Kronos begat Zeus; Zeus begat Prometheus.

 

The Egyptians, Assyrians and Babylonians all had their “generations of the gods.” Thus the priestly account, which had begun with the majestic words, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth,” now concludes -- over against all the impressive and colorful pantheons with their divine pedigrees -- “These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created.” It was a final pun on the concept of the divine family tree.

 

The fundamental question at stake, then, could not have been the scientific question of how things achieved their present form and by what processes, nor even the historical question about time periods and chronological order. The issue was idolatry, not science; syncretism, not natural history; theology, not chronology; affirmation of faith in one transcendent God, not creationist or evolutionist theories of origin. Attempting to be loyal to the Bible by turning the creation accounts into a kind of science or history is like trying to be loyal to the teachings of Jesus by arguing that the parables are actual historical events, and only reliable and trustworthy when taken literally as such.

 

If one really wishes to appreciate more fully the religious meaning of creation in Genesis 1, one should read not creationist or anticreationist diatribes but Isaiah 40. For the theology of Genesis 1 is essentially the same as the theology of Deutero-Isaiah. They are also both from the same time period, and therefore part of the same interpretive context. It was a time that had been marked, first, by the conquest of most of Palestine -- save Jerusalem -- by the Assyrians under Sennacherib (ca. 701 B.C.). And a century later the Babylonians under Nebuchadnezzar had in turn conquered the Middle East, Palestine and even Jerusalem.

 

The last vestige of Jewish autonomy and Promised Land had been overrun. The Holy City had been invaded, the temple of Solomon destroyed, the city burned, and many of the people carried off into exile, leaving “the poorest of the land to be vine-dressers and plowmen” (II Kings 25:12). Those taken into Babylonian captivity, as well as those left behind, now had even greater temptations placed before them to abandon faith in their God, and to turn after other gods who were clearly more powerful and victorious.

 

Given the awesome might and splendor and triumphs of Assyria and then Babylon, was it not obvious that the shepherd-god of Israel was but a local spirit, a petty tribal god who was hardly a match for the likes of Marduk, god of Babylon? Where was this god, or the people of his hand, or the land of his promise? Faith was hard and idolatry easy. And now a new and greater power, Persia, loomed on the horizon. Yet despite the littleness and powerlessness of a conquered people before the might and majesty of the great empires of the day, a prophet dared to stand forth and declare what Genesis 1 in its own way also declares:

 

Who has measured the waters in the hollow of his

hand,

and marked off the heavens with a span,

enclosed the dust of the earth in a measure

and weighed the mountains in scales in a balance?

Who has directed the Spirit of the Lord,

or as his counselor has instructed him? [isa. 40:12,13].

 

 

 

Here too is a poetic affirmation which no literalism can reduce to its own scales and balances, and no symbolism or imagery exhaust.

 

To whom then will you liken God,

or what likeness compare with him? ...

Have you riot known? Have you not heard?

Has it not been told you from the beginning?

Have you not understood from the foundations

of the earth?

It is he who sits above the circle of the earth,

and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers;

who stretches out the heavens like a curtain,

and spreads them like a tent to dwell in;

who brings princes to nought,

and makes the rulers of the earth as nothing

[isa. 40:21-23].

 

 

 

Had there been a controversy in the Babylonian public schools of the day -- and had there been Babylonian public schools -- these would have been the issues in debate.

 

 

Viewed 20021 times.

I love what this man says. Ditto. Does this pertain to this discussion, or what? The problem isn't religious belief, its literalism. "My beliefs are fact!" That's literalism. And what is the tragic loss, if not the spirit.

 

BTW, Larry if you are still reading this thread, you do realize now that I was not literally saying you can't know God because you are a Christian, but was in fact just switching hats with you in the hope that when you heard someone say this towards you to hear that spirit in you? Obviously it upset you, since you pulled out the "repent" card thown at me. I hope that point planted a seed of truth for your heart.

[Guest end3]

Here is what I have gathered from the very struggle that has been this thread. And I think I see at least a few parallels now.

 

The interaction between, and also the pieces/individuals, and the expression of that, and the grace between those is what I see you as experiencing God. It is the Joy in seeing it in it's beauty/natural uninterrupted form if I am close or closer to understanding your view.

 

I have seen that and don't deny that you have access to that. I too think that is God. I was acknowlegdging that experience on many occasions and wasn't even aware that I had unintentionally done what you are describing. But can you call any description other than a form? Moving past any evidence would leave us with no words, Formless.

 

So yes, we both, and I assume everyone in the world has access to this experience of God, or the pursuit of the Ultimate, the Oneness, the Source.

 

The Oneness that you say is formless, and everything that is inclusive, as I can see that even in the give and take of the flower in the field in unison with all creation, I think is the infinite Formless in Form, that is Grace in the man, Jesus.

 

And I have reasons, for me, behind that Keith, that are also Form, IMO, within the experience of my existence. Why must you remove parts of my or Larry's experience and evidence, through faith in Form of the Formless to delegate your understanding as authoritative?

 

Isn't that what we are all after, to be that which allows for the other flower to Sway in Beauty?

