The Love Of Jesus

[MultifariousBirdLady]

I have thought about it. It's a bad question. You cannot begin to determine what is the Love of Jesus to a group other than those who have considered themselves to have experienced the Love of Jesus.

 

When I was a Christian there were many times when I believed I was experiencing the Love of Jesus in the way I described in a post way back towards the beginning.

 

But I don't believe that now. It was an experience of Love, yes, but not necessarily "of Jesus" because I no longer think that Jesus really caused it, even back when I believed that he did. And I can experience the same Love now, without Jesus in my belief system at all.

 

Now, of course, the way I experienced it might not be quite the same as you experience it, and your experience might be different from how other Christians experience it, but how is anyone really going to know the difference? All we have are descriptions, and one group of us (i.e. believers) who are ideologically wedded to the theory that only True Christians can have that experience at all.

[Guest end3]

Is this symbolic of something greater than the current explanation? Maybe, but I can't relate other than you and me and anyone else that shares an experience sitting down and meticulously describing their accounts and deciding if they match. I can tell you right now they don't because my account involves the presence of Christ.

How can you say they are of a different nature? Because I don't say "Christ"? I could, from your point of view - if I were you. But I'm not you, and another would say Brahman, still another some other mythical figure. But they all describe the ineffable. And End.. ineffable means it defies description. From one view I could say I experienced "God the Father", I could also say "Logos" or Christ. I could also say Brahman. God. ONE (which is more appropriate for me actually). It was the apprehension of the Unknowable.

 

As I said before, as NotBlinded as said very well herself, the more you move into it, the symbols began to dissolve into pure Being. I would take anyone encountering the Lord Krishna as equal in value and importance with your encounter with Jesus. All forms, and "Jesus" as well as you, as well as me are forms, enfold into ONE. At that state there are no forms but ALL. There are levels of this awareness. What is different, is the symbols.

 

And that comes exactly full circle to the point of this discussion. There is no legitamate way for the Christian to say we don't understand, have experienced what they describe as "the Love of Jesus", when you look at what that describes. Words are not the experience. Words are signs pointing to something. And we could have a thousand signs all pointing to one thing. That is what I believe. And how we determine that is not by the words, but the Spirit in the Heart. It's learning to hear with that. It setting aside our sad fixations on symbols and signs and gaining "ears to hear" and "eyes to see". It's not through symbols, but Spirit, End.

 

All you verses you quote can easily be understood by me. I can agree with them, as pointers. I could translate them for you if you don't see how I can apply them universally? I'd be happy to.

 

 

Fine, the nature of the experience is similar. So?

 

Did yours have a purpose in revelation? Did you take a message away from the experience? Does your nature have a name? Can everyone access this nature?

 

What good does the nature of the event have without meaning?

 

Those are just a few questions....please elaborate.

 

Like the wife and I having sex. We both can have the feeling, but what's the point? I know you are not descibing an animal or tree type relationship with the universe. We are not of the same nature as those.

 

I contend that the symbols, and I use that for your benefit, give meaning to the experience. No?

[Guest end3]

I have thought about it. It's a bad question. You cannot begin to determine what is the Love of Jesus to a group other than those who have considered themselves to have experienced the Love of Jesus.

 

When I was a Christian there were many times when I believed I was experiencing the Love of Jesus in the way I described in a post way back towards the beginning.

 

But I don't believe that now. It was an experience of Love, yes, but not necessarily "of Jesus." And I can experience the same Love now, without Jesus having anything to do with it.

 

Now, of course, the way I experienced it might not be quite the same as you experience it, or as other Christians experience it, but how is anyone really going to know the difference? All we have are descriptions, and one group of us (i.e. believers) who are ideologically wedded to the theory that only True Christians can have that experience at all.

 

You raise an extremely valid point. Thank you for posting. But there is the point as well. Why should it make a difference? I don't know that it should. But we, as humans, contentiously make the point that it should. Why should my love as a Christian directed at humanity reveal anything but Love. Does the belief in Christ yield a diffent quality of love shown to others?

 

Certainly bashing others about there beliefs that help them wouldn't be in good standing with love, you reckon?

[Guest end3]

And then K, you have to ask yourself, of the descriptions, the symbols that tell the tale, which one of them make the most sense to me for me, the reasons I choose for me.

 

That's all we have man. You want to take that away from someone?

[Antlerman]

Fine, the nature of the experience is similar. So?

So, is because if the nature of it is the same, then it is a matter of interpretations, of descriptions - not validity.

 

Did yours have a purpose in revelation?

I would certainly say so.

 

Did you take a message away from the experience?

Oh yes. Been with me ever since.

 

Does your nature have a name?

If you mean how do I describe the nature of it, the words I would choose would be Divinity. ONENESS. Godhead. Those however are descriptions based on language. That's how I would describe it, at this moment.

 

Can everyone access this nature?

Of course.

 

What good does the nature of the event have without meaning?

It had and has profound meaning, and saying that falls so utterly flat in describing the significance. Permanetly Transformative. That comes closer. Union with Divine. Better.

 

Frankly, how can you ask a question like that to me? You know my story.

 

Here, read this small snippet again:

 

I fully believe you experienced that. I've experienced something very similar. A point in my life of great crisis; an event that took me to the edge of death; a cry of desperation for help out into the utter darkness; white light suddenly appearing everywhere, in an instant driving everything else out that tormented me; a complete cessation of time; infinite peace, infinite love, infinite knowledge, infinite awareness, infinite power, infinite grace and compassion, all in only a sliver of an inconceivable infinity that lay beyond that; and then a gentle voice of infinite compassion and awareness speaking only my name, conveying my life's story before my eyes in an instant of utter timelessness with the knowledge spoken without words to my mind that I was never alone, that was loved beyond all knowledge. Shall I continue?

 

Rising from this vision I felt all the pain of my heart come gushing out of the deepest part of my soul in a torrent of tears, being both afraid and amazed at what had just happened. Two days later, I began what began my lifelong search for understanding of this. Being raised in a Christian culture, seeking out a minister seemed the most appropriate beginning. I openly shared my experience with wonder and puzzlement in my voice, to the stolid looks of the minister who gave little response. The following day I spoke to another, this time a Catholic priest, who likewise sat with a blank stare and his offering what I learned later to be the typical Catholic response of asking if I had anything to confess.

 

I left feeling discouraged, lost, and confused, yet with this knowledge in my heart. Suddenly, without any warning or indication, the entire Universe opened to me before my eyes, as if a great curtain opened in an instant. I suddenly saw for the first time in my life - color. The world was full of color, with vibrant greens and blues everywhere! The World was full of light and love and color, and permeated everything as a sort of living joy that surrounded me, moved through me, and began flowing out of the most unimaginably deepest part of my being out into the world in a sort of song, as can only be described as utter, living love.

 

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

 

From this point began the life-long quest of mine that I stumbled about to build upon, again making the mistake of looking for answers from ministers. Two years later, and no further towards finding answers I happened upon a very charismatic Biblical literalist whose convictions of truth inspired me. I was caught into the snare, and found myself convinced somehow that all this was somehow God calling me to serve him in the ministry. I enrolled in Bible College and graduated top of my class with a degree in theology, all the while being ripped apart inside by the conflict of what was in my heart, and what was being portrayed about God.