[Antlerman]

And I have reasons, for me, behind that Keith, that are also Form, IMO, within the experience of my existence. Why must you remove parts of my or Larry's experience and evidence, through faith in Form of the Formless to delegate your understanding as authoritative?

 

Isn't that what we are all after, to be that which allows for the other flower to Sway in Beauty?

I was with you all the way to this point. How do you figure I'm doing any of that? It puzzles me. On what do you suggest that? All I have ever criticized is taking it literally to the point that the fruits of that choice of view is to deny others equality. That is in fact what started this whole thread. No matter what was said by anyone, no matter what was presented, it was rejected as invalid - not by us to Larry, but by him towards us. In the end, he implored me to "repent and return to Jesus". Does this sound like someone connected to other through that universal Spirit?

[Guest end3]

And I have reasons, for me, behind that Keith, that are also Form, IMO, within the experience of my existence. Why must you remove parts of my or Larry's experience and evidence, through faith in Form of the Formless to delegate your understanding as authoritative?

 

Isn't that what we are all after, to be that which allows for the other flower to Sway in Beauty?

I was with you all the way to this point. How do you figure I'm doing any of that? It puzzles me. On what do you suggest that? All I have ever criticized is taking it literally to the point that the fruits of that choice of view is to deny others equality. That is in fact what started this whole thread. No matter what was said by anyone, no matter what was presented, it was rejected as invalid - not by us to Larry, but by him towards us. In the end, he implored me to "repent and return to Jesus". Does this sound like someone connected to other through that universal Spirit?

 

I know he shares that with us, maybe not to the experiential degree, but certainly in part.

 

And this is the truth to me K....when I hear you talk about Jesus as only a form of Manifestation, that being true as well, that this is where we differ, because we believe that, from different experience and evidence of the Formless, that Jesus was The Formless itself in form.....through the evidence of infinite Grace, IMO. So it feels like you are subtracting from our belief and faith in evidence in an extreme way.....the very way that makes it most relevant within our human experience.

 

Hope that helps. I don't think you do that on pupose as I have heard your heart.

 

I don't know that only we could wish Formless and Infinite Grace on each other, but we can though, perservere in that attempt until we die.

 

 

Do you see as humans that we cannot, to my knowledge, but acknowlege Formless for each other? I can't be perfect Formless, nor can I have infinite Grace. Formless seems by definition not form..we have form, so how could we become that? I can't have infinite Grace by the same type as I am finite.

 

See?

[Antlerman]

And I have reasons, for me, behind that Keith, that are also Form, IMO, within the experience of my existence. Why must you remove parts of my or Larry's experience and evidence, through faith in Form of the Formless to delegate your understanding as authoritative?

 

Isn't that what we are all after, to be that which allows for the other flower to Sway in Beauty?

I was with you all the way to this point. How do you figure I'm doing any of that? It puzzles me. On what do you suggest that? All I have ever criticized is taking it literally to the point that the fruits of that choice of view is to deny others equality. That is in fact what started this whole thread. No matter what was said by anyone, no matter what was presented, it was rejected as invalid - not by us to Larry, but by him towards us. In the end, he implored me to "repent and return to Jesus". Does this sound like someone connected to other through that universal Spirit?

 

I know he shares that with us, maybe not to the experiential degree, but certainly in part.

And I agree. The higher that degree, the less the separation from It and from each other through it. The only exclusion from God is us in our awareness and apprehension, not It in motion towards us - in infinite grace as you say. I don't accept God banishes anyone, that God prevents people from access to "Him". We are only separated by where we are at in development and in our distractions from it from ourselves on that path.

 

In essence, as I see it, these constructs of religious belief are in a way very common sense principles. How can you see love in your wife, or experience it in yourself if you are spending your days angry about this injustice in the world, that bastard at work, his stupid kids, their damned barking dog, this financial worry, this fear about illness, etc, etc? When I look at the Bible, what I see is the externalizing of this principle. It places the "demand" for a healthier focus and the resulting harmonious actions from a right heart, on God and His expectations for us. "If only we try to make God happy, if only I don't displease Him because this grieves Him, then He will pour blessings on me and I will have a better life."

 

That's the difference in a nutshell. That is a tool to the same ends, just as other tools are employed both others in their contexts to that same end: the apprehension of the spiritual nature in themselves; Union with God. In how I approach it, what I find where I have come to in my growth towards that same end, that same realization within, is to understand that Perfection (infinite knowledge, grace, light, beauty, love, compassion, etc) is apprehended to higher degrees as we become more aware of it in our lives through freeing our conscious minds from those distractions, and those inconsistencies with that (which the Christian calls sin). In apprehending that nature, it places thoughts of the mind, its worries, concerns, emotions, etc in a different context and a renewed perspective which directly affects the potency of those thoughts, and as a result, directly, objectively affects our actions: "You shall know them by their fruits." This is all found in the Bible in externalized symbolic language, as it is found in most other religious traditions at its heart.

 

It is like wishing to develop the qualities of the physical body and attain its fullest potentials. Eating a diet of Big Macs every day is inconsistent with the nature of a healthy body. In a mythological system of tools to help motivate one towards attaining a healthy body, some might create frightening supernatural malevolent beings to represent that Big Mac, and a perfect Divine Man on the opposite extreme with a totally ripped body to represent that internal aspiration to a fully realized physical potential. So as he goes about his day, he looks to the Divine Man as his ideal, his externalized image of self in its highest aspired to form in the Person of Another, and then looks at that dark, fat-oozing blob from the evil underworld holding that gooey Big Mac as some external force symbolizing his own body's temptation to partake in the temporary illusion of satisfaction from eating foods with high animal fat content and empty calories. It helps him focus his mind and desires towards the right practices to develop his natural body through externalizing them in a form of mythological symbolism.

 

And the end of the day however, both the one who finds this mythological construct (perhaps its the one inherited through his family's traditions of body builders going all the way back to the first century, so naturally its how he approaches the whole affair), and the person from another culture who learned other traditions of mythical symbols from his family, or still various other individuals who have found more effective ways for themselves where they were at culturally by removing those inherited myths from the process altogether, they still are aspiring to the same thing: a physically fit body attained through proper diet, exercises, and lifestyle practices. In our cases, a spiritual life that produces healthy fruits in our lives: grace, compassion, love, understanding, forgiveness, peace, and so on.

 

Arguing over the means one uses to that end, denying the results in others using their traditions and schools of discipline, shifts the focus from the shared embrace of that same hope, and instead makes it all a battle of egos over methods. And the end of that, is a loss of that hoped for end the symbols were used for in the first place.

 

And this is the truth to me K....when I hear you talk about Jesus as only a form of Manifestation, that being true as well, that this is where we differ, because we believe that, from different experience and evidence of the Formless, that Jesus was The Formless itself in form.....through the evidence of infinite Grace, IMO.

Again, that you choose to interpret my thoughts to say "only a form", is indicative of how you imagine I think. I've covered that at least a half dozen or more times so far how that doesn't fit, nor is reflective of my understanding, appreciation, nor comprehension of the power of it. You place in my mouth, from your point of view, a diminishing of it, a minimizing of it in my mind. That misses what I say, but I'm not going to cover it all again as there isn't more I can think to add at this point if not of it before doesn't make sense at this point.

 

Yes, Jesus would be a manifest Form of the Formless. I've said that many time, "Logos" which I covered at great length explicitly portrays Jesus' eternal nature as such. Likewise, Krishna would be as well. The difference is not that I see Jesus as not the Expression of the Formless in Form, but I don't believe that excludes all other Forms.

In effect you would have to say that any other apprehension of God in any other Form, any other Divine Manifestation (which is a supplied imagery of the mind based on cultural contexts largely in order to translate the formless into form), are in error, false, and invalid. That I reject as untrue. The Source is what is apprehended, and the Form is our minds interpretation of that.

 

What is it that others are apprehending that is different? Is it judged on the Form it takes? If yes, which it clearly appears to be the case with Christian who would deny the apprehension of Transcendent Love to non-Christians, then it is in effect the Christian who makes Jesus "only a Form" and NOT the Source. If Jesus was the Source in their understanding, then they would see Him manifest in these other Forms. They would not be "other gods", anymore than the Christian would imagine Jesus as a god. Rather, expressions, manifestations, expressions, understood through symbol in the human mind touched by that Transcendent Spirit in all.

 

This does not diminish Jesus in your experience in my mind. It's how you approach God.

 

So it feels like you are subtracting from our belief and faith in evidence in an extreme way.....the very way that makes it most relevant within our human experience.

Again, I think you're lack of understand how I see these things is the source of your dismay. This is hardly subtracting from your belief. It hoping to free it enough in order to rise above symbol-centric thinking to see the Light that Transcends that is in ALL. If you exclude the Spirit living and growing in others within different traditions with different expressions of that, then the subtraction is due to that understanding.

 

At the end of the day, what is realized and manifest through us that tells its Truth. Not this interpretation, that religious symbol, this tradition, that doctrine, this group affiliation. The subtraction is the result of putting God inside our beliefs, rather than allowing our beliefs to evolve to fit that Spirit. Larry at this point places us outside his God that lives inside his beliefs.

 

Hope that helps. I don't think you do that on pupose as I have heard your heart.

I have no idea if this helps as well. I'm sure if as Rev says we were to meet face to face and in a simple unspoken look of knowing, you and I would see we apprehend the same thing, and the only difference is interpretation.

[Guest end3]

And I agree. The higher that degree, the less the separation from It and from each other through it. The only exclusion from God is us in our awareness and apprehension, not It in motion towards us - in infinite grace as you say. I don't accept God banishes anyone, that God prevents people from access to "Him". We are only separated by where we are at in development and in our distractions from it from ourselves on that path.

 

In essence, as I see it, these constructs of religious belief are in a way very common sense principles. How can you see love in your wife, or experience it in yourself if you are spending your days angry about this injustice in the world, that bastard at work, his stupid kids, their damned barking dog, this financial worry, this fear about illness, etc, etc? When I look at the Bible, what I see is the externalizing of this principle. It places the "demand" for a healthier focus and the resulting harmonious actions from a right heart, on God and His expectations for us. "If only we try to make God happy, if only I don't displease Him because this grieves Him, then He will pour blessings on me and I will have a better life."