 

You can read the rest of my story I posted here two years ago if you are interested:

http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?showtopic=6730&hl=

 

The point is, to this day I still embrace what I experienced. I still accept it as real. I however do not believe it says anything about a particular theology about a particular God from a particular religion. I'm planning to share my thoughts on what this means to me in another thread I'm having with Ruby in the Arena forum here called, "Evidence of the Heart". So I'll save my thoughts for there, as they are going to get long - very long.

(be patient as my time is limited these days for awhile)

 

P.S. In my testimony link I included above, I skipped over the first part of what I mentioned here. I didn't feel comfortable at that time to mention it.

 

I could say significantly more about this, but that should be enough to make the point I am making about saying someone who isn't a Christian cannot know what it is to experience the "Love of God (Jesus, Vishnu, Brahman, or other describers)". "God" is hardly to property of the Christian church! And I certainly have no reservations in saying I know what "God's Love" is. As I hear Christians wrangle their hands in doubt of God in others outside there doors, I feel profound pity for them in the darkness of their imaginations. Married to the Bible and their interpretations, never seeing the Light that is Life.

 

I contend that the symbols, and I use that for your benefit, give meaning to the experience. No?

Sure, they can help give meaning. So long as you don't replace the signified with the signifier. The moment you see it becoming exclusive, that should be your first sign that you have slipped into symbol worship over embrace of Soul.

[Pastorl5]

First off, let me say thank you to Antlerman for inviting me to this discussion. I am always intrigued by the opinions of others so that I can better understand how people feel.

Thank you for your response. It's in the spirit of dialog that we can hopefully move forward as individuals together within a society. Working off assumptions only leaves us with a very limited perception of reality, largely created by our own imaginations without the benefit of a broader understanding through others.

 

There is a lot to discuss here, but I guess what I want to focus on is Antlerman's initial question: what do I mean by the "Love of Jesus". Plain and simple what I meant was to ask the question, "How could a person who has claimed to experience God's love turn away from it?" I have been a devoted Christian for 9 years and my experience of God's love has only gotten deeper and better. To have a person who has experienced that love to only leave it is mind-boggling to me and thus the thrust of my comment.

This was what MBL pointed out above. I have been considering the comment in respect to that point of view. I can understand the question from that mindset. To you it must seem mind-boggling indeed. I hope to address a response to that with respect to your understanding of it.

 

To briefly answer that, in my case in particular, though I'm certain that is shared by most others as well, is that it's not a case of turning our back on Love or the experience of the ineffable. Instead it is a case of questioning or moving beyond limiting it to one definition, to a doctrine, to a theology, to a religion - in other words 'putting God in a box', so to speak. Quite the contrary for me, it was about being able to free it from the claws of a religion that claimed proprietorship of it. "God as we prescribe", or as "Interpreted from the Bible by us," is not God at all.

 

I can equally argue that how is it that if someone has tasted the transcendent, that they put limits on it by sticking it into a box of religious definitions? Does that Truth that is in them, pull them to something higher? How is it that they turn away from that in favor of allegiance to a religion, or an interpretation? Isn't the ineffable just that? Beyond description? Beyond definitions? Can't I from my perspective ask, how is it that you live within the limits of a religion then, having tasted that which is infinitely beyond?

 

In short, I left because the religion restrained my soul from the needed liberty to grow.

 

 

I would agree that the Love of Jesus, or what is meant by it, is a expression of human experience; however, as you would expect, this expression is not something humans can create. Now, I will be the first to admit that I see tons of people, who do not believe, who are genuinely loving and caring people. I have many friends who don't believe in Christ and they are people who share the same values as I do. So, at the least, I would suggest that the Love of Christ is not something that is shown in our higher morals or values; it is only something that we experience from God.

This has come up a number of times recently in conversation with other Christians how they externalize this, how they separate us out from it. That that love, comes from outside to in, and that we do not 'create it'. I want to explore that idea with you.

 

I would agree that we do not create it, in the sense that it is a purely manufactured reality of of nothing. However, it is something that we participate in. We are not passive, nor external to it. It is our nature as part of existence itself that we through our conscious participation within it either open our conscious awareness to or close off from ourselves. It is not as though we have zero in us, and suddenly that nature is 'put into us'. It is our nature as part of all being, and is strictly a case of apprehension or the realization of it. We don't create it, nor does it exist outside us, as separate to us. We are never outside it or removed from it.

 

You suggest that the Love of Christ is not something shown in higher morals and values, but is something we experience. But couldn't you recognize that the experience of higher Self or "God", is manifested through those things? That they are the 'fruits' of that? They are expressions of that? That they themselves can be considered as 'evidence' of that living in them, and showing through them? And if so, then "God" is in them, regardless of their acceptance of religious mythical symbols describing it? That the symbols are not what is apprehended, but the truth beyond the symbols? And if there is a truth beyond the symbols, then how does one recognize it? Certainly not by the symbols, by someone using or not using the symbols. What manifests it, if not actions?

 

Whether or not you believe in Jesus is the measuring stick of what I see as truth. If you don't believe in Jesus, how can you believe in the truth that He teaches? My truth (or I see it everyone's truth) cannot be truth without Jesus Christ at the center. It's not that I don't think non-Christians are unable to know the nature of love, I just think (and don't be offended) that you cannot experience the fullness of that nature without the truth of Jesus Christ.

And here becomes the crux of our discussion. You are in essence saying that someone accepting the religious symbol of Jesus as the Christ, the Savior, is the measuring stick, the evidence of the Spirit in them. You are in essence saying this: That love manifests through an individual must in effect be not recognized, accepted, nor embraced as manifestation of true Spirit if it is not evidenced by them accepting Christian doctrines. That is exactly what I hear, exactly why I left, and exactly what breaks my heart for those who in fact do love Truth, but block themselves from it in others because of a sad, or mistaken notion of fidelity to a doctrinal interpretation of a religious organization.

 

That in effect is worshiping theology above "God", above those things you assign to and describe by the symbols of your faith. It's the point at which spirituality becomes a religion, and development ceases and man is in fact "separated from God", so to speak. In in an ironic sense, I express that by saying that true salvation, is freedom from religion. To say we must use a book compiled by priests representing their 'orthodoxy' of acceptable religious beliefs, canonized and mythologized to by the standard of acceptable belief that God Himself gave us, is in fact to deny the Spirit it claims to embrace.

 

I hope this is a good start to what i hope to be a wonderful conversation. Thanks for the invite, I hope to hear from you soon.

I agree and I appreciate your response. I look forward to exploring this with you.

 

 

 

Antlerman,

Since this topic has been lost in numerous tangents (interesting ones at that) I will respect your direction to come back to the original question at hand: that which is the Love of Christ. I looked back at what you had said to my original post(context above) and I'd like to make a few comments:

 

To briefly answer that, in my case in particular, though I'm certain that is shared by most others as well, is that it's not a case of turning our back on Love or the experience of the ineffable. Instead it is a case of questioning or moving beyond limiting it to one definition, to a doctrine, to a theology, to a religion - in other words 'putting God in a box', so to speak. Quite the contrary for me, it was about being able to free it from the claws of a religion that claimed proprietorship of it. "God as we prescribe", or as "Interpreted from the Bible by us," is not God at all.