That would be the million dollar question IMO...how do we in fact, internalize it, except through our form and evidence? I can no more provide Infinite Grace for you than you can provide Formlessness for me. I can't anticipate well enough or read your heart well enough or meet your needs well enough...you see? Even if I have the fullest capacity today that I can muster through everthing I know in Discernment, then it won't fully aprehend your existence.

 

So I think God is that Fullness of Discernment between forms and can do that perfectly. Again, how is formless, even that invoking form in my mind, is any different than me using Jesus?

 

That's the difference in a nutshell. That is a tool to the same ends, just as other tools are employed both others in their contexts to that same end: the apprehension of the spiritual nature in themselves; Union with God. In how I approach it, what I find where I have come to in my growth towards that same end, that same realization within, is to understand that Perfection (infinite knowledge, grace, light, beauty, love, compassion, etc) is apprehended to higher degrees as we become more aware of it in our lives through freeing our conscious minds from those distractions, and those inconsistencies with that (which the Christian calls sin). In apprehending that nature, it places thoughts of the mind, its worries, concerns, emotions, etc in a different context and a renewed perspective which directly affects the potency of those thoughts, and as a result, directly, objectively affects our actions: "You shall know them by their fruits." This is all found in the Bible in externalized symbolic language, as it is found in most other religious traditions at its heart.

Yes, but can you give that to me in absoluteness of your form? No. Can I give it to you? No.

 

It is like wishing to develop the qualities of the physical body and attain its fullest potentials. Eating a diet of Big Macs every day is inconsistent with the nature of a healthy body. In a mythological system of tools to help motivate one towards attaining a healthy body, some might create frightening supernatural malevolent beings to represent that Big Mac, and a perfect Divine Man on the opposite extreme with a totally ripped body to represent that internal aspiration to a fully realized physical potential. So as he goes about his day, he looks to the Divine Man as his ideal, his externalized image of self in its highest aspired to form in the Person of Another, and then looks at that dark, fat-oozing blob from the evil underworld holding that gooey Big Mac as some external force symbolizing his own body's temptation to partake in the temporary illusion of satisfaction from eating foods with high animal fat content and empty calories. It helps him focus his mind and desires towards the right practices to develop his natural body through externalizing them in a form of mythological symbolism.

 

And the end of the day however, both the one who finds this mythological construct (perhaps its the one inherited through his family's traditions of body builders going all the way back to the first century, so naturally its how he approaches the whole affair), and the person from another culture who learned other traditions of mythical symbols from his family, or still various other individuals who have found more effective ways for themselves where they were at culturally by removing those inherited myths from the process altogether, they still are aspiring to the same thing: a physically fit body attained through proper diet, exercises, and lifestyle practices. In our cases, a spiritual life that produces healthy fruits in our lives: grace, compassion, love, understanding, forgiveness, peace, and so on.

Yes

 

Arguing over the means one uses to that end, denying the results in others using their traditions and schools of discipline, shifts the focus from the shared embrace of that same hope, and instead makes it all a battle of egos over methods. And the end of that, is a loss of that hoped for end the symbols were used for in the first place.

Yes, it is a loss of unfathonable proportions.

 

And this is the truth to me K....when I hear you talk about Jesus as only a form of Manifestation, that being true as well, that this is where we differ, because we believe that, from different experience and evidence of the Formless, that Jesus was The Formless itself in form.....through the evidence of infinite Grace, IMO.

Again, that you choose to interpret my thoughts to say "only a form", is indicative of how you imagine I think. I've covered that at least a half dozen or more times so far how that doesn't fit, nor is reflective of my understanding, appreciation, nor comprehension of the power of it. You place in my mouth, from your point of view, a diminishing of it, a minimizing of it in my mind. That misses what I say, but I'm not going to cover it all again as there isn't more I can think to add at this point if not of it before doesn't make sense at this point.

 

Yes, Jesus would be a manifest Form of the Formless. I've said that many time, "Logos" which I covered at great length explicitly portrays Jesus' eternal nature as such. Likewise, Krishna would be as well. The difference is not that I see Jesus as not the Expression of the Formless in Form, but I don't believe that excludes all other Forms.

In effect you would have to say that any other apprehension of God in any other Form, any other Divine Manifestation (which is a supplied imagery of the mind based on cultural contexts largely in order to translate the formless into form), are in error, false, and invalid. That I reject as untrue. The Source is what is apprehended, and the Form is our minds interpretation of that.

And this is a darn fine point.....details being the difference. I think it a noble stance of you to assert this. and I mean this very sincerely! I can't at my point of understanding. As I was eluding to earlier.....can we afford each other the Grace and Formlessness of that in our limited selves to let this happen for each other......not perfectly.....and the results is what we have....to regret.....to the need for repentence in my life (only on occasion of course )

 

AM said "What is it that others are apprehending that is different? Is it judged on the Form it takes? If yes, which it clearly appears to be the case with Christian who would deny the apprehension of Transcendent Love to non-Christians, then it is in effect the Christian who makes Jesus "only a Form" and NOT the Source. If Jesus was the Source in their understanding, then they would see Him manifest in these other Forms. They would not be "other gods", anymore than the Christian would imagine Jesus as a god. Rather, expressions, manifestations, expressions, understood through symbol in the human mind touched by that Transcendent Spirit in all".

 

Please consider within the details of a belief in Jesus Christ, that belief in the story makes Jesus the Source, no other. So in that, is it limited in that aspect....and I know, almost floors you. It just is though K.

Again, the question, can you become formless enough to grant me this. No, because if you could, we wouldn't be having 33 pages of dialogue. Is it in your heart to....I think yes, very much yes.

 

AM said "Again, I think you're lack of understand how I see these things is the source of your dismay. This is hardly subtracting from your belief. It hoping to free it enough in order to rise above symbol-centric thinking to see the Light that Transcends that is in ALL. If you exclude the Spirit living and growing in others within different traditions with different expressions of that, then the subtraction is due to that understanding".

 

In friendship, the fact that you keep mentioning this over and over to make your point known is takes from the form and freedom that is me. I know it pains you for us to have an exclusionary thought in belief, but it is what it is.

 

AM said "At the end of the day, what is realized and manifest through us that tells its Truth. Not this interpretation, that religious symbol, this tradition, that doctrine, this group affiliation. The subtraction is the result of putting God inside our beliefs, rather than allowing our beliefs to evolve to fit that Spirit. Larry at this point places us outside his God that lives inside his beliefs".

 

Yes, can you allow him and me to still sway in the breeze, manifesting the Truth, to Love your neighbor? Discernment, enlightenment etc. to the full extent?

 

Hope that helps. I don't think you do that on pupose as I have heard your heart.

I have no idea if this helps as well. I'm sure if as Rev says we were to meet face to face and in a simple unspoken look of knowing, you and I would see we apprehend the same thing, and the only difference is interpretation.

 

We both know that actually doing helps, least we be professing on a streetcorner in a fabulous robe.

 

YOU DA MAN K! I mean that.

[NotBlinded]

And I agree. The higher that degree, the less the separation from It and from each other through it. The only exclusion from God is us in our awareness and apprehension, not It in motion towards us - in infinite grace as you say. I don't accept God banishes anyone, that God prevents people from access to "Him". We are only separated by where we are at in development and in our distractions from it from ourselves on that path.

 

In essence, as I see it, these constructs of religious belief are in a way very common sense principles. How can you see love in your wife, or experience it in yourself if you are spending your days angry about this injustice in the world, that bastard at work, his stupid kids, their damned barking dog, this financial worry, this fear about illness, etc, etc? When I look at the Bible, what I see is the externalizing of this principle. It places the "demand" for a healthier focus and the resulting harmonious actions from a right heart, on God and His expectations for us. "If only we try to make God happy, if only I don't displease Him because this grieves Him, then He will pour blessings on me and I will have a better life."

That would be the million dollar question IMO...how do we in fact, internalize it, except through our form and evidence? I can no more provide Infinite Grace for you than you can provide Formlessness for me. I can't anticipate well enough or read your heart well enough or meet your needs well enough...you see? Even if I have the fullest capacity today that I can muster through everthing I know in Discernment, then it won't fully aprehend your existence.

 

So I think God is that Fullness of Discernment between forms and can do that perfectly. Again, how is formless, even that invoking form in my mind, is any different than me using Jesus?

Oh, I think I see where the disconnect is and I hope I get across what I'm thinking. I'm going to try.

 

End, in you understanding, you are putting a face on God...personalizing "It". You see God providing Grace for you. We see it as always available and in order to notice it, we have to access it and then it is with us. This is really going to be hard to get across because I have to use the same words, yet with different understandings. You see Infinite Grace being provided for you outside yourself by God. We see this Infinite Grace as always being there, but unrecognized due to all the worries and distractions mentioned above by AM. You see this Grace being something belonging to God and given out with intent behind it. If God knows your heart, you will receive it. God has to personally know you. We see it as being received by the ones that feel God in their heart as in joy, love, happiness and compassion. God is already there. It is not something the mind of God chooses to give or withhold. It is all giving, there would no life without out. I'm trying to think of a good analogy. It's like a fish that doesn't know it's in the water and swims about searching for it. That's not a very good one...have you ever searched for your keys only to find them in your pocket? It is such a tiny difference that makes all the difference in the world. You see God as a personal God and we see God as being everywhere and available to all. It's not personal in a "knowing" sense, but extremely personal in a unobstructed, giving sense. There is nothing but this continual giving. This is creation Itself. God never withholds...creation would cease. People are the ones that have to open themselves up to Grace in order to recognize that it is there and has always been there. God is not separate from creation in our understanding.

 

No one, even Jesus, can personally give this to anyone if they aren't open to accepting something that is already there for the taking. It is the responsibility of every person themselves to get this. It can't be received when one is expecting it to come from somewhere else (the fish searching for the water). This is why Jesus tells people to look within themselves. He is knocking on their hearts, etc. It doesn't mean that you have to say some words and Jesus will come in. It means that love, joy and compassion is already within each of us and to recognize it is to receive it.

 

Man...I hope that made sense!