 

I can equally argue that how is it that if someone has tasted the transcendent, that they put limits on it by sticking it into a box of religious definitions? Does that Truth that is in them, pull them to something higher? How is it that they turn away from that in favor of allegiance to a religion, or an interpretation? Isn't the ineffable just that? Beyond description? Beyond definitions? Can't I from my perspective ask, how is it that you live within the limits of a religion then, having tasted that which is infinitely beyond?

 

In short, I left because the religion restrained my soul from the needed liberty to grow.

 

It is amazing how two people can have two completely different experiences from within the same structure. I for one, did not find religion restraining my soul, I actually found it to be liberating to my relationship with Jesus, helping me grow closer to Him and freer than I have ever been. Now, how I define religion and how you define religion are probably two separate things. I don't necessarily think that Christianity as a religion as a negative in its structure, again this is the fault of the people within the structure. I happen to think that if a person studies the religion of Christianity (through the Bible) and not the laws set up by certain churches within it, they would find it to be more liberating than any other thing.

 

As a pastor I see a huge problem within our reaction to such a structure. As a matter of fact I agree that we as followers of Christ are often too restrictive when it comes to the nature and power of the God we follow. I just preached a sermon speaking against such a thought and tried to encourage my church to realize the full potential of God's power in their lives. So yes, I would agree that some of us "religious types" do put limits on the truth to either fit our needs or our own perceptions.

 

As Christians, as you know, we are indeed called to a Higher truth/power. Yet due to our fear or our own restraints we never realize the potential of this truth here on this side of the world. As I read the Bible I see that once we get to Heaven we do realize the fullness of that truth (see for instance 1 Corinthians 13) but while we are here on Earth we must still obtain and strive to obtain it as well.

 

I would agree that we do not create it, in the sense that it is a purely manufactured reality of of nothing. However, it is something that we participate in. We are not passive, nor external to it. It is our nature as part of existence itself that we through our conscious participation within it either open our conscious awareness to or close off from ourselves. It is not as though we have zero in us, and suddenly that nature is 'put into us'. It is our nature as part of all being, and is strictly a case of apprehension or the realization of it. We don't create it, nor does it exist outside us, as separate to us. We are never outside it or removed from it.

 

You suggest that the Love of Christ is not something shown in higher morals and values, but is something we experience. But couldn't you recognize that the experience of higher Self or "God", is manifested through those things? That they are the 'fruits' of that? They are expressions of that? That they themselves can be considered as 'evidence' of that living in them, and showing through them? And if so, then "God" is in them, regardless of their acceptance of religious mythical symbols describing it? That the symbols are not what is apprehended, but the truth beyond the symbols? And if there is a truth beyond the symbols, then how does one recognize it? Certainly not by the symbols, by someone using or not using the symbols. What manifests it, if not actions?

 

You are correct when you say that the love of Christ is within our nature. The Bible does tell us that God made us in His image and that His heart (that is His motivation) is found in all that He creates (and since His nature is Love we can assume that Love is seen throughout all of creation). Yet, the difference between the Christian and the Non-Christian is in fact that we experience more of that love when we decide to follow Him (and by following, loving Him back). Think of it this way, before one accepts Christ they have a sample of God's love for them, but it isn't until we buy the product (or in this case become a Christian) that we can truly experience all that that product has to offer.

 

Even in your assertion of symbols, the Bible suggests that those symbols mean nothing without the love of Christ in the middle of them (again see 1 Corinthians 13). So in essence those symbols could exist in a person's life without the love of Christ; yet, for the Christian it becomes more meaningful (I know, I know... quite presumptious of me).

 

And here becomes the crux of our discussion. You are in essence saying that someone accepting the religious symbol of Jesus as the Christ, the Savior, is the measuring stick, the evidence of the Spirit in them. You are in essence saying this: That love manifests through an individual must in effect be not recognized, accepted, nor embraced as manifestation of true Spirit if it is not evidenced by them accepting Christian doctrines. That is exactly what I hear, exactly why I left, and exactly what breaks my heart for those who in fact do love Truth, but block themselves from it in others because of a sad, or mistaken notion of fidelity to a doctrinal interpretation of a religious organization.

 

That in effect is worshiping theology above "God", above those things you assign to and describe by the symbols of your faith. It's the point at which spirituality becomes a religion, and development ceases and man is in fact "separated from God", so to speak. In in an ironic sense, I express that by saying that true salvation, is freedom from religion. To say we must use a book compiled by priests representing their 'orthodoxy' of acceptable religious beliefs, canonized and mythologized to by the standard of acceptable belief that God Himself gave us, is in fact to deny the Spirit it claims to embrace.

 

As a Christian would you expect me to say something else? Jesus, the center of my religion, tells me that He is the way, the truth, and the life, and no one can come to the Father except through Him. That is not religion, but the expression of truth in the world in which we live. The fact is that anyone seeking truth must look at Jesus as the answer to their quest, otherwise they are missing out in the greatest truth of all time. This is not doctrinal interpretation, as you would suggest, but the truth that is set out plainly in front of His creation.

 

So in essence, the Love of Christ is set in this: seeking the Truth and finding it through Jesus Christ. I didn't need a religion to tell me that, God did quite a good enough job.

 

Peace, Love, and Soul

Larry

[Pastorl5]

 

There is a lot to discuss here, but I guess what I want to focus on is Antlerman's initial question: what do I mean by the "Love of Jesus". Plain and simple what I meant was to ask the question, "How could a person who has claimed to experience God's love turn away from it?" I have been a devoted Christian for 9 years and my experience of God's love has only gotten deeper and better. To have a person who has experienced that love to only leave it is mind-boggling to me and thus the thrust of my comment.

 

I would like to welcome you to the site and I know that anyone AM invites deserves great respect and I will do so.

 

I now realize that when I speak of the love of God, I do so without religious boundries. I can see all religions as being pointers to the divine and I understand that God doesn't belong to the symbols that point to "It".

 

I would agree that the Love of Jesus, or what is meant by it, is a expression of human experience; however, as you would expect, this expression is not something humans can create. Now, I will be the first to admit that I see tons of people, who do not believe, who are genuinely loving and caring people. I have many friends who don't believe in Christ and they are people who share the same values as I do. So, at the least, I would suggest that the Love of Christ is not something that is shown in our higher morals or values; it is only something that we experience from God.

I would state that love is created by humans. Or that love is the nature of humans when they are open to the divine that already exist in them and everything. Humans can't actively search and find this love because they already have it. They can only remove the block or veil that stops them from realizing it. You may call it the Grace of God because it can only happen when one stops trying to find something that isn't lost.

 

Whether or not you believe in Jesus is the measuring stick of what I see as truth. If you don't believe in Jesus, how can you believe in the truth that He teaches? My truth (or I see it everyone's truth) cannot be truth without Jesus Christ at the center. It's not that I don't think non-Christians are unable to know the nature of love, I just think (and don't be offended) that you cannot experience the fullness of that nature without the truth of Jesus Christ.

You realize how that sounds don't you?

I believe the truth of Jesus Christ has been known before Jesus experienced his Divine sonship. There have been others before and after and continues to be more all the time. The veil is lowering and I would say that this may occur more and more as the symbols are understood more as pointers and less as the real thing. The dismissing of mental idols is a great way to allow Divine Grace to happen.

 

 

I hope this is a good start to what i hope to be a wonderful conversation. Thanks for the invite, I hope to hear from you soon.

 

Peace, Love, and Soul

Larry D Vinson

 

P.S. Anterlman, anytime you want to get in person and talk of this, please look me up @ FOrest Lake Christian Church (or email @ larry@myflcc.com)

I look forward to this because this is where my heart is also.

 

 

Blinded by the Blight,

Thank you for your response, so as not to repeat myself unnecessarily please refer to my reply to Antlerman on pg. 4 of this forum. One thing I did not discuss there I would like to respond to you:

 

Throughout your post you express the idea that God is not found in the symbols but the symbols are mere pointers: exactly. Yet, to clarify, the question must then be asked: which symbols to the actual truth of the Divine? There is no reasonable way to say that they all do, as different religions have contradicting symbols that claim to point to the same truth. Through my own research and journey I have found that the symbols offered in Christianity (the cross, the resurrection, the blood of Christ, etc) do point to the truth that is only found in Jesus Christ followed by Christianity.

 

Perhaps a better explanation of what you mean by symbols will help me to better understand your point of view. Thanks again, and remember to read my response to Antlerman on page 4. See you soon.

 

Peace, Love, and Soul

Larry

[Shyone]

 

As a Christian would you expect me to say something else? Jesus, the center of my religion, tells me that He is the way, the truth, and the life, and no one can come to the Father except through Him. That is not religion, but the expression of truth in the world in which we live. The fact is that anyone seeking truth must look at Jesus as the answer to their quest, otherwise they are missing out in the greatest truth of all time. This is not doctrinal interpretation, as you would suggest, but the truth that is set out plainly in front of His creation.

 

So in essence, the Love of Christ is set in this: seeking the Truth and finding it through Jesus Christ. I didn't need a religion to tell me that, God did quite a good enough job.

 

Peace, Love, and Soul

Larry

 

And

 

End3 wrote:

 

How can Jesus be missed by so many people? Through humanity and the disgusting lack of love we have for each other, which speaks specifically to the account of Christianity.

 

You know, I believed this for so many years and I truly do understand why I don't believe anymore. In the dark, you think you hear Jesus and God and Spirits, but you turn on the light and it turns out it was just cockroaches.

 

I used to think that any intelligent person, confronted with the facts, who is willing to open their eyes and mind, would realize that God is a myth, Jesus was either deluded or people made him into a god when he had not even considered the idea (by interpolation), and religion is a vast pile of ignorant speculation. But that doesn't seem to be the case.

 

Intelligent people, like yourselves, probably know the facts, but haven't put the pieces together. Impressed by the words in the bible which you were raised with, convinced by the support of others who share the same beliefs and unwilling to see the flaws, continue to believe. Jesus doesn't say "I am the way..." The book does. That's the source of belief.

 

There is a cottage industry devoted to keeping people believers, and obvious problems are swept under the rug with fantastical and ridiculous apologetics.

 

Maybe one day you will open an apologetic book that attempts to sweep yet another problem under the rug and see that it just isn't right. The problem remains, and so do all of the other problems.

 

It isn't a question of love, or good deeds, or generosity, but reality. I suspect that you have already found things that some consider "real" but that you have discounted or ignored. Young Earth Creationism is the most logical interpretation of Genesis, and I'll grant that the Young Earth Creationists are certainly faithful to their interpretation even in the face of contradictory facts. But this position is untenable in the face of reality. Ignorance of science allows many to persevere in their beliefs, but for some it means deliberately altering the facts. The dishonesty of Young Earth Creationism is the tip of the dishonesty of the apologetic literature.

 

It is really difficult to see through something that is a world view passed down for generations. I have seen some theists who seem to view it as a battle of "benefits." God offers eternal life. Atheism doesn't. God makes people good. Atheism doesn't. God brings presents every Christmas. Atheism doesn't. Such comparisons do not come from truth, but unrealistic expectations.

 

Is life better lived in a fantasy? For some, the answer is a strident YES! Should I care what others believe? That's a long story, but I think the answer is yes. I care that you will someday see what you have done and kick yourselves for it. I wish better for you.

[Pastorl5]

 

As a Christian would you expect me to say something else? Jesus, the center of my religion, tells me that He is the way, the truth, and the life, and no one can come to the Father except through Him. That is not religion, but the expression of truth in the world in which we live. The fact is that anyone seeking truth must look at Jesus as the answer to their quest, otherwise they are missing out in the greatest truth of all time. This is not doctrinal interpretation, as you would suggest, but the truth that is set out plainly in front of His creation.

 

So in essence, the Love of Christ is set in this: seeking the Truth and finding it through Jesus Christ. I didn't need a religion to tell me that, God did quite a good enough job.

 

Peace, Love, and Soul

Larry

 

And

 

End3 wrote:

 

How can Jesus be missed by so many people? Through humanity and the disgusting lack of love we have for each other, which speaks specifically to the account of Christianity.

 

You know, I believed this for so many years and I truly do understand why I don't believe anymore. In the dark, you think you hear Jesus and God and Spirits, but you turn on the light and it turns out it was just cockroaches.

 

I used to think that any intelligent person, confronted with the facts, who is willing to open their eyes and mind, would realize that God is a myth, Jesus was either deluded or people made him into a god when he had not even considered the idea (by interpolation), and religion is a vast pile of ignorant speculation. But that doesn't seem to be the case.

 

Intelligent people, like yourselves, probably know the facts, but haven't put the pieces together. Impressed by the words in the bible which you were raised with, convinced by the support of others who share the same beliefs and unwilling to see the flaws, continue to believe. Jesus doesn't say "I am the way..." The book does. That's the source of belief.

 

There is a cottage industry devoted to keeping people believers, and obvious problems are swept under the rug with fantastical and ridiculous apologetics.

 

Maybe one day you will open an apologetic book that attempts to sweep yet another problem under the rug and see that it just isn't right. The problem remains, and so do all of the other problems.

 

It isn't a question of love, or good deeds, or generosity, but reality. I suspect that you have already found things that some consider "real" but that you have discounted or ignored. Young Earth Creationism is the most logical interpretation of Genesis, and I'll grant that the Young Earth Creationists are certainly faithful to their interpretation even in the face of contradictory facts. But this position is untenable in the face of reality. Ignorance of science allows many to persevere in their beliefs, but for some it means deliberately altering the facts. The dishonesty of Young Earth Creationism is the tip of the dishonesty of the apologetic literature.