 

That's the difference in a nutshell. That is a tool to the same ends, just as other tools are employed both others in their contexts to that same end: the apprehension of the spiritual nature in themselves; Union with God. In how I approach it, what I find where I have come to in my growth towards that same end, that same realization within, is to understand that Perfection (infinite knowledge, grace, light, beauty, love, compassion, etc) is apprehended to higher degrees as we become more aware of it in our lives through freeing our conscious minds from those distractions, and those inconsistencies with that (which the Christian calls sin). In apprehending that nature, it places thoughts of the mind, its worries, concerns, emotions, etc in a different context and a renewed perspective which directly affects the potency of those thoughts, and as a result, directly, objectively affects our actions: "You shall know them by their fruits." This is all found in the Bible in externalized symbolic language, as it is found in most other religious traditions at its heart.

Yes, but can you give that to me in absoluteness of your form? No. Can I give it to you? No.

It has already been given since the dawn of creation and every moment after that. All you have to do is to recognize it. You already have it.

 

All of the other things mentioned in the bible about sin is basically telling us that we are "missing the mark" or "falling short" of our true nature. All the worries and distractions of "earthly things" are keeping us from acknowledging what we already have. That is sin.

 

AM said "What is it that others are apprehending that is different? Is it judged on the Form it takes? If yes, which it clearly appears to be the case with Christian who would deny the apprehension of Transcendent Love to non-Christians, then it is in effect the Christian who makes Jesus "only a Form" and NOT the Source. If Jesus was the Source in their understanding, then they would see Him manifest in these other Forms. They would not be "other gods", anymore than the Christian would imagine Jesus as a god. Rather, expressions, manifestations, expressions, understood through symbol in the human mind touched by that Transcendent Spirit in all".

 

Please consider within the details of a belief in Jesus Christ, that belief in the story makes Jesus the Source, no other. So in that, is it limited in that aspect....and I know, almost floors you. It just is though K.

Again, the question, can you become formless enough to grant me this. No, because if you could, we wouldn't be having 33 pages of dialogue. Is it in your heart to....I think yes, very much yes.

It is also hard for me end. I can see in the bible to where Jesus knew the source was within other people also and with this understanding, the world opens up and this "truth" (I believe it is a big Truth) is found in other traditions behind the mythology. Can there be life without the force of Life flowing through all forms? This Source is not prejudiced or what it is prejudiced against wouldn't exist...then we would know nothing of it anyway.

 

AM said "Again, I think you're lack of understand how I see these things is the source of your dismay. This is hardly subtracting from your belief. It hoping to free it enough in order to rise above symbol-centric thinking to see the Light that Transcends that is in ALL. If you exclude the Spirit living and growing in others within different traditions with different expressions of that, then the subtraction is due to that understanding".

 

In friendship, the fact that you keep mentioning this over and over to make your point known is takes from the form and freedom that is me. I know it pains you for us to have an exclusionary thought in belief, but it is what it is.

It is painful to see others have a belief that wants to deny this Source to anyone. I think it would be painful for you too. It is to me because I get a strange feeling in my insides, in my heart, when I think that it could be denied to anyone. In my understanding, this is the "devil" in the tree that manifests in our minds as a liar. "Knowledge" of a story isn't from the heart or from this "silent" knowing.

[NotBlinded]

AM said "Again, I think you're lack of understand how I see these things is the source of your dismay. This is hardly subtracting from your belief. It hoping to free it enough in order to rise above symbol-centric thinking to see the Light that Transcends that is in ALL. If you exclude the Spirit living and growing in others within different traditions with different expressions of that, then the subtraction is due to that understanding".

 

In friendship, the fact that you keep mentioning this over and over to make your point known is takes from the form and freedom that is me. I know it pains you for us to have an exclusionary thought in belief, but it is what it is.

 

If you decide to your best understanding that the exclusionary paradigm is what Is, then division is something that also Is, as a byproduct. Exclusion creates division, the opposite of unity or reconciliation. If this Is what Is, then it is a sad fact to accept, and we must, and that is the end of it. The pain of that division will always be between believers and non-believers. The closer the attempted relational connection, the more painful feelings will arise from the division, because as you have indicated in the Shout, we are driven to a sense of unity. Those who foster the connection despite the division must accept the inevitability of absorbing and processing a certain amount pain, as far as I can tell. If there is another way, I don't know it. If someone here does know, I'd be interested to hear it.

 

This has been enlightening in the sense it makes clear the hurt that inspired recent decisions made by me which ultimately drove me to this site. I never said it out loud, but upon realizing the exclusionary position held by those I love, the words "There is a chasm between us!" burst through all other thoughts constantly as a cry of hopeless grief. The chasm sunk and broke the prior understanding of variety and unity combined that had given rise to deep joy and love. What a loss. What a horror.

 

I will continue to pursue the wider view in others and in myself. I don't know about the other connection...how to approach it. It hurts so much...but when someone I love moves to that place of exclusionary belief, I have a choice to lose them or to keep part of the connection and just absorb the pain. Is this the best hope there is for us (people)? If it is, it is a hard pill to swallow.

 

Thank you both for sharing this conversation with the world (and so me).