 

It is really difficult to see through something that is a world view passed down for generations. I have seen some theists who seem to view it as a battle of "benefits." God offers eternal life. Atheism doesn't. God makes people good. Atheism doesn't. God brings presents every Christmas. Atheism doesn't. Such comparisons do not come from truth, but unrealistic expectations.

 

Is life better lived in a fantasy? For some, the answer is a strident YES! Should I care what others believe? That's a long story, but I think the answer is yes. I care that you will someday see what you have done and kick yourselves for it. I wish better for you.

 

 

Shyone,

I appreciate your post but, as you might guess, I have a problem with the essence of it. First, can it not be that I can be both a Christian and a sympathizer to science? The mere fact that Bible does not specifically say how long (whether it be a literal or figurative 6 days) does not mean that God did not create. Now, my point of view on such topics is not important here (as we are talking about the love of God and not Creationism vs Evolutionism), but please do not assume that the people who disagree with the facts of Christianity are necessarily true (I could point to the whole email controversy of the Global Warming Scientists trying to hide opposing evidence, but again not the point of this post). I'm sure there are people on my side of the fence who disregard "opposing facts" because they don't think they have to deal with them, but that gives no credibility to said "opposing facts". I am also sure that there are some on your side of the fence who do the same thing, also giving no credibility to said "opposing facts" Truth is truth, that's that. One of us is right and the other wrong, I'll guess we'll figure that out when we leave this earth.

 

Finally, let me just say that your arguments are subjective at best and no real concrete evidence has been brought forth. If you expect Christians to do the same to prove our God, please do the same when trying to do otherwise. Thanks for the lively discussion, I appreciate your post and the thought it has made me go through. I look forward to your response.

 

Peace, Love, and Soul

Larry

[centauri]

...Jesus, the center of my religion, tells me that He is the way, the truth, and the life, and no one can come to the Father except through Him. That is not religion, but the expression of truth in the world in which we live.

It is religion because it’s the expression of a belief in a theological system that holds this particular doctrine.

It is not an established universal truth, it’s a subjective doctrine.

It's true for you because you decided it was true.

 

The fact is that anyone seeking truth must look at Jesus as the answer to their quest, otherwise they are missing out in the greatest truth of all time. This is not doctrinal interpretation, as you would suggest, but the truth that is set out plainly in front of His creation.

This is not an established fact or truth for anyone except those that want it to be factual and true.

It's true for those that interpret it to be true, as seen through their perspective.

Reality is not created simply by asserting something and repeating it over and over again.

[Shyone]

 

Shyone,

I appreciate your post but, as you might guess, I have a problem with the essence of it. First, can it not be that I can be both a Christian and a sympathizer to science?

 

Finally, let me just say that your arguments are subjective at best and no real concrete evidence has been brought forth. If you expect Christians to do the same to prove our God, please do the same when trying to do otherwise. Thanks for the lively discussion, I appreciate your post and the thought it has made me go through. I look forward to your response.

 

Peace, Love, and Soul

Larry

Actually, you missed the point entirely.

 

Christians can be scientists, and so can atheists. It is a factual claim that there is nothing that a Christian can do that an atheist cannot do for the benefit of mankind. Religious malarky does not constitute a benefit for society. Every secular activity is a benefit of humans for humans. Every unanswered prayer is the benefit of religion.

 

I am not even arguing that there is not a god, although I clearly believe this. I presented no arguments at all.

 

I'm saying that I think you are intelligent, and one day you will realize your folly; however, that is my wish, not my expectation.

 

I wish you the best, and that is the truth.

[Antlerman]

It is amazing how two people can have two completely different experiences from within the same structure. I for one, did not find religion restraining my soul, I actually found it to be liberating to my relationship with Jesus, helping me grow closer to Him and freer than I have ever been.

I have thought about this before. That if after my existential awakening I had encountered someone within the Christian religion who actually saw a depth in it beyond all the surfaces structures of doctrines and beliefs, that they would have 'heard' what was there in front of them with open hands and heart pleading, "tell me more, help me to know this God", perhaps there would have been growth for me in there. Perhaps I would have found definition and fulfillment in it.

 

But then, considering the various iterations of it I explored in my quest, even the best of them would not have necessarily been sufficient for me. And this becomes my point. In no way is what is in my heart any less sincere than your own, but there is apparently not a 'one size fits all' system of belief.

 

It is enormously difficult for people who are products of this culture who were raised with the ethos and culture of Christianity as part of our social language and very identities, to walk away from it. The drive must be so insatiable to not allow ourselves to compromise what is inside us to sacrifice the security and acceptance of our communities for the sake of being freed to seek satisfaction of the pull inside of us. And my point is that, even if the system others find is not one that aligns with the Christian system you find answers that pull for you, the recognition of the value of it in others is what tells of truth beyond the systems. "By their fruits you shall now them".

 

Is it reasonable to suggest that someone's soul cannot and will not find fulfillment unless they can somehow cognitively process sufficiently enough through all the human debris of religious politics and hermeneutics, and personalities, and translations, etc, in order to mentally accept Christianity as a system of belief in order to be 'reconciled to God'? I personally find it irrational to say that others who are not Christian cannot find equally as much, or even more, spiritual truth and connection with God than the Christian has. I personally find it a conflict of heart and mind to consider that valid. What does the voice of the Heart say?

 

That leads to a question. Do you ever experience such conflict of your heart against your theology, or the words of Jesus as you understand them, to the point where you need to tell your 'feelings' that they must align with God's word, not challenge it, not question it, or even forcibly align them with it? I certainly knew what that was like for me as a Christian. It's what finally broke the camel's back. The heart could no longer be denied.

 

Now, how I define religion and how you define religion are probably two separate things. I don't necessarily think that Christianity as a religion as a negative in its structure, again this is the fault of the people within the structure. I happen to think that if a person studies the religion of Christianity (through the Bible) and not the laws set up by certain churches within it, they would find it to be more liberating than any other thing.

I will certainly grant my experience of it has shaped how I see it, and that I can allow that for you it has been a liberating experience. If so, I'm happy for you. If there were more people who held the world with more open hands things indeed be much better for more people.

 

But as much as I can be happy for your experience, there is also much larger issues with the system as a whole, that go beyond those few who are able to find freedom in it. The Church as an Institution has become a millstone around the neck of the human species in its embodiment and control of mythic systems controlling society and human progress. I believe in a symbiotic relationship of creativity and human desire for knowledge that define our very essence, and systems of belief or philosophies that help integrate them into society.

 

But religion, institutionally, ever since the Enlightenment and the Age of Reason, has striven to govern and control these unstoppable forces of evolution in a vision of the world of theirs which is out of step with our knowledge of reality in it manifold complexities. So now, rather than being a system of support of humans in the Spirit of Truth, they work contrary to that. Unable to adapt and evolve in the Spirit of Evolution, the Spirit of Nature, they clutch their system as though it were God itself and deny the process of development in the world. Our spiritual realization as rational beings.

 

But I will allow for some progress with thanks to those individuals who try to help it change. But alas, it may not be enough. Something else may need to speak to the hearts of this world, something less 'religion'?

 

As a pastor I see a huge problem within our reaction to such a structure. As a matter of fact I agree that we as followers of Christ are often too restrictive when it comes to the nature and power of the God we follow. I just preached a sermon speaking against such a thought and tried to encourage my church to realize the full potential of God's power in their lives. So yes, I would agree that some of us "religious types" do put limits on the truth to either fit our needs or our own perceptions.

Thank you. I appreciate that you can recognize that as a problem inherent in any organizing of members around an ideal or belief.

 

As Christians, as you know, we are indeed called to a Higher truth/power. Yet due to our fear or our own restraints we never realize the potential of this truth here on this side of the world. As I read the Bible I see that once we get to Heaven we do realize the fullness of that truth (see for instance 1 Corinthians 13) but while we are here on Earth we must still obtain and strive to obtain it as well.

That's one of my criticisms of the teachings that are part of the Christian religion. The whole idea of 'after this life'. No. When you tell yourself that that's not for here, that that happens after death, then you in fact will not realize it here even though there is nothing to prevent that now. I don't know if you read that quote of myself from some time ago here, where I talked about my experience of "God", but I can say with all confidence that the whole "Now we seek through a glass darkly, but then face to face. Now we know in part, but then we shall know even as we are known", was in fact realized in me here, in this life.

 

Now to realize that there are no barriers beyond our own choices and personal growth between this limited truth and that, it radically changes how we see the whole. Doesn't it?

 

Yet, the difference between the Christian and the Non-Christian is in fact that we experience more of that love when we decide to follow Him

That is only different from the non-Christian by virtue of the use of a language that focuses ones commitment to the pursuit of the ideal. "Living in Christ". Take away that and you have this, "We experience more fulfillment and sense of grounded and centered being when we decide to live sincerely." No difference in effect. You just hang it on Jesus as the mechanism for the same thing. I experience the same thing in being sincere, and in all that word entails.

 

 

I'm going to have to come back to the rest of this later. I appreciate this dialog.

[Antlerman]

Continuing...

 

Think of it this way, before one accepts Christ they have a sample of God's love for them, but it isn't until we buy the product (or in this case become a Christian) that we can truly experience all that that product has to offer.

I don't know. I would say my experience was quite a bit more than a sample. And that was before I signed up on the dotted line to become a Christian by doing the whole baptism thing and accepting Christ and all that. (Although, one could argue I was a Christian because I was baptized as an infant in the Lutheran church, but our home was never a church-going family - maybe attended a couple less then a dozen times in the 18 years before I became an adult).

 

Now where I will agree with you is in the principle of in fact choosing to pursue the development of one's spiritual life in themselves. Indeed, if we never do anything with it, and just live there in the mundane world of daily affairs and cares, it will be just as Phanta said, "laying dormant in you". The analogy I would use is that of an athlete developing muscle groups. The potential for strength is there inherent in the body, but it takes the exercise of them through the use of will. Of course we have the use of them available to us, but the realization of potentials will lay unrealized if we don't specifically nurture them. So, as you say that "it isn't until we buy the product (or in this case become a Christian) that we can truly experience all that that product has to offer", is true in the sense any involvement in spiritual development through a chosen discipline.

 

I certainly hope you are not suggesting that by simply 'becoming a Christian' alone, that this will immediately result in the realization of potentials, like saying if you join the gym you will be a fully self-realized body builder on day one? I can't image you would as a Pastor of a church. Just one look across the congregation should refute that idea.

 

Even in your assertion of symbols, the Bible suggests that those symbols mean nothing without the love of Christ in the middle of them (again see 1 Corinthians 13). So in essence those symbols could exist in a person's life without the love of Christ; yet, for the Christian it becomes more meaningful (I know, I know... quite presumptious of me).

We are in agreement. Being religious is not the same as being spiritual. I Cor 13, I would not interpret as talking about symbols, but in essence saying "You can be as religious as you want with all these various forms and displays, but if your heart isn't changed, you still backbite and gossip, you don't know grace and compassion, you don't see hope in the face of despair because you are full of a living, vital, life in you, then your religion is meaningless. It's empty, vain, a shallow facade, a white-washed tomb full of the bones of the dead."

 

The verse doesn't really relate that much by what I mean by the use of symbols. I will need to explain that more later as I think it will be imporant to our discussion...

 

As a Christian would you expect me to say something else? Jesus, the center of my religion, tells me that He is the way, the truth, and the life, and no one can come to the Father except through Him. That is not religion, but the expression of truth in the world in which we live.

It depends how one puts that into practice in their life. Of course you are going to uphold Jesus as the focus of your religious experience as a Christian. You're correct, I wouldn't expect you not to. But how one takes those beliefs and approaches them, how they govern ones attitudes and actions, demonstrates whether they are about spiritual truth, or organizational identity as a social group, viz, a religion. (I realize the interchangeability of the terms, but I'm hoping the context will determine the differences I'm talking about).

 

Jesus says, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me". As a Christian you obviously need to take that as true. I can respect that. However, there are clearly degrees to which people who are Christian interpret or understand that. I'm sure you realize that. And anywhere along the scale of people who read and interpret that, you can have extremes that take that as a mandate to save people's souls through torture in the Grand Inquisition, to those who see it as Christianity is an exclusive religion and all others are unsaved and on their way to hell because they haven't confess Christ's name, to those who see that all are saved through Christ, whether they ever become a Christian or not. You have devote Christian like Bishop Spong who do not understand this to mean only Christians can know or experience God, etc.

 

So then, here comes some real meat to our discussion, how does one balance interpretation with Spirit? It comes back to my question in my post before this one about that conflict of the so-called "plain meaning of the text" (as defined by those of the Biblical Inerrancy schools of thought), and the "witness of the Spirit" approach? Rationally, logically, reading the Bible is anything but a simple 'plain meaning'.

 

It is only that if you ignore or rationalize away and dismiss, vast reams of works done in research about culture and language, transmissions of texts, etc, etc, etc and read it through the lens of inherited cultural meaning, read it in a context where the meaning is already supplied to you (reading about 'sin' in the NT will generally always be interpreted in the light of Augustinian doctrine - but not his highly regarded contemporary Pelagius whose theology was rejected by the Institutional Church by branding him a heretic - a political tact to promote their version of things). There is no way, there is any such thing as a "plain meaning of the text", when we even begin to peel back how we interpret 'truth' in the world, especially in reading ancient texts!

 

So where is that balance? How do you account for differences in interpretation? Do you do the Catholic Institution thing and dismiss voices of different perceptions as "Heretics!"? Does that even, ever, look at their sincerity, the result of their different understandings in their lives, their 'fruits'? Or is it simply judged on the reading of the text? That truth is determined by it's orthodoxy? It's allignement with accepted religious doctines? That - those, have been my experience of the Christian religion I've seen and been exposed to. There is a lack of Grace, a lack of Spirit, and the worship of their religion above the manifest truth of the spirit in the heart.

 

Spirituality is not about adhearence to proper interpretations of sacred texts. Hell no. That is religion. Sacred texts, at least in how I would best see them, are about inspiration, not answers. Inspiriation of the Spirit in you to see and hear with eyes and ears that rise above the nit-picking of 'this is true, no this is true', "we have the Truth™, and they are damned!" In your experience of "Christ", is any of that genuninely consistent with what is in the heart?