 

Phanta

Phanta, that is a wonderful and heartfelt post. I live with this division between myself and my sister. It sucks because it drove us apart. We still show our love for each other, but it's not at the same level it was before I was excluded from her belief system. She still loves me and I her, but there is a tenseness in the heart if you will.

[NotBlinded]

End, I wanted to add one more thing...

 

Nothing but Love and Goodness exist, it is only obstructed. This obstruction comes from knowledge and this Tree of Knowledge lives in our heads. But, the good news is is that the Tree of Life also lives in us and it is what is real. We just keep fertilizing the knowledge which closes our spiritual eyes to the fact that we are of One heart.

[NotBlinded]

Phanta,

 

I want to post this poem I wrote about 5 years ago when the separation was felt between my sister and I. She is 9 years my elder so I'm the little pea in the poem.

 

End,

 

I wanted to post this for you too in order to show the heartache associated with the exclusionary belief structure.

 

This is hard for me to post because the poem itself is a ripping of my heart, but I feel I must.

 

 

The Plea

 

 

The Princess lies upon the mattress

 

within the Castle walls…the Pea, tender and green,

 

encompassed by the billowy fortress,

 

dares itself to subsist – a painful longing, waiting to emerge.

 

 

 

So afraid…so frighteningly aware

 

that the slightest stirring,

 

on the waves of snow white down,

 

will grieve the loving Princess – Oh the Pea’s plight, waiting to emerge.

 

 

 

The Pea rustles gently, hearing soft and low

 

the breath of hopeful songs and the magic there foretold.

 

Imagination soars with hopes of everafter, yet –

 

wonder floats and flutters within the silken threads, waiting to emerge.

 

 

 

Silently mesmerized by the voice so soft and low,

 

the Princess feels the rustling and beckons down below,

 

“Pea, I will sing you songs of hope and love everafter,

 

but you must not stir for I will feel you waiting to emerge.”

 

 

 

The Pea responds, “I have felt your love

 

through the snow white down and silken threads,

 

through the billowy fortress of mist and clouds,

 

ever so protecting me – Will you hear my song of wonder waiting to emerge?”

 

 

 

Once again the Pea stirs and softly begins to sing –

 

The longing, echoes in the songs of understanding,

 

“If you sing me songs of hope and love everafter

 

could you twice sing to me sans everafter waiting to emerge?”

 

 

 

The Pea sings not the songs of hope of love everafter

 

sung from her heart – the Princess’ to the Pea’s.

 

The Princess voices wishes, dreams of love to come,

 

Faith’s allure; Forsaking the Pea – The Keeper of the Castle, waiting to emerge.

 

 

 

The stirring of the Pea has caused the Princess dreadful pain.

 

“Where’s the hope in my songs and the magic there foretold

 

when I can no more sing to you when your skin hardens

 

and you fade away?” – The Princess seeks the Keeper, who is waiting to emerge.

 

 

 

“Princess, the Pea has heard your songs sung from deep inside your heart

 

but refuses the comfort of your pure white silken threads.

 

She is blinded by the openness and the irony of the world.

 

She is lost and cannot see – you will forth defend Me, for now she has emerged.”

 

 

 

The Pea cries, “For many years your pure white silken threads

 

have kept me safe inside…you have not complained

 

when my stirring caused you pain – you comforted me.

 

Why this time does the Keeper lull your heart away - after I emerged?”

 

 

 

The Pea retreats from the sinking of her heart

 

as the Princess sings for the Keeper of her Faith.

 

The Pea Pleas, “Princess, can you sing to me and I to you

 

of hope of love herenow? Will you forth defend me, now that I emerged?”

 

 

 

Sister, you are the Princess and I the Pea.

 

You are a protector, comforter of all who sings.

 

Through fairytales and nightime strolls – holidays forgone,

 

memories cascade - Warmth and hopes within you waiting to emerge.

 

 

 

I am the stirring of all doubts, a voice of a disparate song.

 

A song sung not of things to be – as the Princess’ to the Pea.

 

I miss your voice singing soft and low, the snow white down and silken threads,

 

the billowy fortress of mist and clouds aforetime embraced me when I was waiting to emerge –

[Guest end3]

I have been thinking about it, and the more I consider the different perspectives, the more I am not seeing much difference.

 

If there is only life and a flow from from bottom to top, then there seems no way that obstruction to some process of life is not present by growth to higher form. Isn't this like Christ being the ultimate servant, being the ultimate bottom, thus allowing for Life in others...the ultimate high? Can we say that formless is the unltimate low and the ultimate high by letting others have form? Doesn't this present itself in an alpha and omega sense as well?

 

Can we, by having form, be either one? Do we not seek? Formless has a name, right? Acknowlegement of formless places a perspective on it that I must acknowledge it and accept it.......like Christ????

 

How can you say it is different?

 

You have accepted it in your lives, but hold me as exclusionary by accepting Christ?

 

Must I accept formless for it to be true?

[Antlerman]

I have been thinking about it, and the more I consider the different perspectives, the more I am not seeing much difference.

 

If there is only life and a flow from from bottom to top, then there seems no way that obstruction to some process of life is not present by growth to higher form. Isn't this like Christ being the ultimate servant, being the ultimate bottom, thus allowing for Life in others...the ultimate high? Can we say that formless is the unltimate low and the ultimate high by letting others have form? Doesn't this present itself in an alpha and omega sense as well?