 

The fact is that anyone seeking truth must look at Jesus as the answer to their quest, otherwise they are missing out in the greatest truth of all time.

Maybe they are looking to "Jesus", but that is bigger and more universal than the Christian religion. Maybe "Jesus" being the "Logos", the Manifestor of God, is what people are seeing when they see Krishna? Maybe the Logos Manifest God as Jesus?

 

Wait.. yes, John does say that:

 

"In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the essence of the Logos was Divine Nature (a clearer translation of the anarthrous form presented in καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος to avoid confusion with it denoting a reference to "personage")... All things that were made were made

through

Him. In Him was life and the life was the light of men. The light

shines

in the darkness... The Logos

became

flesh and dwelt among us..." Jn. 1:1-14

 

The idea of the Logos was as the Agent of the Unknowable God that Reveals, that Manifests Godhead. So Jesus then, is the Agent of Manifestation, Manifesting itself in human form. Just as Creation, the natural world, the Universe is a Manifestion of Godhead through the Logos. If this vision of Jesus like this in John is so Universal, then couldn't, "No one comes to the Father but through me", be taken to mean that though the Manifestion of the Divine in the World, we can see and access the Sprirt of God, and be "Reconciled to God"?

 

Or must it only be understood within the context of Orthodox interpretation? Must the Spirit of it be reduced to a "correct" interpretation of the text? Or is myth about something larger than 'fact"?

 

This is not doctrinal interpretation, as you would suggest, but the truth that is set out plainly in front of His creation.

In the words of Yoda, "So certain, are you?" (see above)

 

 

In Peace,

 

Keith

[Neon Genesis]

but not his highly regarded contemporary Pelagius whose theology was rejected by the Institutional Church by branding him a heretic - a political tact to promote their version of things).

 

 

 

 

Speaking of heretical church fathers, do you know about Origen, AM? You might like him, too: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origen

[MultifariousBirdLady]

It's just that "Bible-based" Christianity is in conflict with the "Jesus" I conceptualized when I was younger and later as a practicing Christian. I would go so far to say that modern Bible-based Christianity seeks to pervert much of what Jesus represents, beginning with the denial of the principles discussed in "Sermon On The Mount".

 

 

I agree with this. That's why during my deconversion I eventually separated out 3 versions of Jesus from each other to more fully understand the differences.

 

Thanks for posting what you did. A lot made sense to me.

[Antlerman]

It's just that "Bible-based" Christianity is in conflict with the "Jesus" I conceptualized when I was younger and later as a practicing Christian. I would go so far to say that modern Bible-based Christianity seeks to pervert much of what Jesus represents, beginning with the denial of the principles discussed in "Sermon On The Mount".

 

 

I agree with this. That's why during my deconversion I eventually separated out 3 versions of Jesus from each other to more fully understand the differences.

 

Thanks for posting what you did. A lot made sense to me.

BTW, I had meant to mention this before. Franko's post was beautiful. I truly appreciated it as well as everyone else.

[Guest end3]

It is enormously difficult for people who are products of this culture who were raised with the ethos and culture of Christianity as part of our social language and very identities, to walk away from it. The drive must be so insatiable to not allow ourselves to compromise what is inside us to sacrifice the security and acceptance of our communities for the sake of being freed to seek satisfaction of the pull inside of us. And my point is that, even if the system others find is not one that aligns with the Christian system you find answers that pull for you, the recognition of the value of it in others is what tells of truth beyond the systems. "By their fruits you shall now them".

 

I think you assume the we are products of a culture. I personally despised Christianity what has been the majority of my life. The drive comes from reality, the reality of a relationship with God. You drive not to convert back to Christianity I dare say is just as insatiable not allowing compromise. And NO to the "I am the only free one in my find" attitude. Freedom from hate in my case is so devistatingly great, I am thankful all the way down to the tips of my toes to be free from that.....acceptance and community are not the only reasons.

 

Is it reasonable to suggest that someone's soul cannot and will not find fulfillment unless they can somehow cognitively process sufficiently enough through all the human debris of religious politics and hermeneutics, and personalities, and translations, etc, in order to mentally accept Christianity as a system of belief in order to be 'reconciled to God'? I personally find it irrational to say that others who are not Christian cannot find equally as much, or even more, spiritual truth and connection with God than the Christian has. I personally find it a conflict of heart and mind to consider that valid. What does the voice of the Heart say?

 

But it is not irrational to suggest that it works for some. Here's the beauty of where your feet are planted on this earth. We have exactly what you are describing and should be abundantly thankful for such, that is, the freedom to search for that happiness.

 

That leads to a question. Do you ever experience such conflict of your heart against your theology, or the words of Jesus as you understand them, to the point where you need to tell your 'feelings' that they must align with God's word, not challenge it, not question it, or even forcibly align them with it? I certainly knew what that was like for me as a Christian. It's what finally broke the camel's back. The heart could no longer be denied.

 

I know this post was meant for Mr. Larry, but we have addressed this before. I accept those scriptures as something that has not been revealed to me, perhaps a meaning or context I am not aware of. But no, I haven't felt the need to reject the Word.

 

But as much as I can be happy for your experience, there is also much larger issues with the system as a whole, that go beyond those few who are able to find freedom in it. The Church as an Institution has become a millstone around the neck of the human species in its embodiment and control of mythic systems controlling society and human progress. I believe in a symbiotic relationship of creativity and human desire for knowledge that define our very essence, and systems of belief or philosophies that help integrate them into society.

 

As opposed to what? Reality. It was and is reality. Good luck with the bolded part.

 

But religion, institutionally, ever since the Enlightenment and the Age of Reason, has striven to govern and control these unstoppable forces of evolution in a vision of the world of theirs which is out of step with our knowledge of reality in it manifold complexities. So now, rather than being a system of support of humans in the Spirit of Truth, they work contrary to that. Unable to adapt and evolve in the Spirit of Evolution, the Spirit of Nature, they clutch their system as though it were God itself and deny the process of development in the world. Our spiritual realization as rational beings.

 

I am anxiously awaiting a plan, and the means. Oops, reality again. Sorry

 

But I will allow for some progress with thanks to those individuals who try to help it change. But alas, it may not be enough. Something else may need to speak to the hearts of this world, something less 'religion'?

 

It will happen exactly as it will happen, but that doesn't mean you can't start a wave.

 

That's one of my criticisms of the teachings that are part of the Christian religion. The whole idea of 'after this life'. No. When you tell yourself that that's not for here, that that happens after death, then you in fact will not realize it here even though there is nothing to prevent that now. I don't know if you read that quote of myself from some time ago here, where I talked about my experience of "God", but I can say with all confidence that the whole "Now we seek through a glass darkly, but then face to face. Now we know in part, but then we shall know even as we are known", was in fact realized in me here, in this life.

You are one AM. One. Are you there now, is the white light shining as you are reading this? How can you claim that you are face to face 100% of the time? I like visiting with you, but you too must face reality.