You speak well.

 

Can we, by having form, be either one? Do we not seek? Formless has a name, right?

No, formless means no form, no name. To name defines. As RevR pointed out, even to say or mention "It" gives it form, defines it, changes it through our defining through our limited perception, and thus reduces it.

 

However, "It" can be expressed through form, and those forms have names. It's all about the limitations of our finite minds and finite means to comprehend. The Bible itself expresses this, "No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him." Logos, expression, manifestation, declaration, word of God, not "God the Word", or "God the Son". The Son of God.

 

But in actuality, saying "God" makes God a manifestation as well, and not formless. I would say then that "God" is the manifestation of Godhead - that formless Source. God's God, so to speak. And then to fuzzy the imagination even further, since Godhead is infinite, there is unending depths within that ONE. Limitless Expression, Limitless Depth. Anything we're trying to describe, by default limits it in form, even if that form itself is infinite.

 

What did you experience expose you to? The incompressible? This is explanation is a taste of that Unknowableness. Not that it can't be apprehended within us, but it cannot be described. That is what makes it "unknowable". To know it, is to define it. To define it is to limit it. It is limitless, out of time, out of space, out of form. The Source and Summit. Ground and Destination. Alpha and Omega.

 

To what Rev R said again about symbols, we can know about the unknowable through the symbols we utilize to comprehend reality for us. And our minds and hearts may gain apprehension of the Divine through them, as the Divine is in them - from the blade of grass, to the symbol of God in the Divine Man, each revealing further depth of that Infinite Spirit. So it is not error to embrace those if the result is a greater apprehension of the Divine.

 

And my contention has only ever been to take great care in the embrace of those symbols as the end in themselves, thus turning turning them into idols of the ego. And the way we know if that is occurring, crossing that thin line, is by the manifestation of the fruits of the Spirit in our lives: Exclusion is grief to Spirit. It is incompatible with "It" because ALL in ONE in It. Exclusion is the fruit of human ego, not Divine Nature.

 

You have accepted it in your lives, but hold me as exclusionary by accepting Christ?

Negative. I do not. Your words have led us to believe you are excluding us. You may embrace Christ, but without embracing everyone, are you in fact embracing Christ?

[Guest end3]

You speak well.

thank you

 

Can we, by having form, be either one? Do we not seek? Formless has a name, right?

No, formless means no form, no name. To name defines. As RevR pointed out, even to say or mention "It" gives it form, defines it, changes it through our defining through our limited perception, and thus reduces it.

I am saying this just for comparative sake.....this sentence in itself is much like "Christian-eze". Elusive, uless you "get it". Just saying..

 

However, "It" can be expressed through form, and those forms have names. It's all about the limitations of our finite minds and finite means to comprehend. The Bible itself expresses this, "No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him." Logos, expression, manifestation, declaration, word of God, not "God the Word", or "God the Son". The Son of God.

 

The crux, somewhat of the discussion.....can Form be Formless, Jesus the Formless or jesus the Formless? By logic, one would assume that form could not possess Formless, but then we look outside...lol.

 

But in actuality, saying "God" makes God a manifestation as well, and not formless. I would say then that "God" is the manifestation of Godhead - that formless Source. God's God, so to speak. And then to fuzzy the imagination even further, since Godhead is infinite, there is unending depths within that ONE. Limitless Expression, Limitless Depth. Anything we're trying to describe, by default limits it in form, even if that form itself is infinite.

 

brain-overload...brain overload...brain overload......reboot.

 

What did you experience expose you to? The incompressible? This is explanation is a taste of that Unknowableness. Not that it can't be apprehended within us, but it cannot be described. That is what makes it "unknowable". To know it, is to define it. To define it is to limit it. It is limitless, out of time, out of space, out of form. The Source and Summit. Ground and Destination. Alpha and Omega.

It exposed me to the huge enormity of it. It made itself know to me be experience.

 

To what Rev R said again about symbols, we can know about the unknowable through the symbols we utilize to comprehend reality for us. And our minds and hearts may gain apprehension of the Divine through them, as the Divine is in them - from the blade of grass, to the symbol of God in the Divine Man, each revealing further depth of that Infinite Spirit. So it is not error to embrace those if the result is a greater apprehension of the Divine.

 

I might be "down with that". Give me some time.

 

And my contention has only ever been to take great care in the embrace of those symbols as the end in themselves, thus turning turning them into idols of the ego. And the way we know if that is occurring, crossing that thin line, is by the manifestation of the fruits of the Spirit in our lives: Exclusion is grief to Spirit. It is incompatible with "It" because ALL in ONE in It. Exclusion is the fruit of human ego, not Divine Nature.

 

I can see how this happens.

 

You have accepted it in your lives, but hold me as exclusionary by accepting Christ?

Negative. I do not. Your words have led us to believe you are excluding us. You may embrace Christ, but without embracing everyone, are you in fact embracing Christ?

 

You may be on to something for an old guy.

 

Well, "Shhh" has touched me through you. Thank you for letting your light shine my friend.

 

Ed