 

Now to realize that there are no barriers beyond our own choices and personal growth between this limited truth and that, it radically changes how we see the whole. Doesn't it?

 

Good try, but show me the fruit.

[Guest end3]

Now where I will agree with you is in the principle of in fact choosing to pursue the development of one's spiritual life in themselves. Indeed, if we never do anything with it, and just live there in the mundane world of daily affairs and cares, it will be just as Phanta said, "laying dormant in you". The analogy I would use is that of an athlete developing muscle groups. The potential for strength is there inherent in the body, but it takes the exercise of them through the use of will. Of course we have the use of them available to us, but the realization of potentials will lay unrealized if we don't specifically nurture them. So, as you say that "it isn't until we buy the product (or in this case become a Christian) that we can truly experience all that that product has to offer", is true in the sense any involvement in spiritual development through a chosen discipline.

 

Nurture them with what?

 

Jesus says, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me". As a Christian you obviously need to take that as true. I can respect that. However, there are clearly degrees to which people who are Christian interpret or understand that. I'm sure you realize that. And anywhere along the scale of people who read and interpret that, you can have extremes that take that as a mandate to save people's souls through torture in the Grand Inquisition, to those who see it as Christianity is an exclusive religion and all others are unsaved and on their way to hell because they haven't confess Christ's name, to those who see that all are saved through Christ, whether they ever become a Christian or not. You have devote Christian like Bishop Spong who do not understand this to mean only Christians can know or experience God, etc.

 

So then, here comes some real meat to our discussion, how does one balance interpretation with Spirit? It comes back to my question in my post before this one about that conflict of the so-called "plain meaning of the text" (as defined by those of the Biblical Inerrancy schools of thought), and the "witness of the Spirit" approach? Rationally, logically, reading the Bible is anything but a simple 'plain meaning'.

 

Your grasping at straws. How does anyone deal with where they are in life. On their way, hoping for the maturity and knowledge to move humanity forward in a good manner.

 

It is only that if you ignore or rationalize away and dismiss, vast reams of works done in research about culture and language, transmissions of texts, etc, etc, etc and read it through the lens of inherited cultural meaning, read it in a context where the meaning is already supplied to you (reading about 'sin' in the NT will generally always be interpreted in the light of Augustinian doctrine - but not his highly regarded contemporary Pelagius whose theology was rejected by the Institutional Church by branding him a heretic - a political tact to promote their version of things). There is no way, there is any such thing as a "plain meaning of the text", when we even begin to peel back how we interpret 'truth' in the world, especially in reading ancient texts!

So that is why the coined the term "living" I suppose.

 

So where is that balance? How do you account for differences in interpretation? Do you do the Catholic Institution thing and dismiss voices of different perceptions as "Heretics!"? Does that even, ever, look at their sincerity, the result of their different understandings in their lives, their 'fruits'? Or is it simply judged on the reading of the text? That truth is determined by it's orthodoxy? It's allignement with accepted religious doctines? That - those, have been my experience of the Christian religion I've seen and been exposed to. There is a lack of Grace, a lack of Spirit, and the worship of their religion above the manifest truth of the spirit in the heart.

 

Grace is the balance....for others as was given to us.

 

Spirituality is not about adhearence to proper interpretations of sacred texts. Hell no. That is religion. Sacred texts, at least in how I would best see them, are about inspiration, not answers. Inspiriation of the Spirit in you to see and hear with eyes and ears that rise above the nit-picking of 'this is true, no this is true', "we have the Truth, and they are damned!" In your experience of "Christ", is any of that genuninely consistent with what is in the heart?

 

No.

 

Maybe they are looking to "Jesus", but that is bigger and more universal than the Christian religion. Maybe "Jesus" being the "Logos", the Manifestor of God, is what people are seeing when they see Krishna? Maybe the Logos Manifest God as Jesus?

 

Wait.. yes, John does say that:

 

"In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the essence of the Logos was Divine Nature (a clearer translation of the anarthrous form presented in καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος to avoid confusion with it denoting a reference to "personage")... All things that were made were made

through

Him. In Him was life and the life was the light of men. The light

shines

in the darkness... The Logos

became

flesh and dwelt among us..." Jn. 1:1-14

 

The idea of the Logos was as the Agent of the Unknowable God that Reveals, that Manifests Godhead. So Jesus then, is the Agent of Manifestation, Manifesting itself in human form. Just as Creation, the natural world, the Universe is a Manifestion of Godhead through the Logos. If this vision of Jesus like this in John is so Universal, then couldn't, "No one comes to the Father but through me", be taken to mean that though the Manifestion of the Divine in the World, we can see and access the Sprirt of God, and be "Reconciled to God"?

 

That's a good question. I will have think about it.....but still, good.

Or must it only be understood within the context of Orthodox interpretation? Must the Spirit of it be reduced to a "correct" interpretation of the text? Or is myth about something larger than 'fact"?

 

So you are acknowledging Christ?

 

In the words of Yoda, "So certain, are you?"

 

Right back at you friend.

 

No harm, no foul, just getting to point.

I enjoy the thoughts.

[MultifariousBirdLady]

Now, of course, the way I experienced it might not be quite the same as you experience it, or as other Christians experience it, but how is anyone really going to know the difference? All we have are descriptions, and one group of us (i.e. believers) who are ideologically wedded to the theory that only True Christians can have that experience at all.

 

You raise an extremely valid point. Thank you for posting. But there is the point as well. Why should it make a difference? I don't know that it should. But we, as humans, contentiously make the point that it should.

 

Well, I have heard some say that it should make a difference because Christian "love" should somehow show that one is Christian. "They will know we are Christians by our love," we used to sing in our high school and college groups. It implies, and I believed as a Christian, that our love was somehow "better", or "stronger", more "universal", or something. It was never really explained, but it was implied.

 

After being out for quite a while, I no longer have any reason to believe that, though. I have seen people of all kinds show love that was just as good, strong, generous, and universal as anything I saw Christians do.

 

Why should my love as a Christian directed at humanity reveal anything but Love. Does the belief in Christ yield a diffent quality of love shown to others?

 

Indeed, why should anybody's love directed at humanity reveal anything but love?

As far as belief in Jesus producing a different quality of love, well, I've seen very mixed actual results coming from people professing Christ who profess to love their fellow human beings. As mixed as any other group, as far as I can tell.

 

So from my observations, I'd say that on average, no, there isn't a different quality.

 

Certainly bashing others about there beliefs that help them wouldn't be in good standing with love, you reckon?

 

This is a good point, and you know, as I healed from my own negative Christian experience I did find that I was able to be much more open, understanding, and even supportive (in some ways at least) of Christians' healthy belief in their religion again. I'll never go back, myself, but my past experience no longer stops me from being able to appreciate what others tell me they find in the religion, even if I don't agree with it. And I do ask, just because I like religious/spiritual topics and like to hear what people I know have experienced along these lines.

 

I think it's helpful to keep in mind that this forum was set up for people who are leaving or have left the faith, many of whom were hurt to some extent by their involvement, some hurt very badly. Many active participants haven't been out as long and haven't healed as much as those who've drifted away from this site and moved on to other things (like I did for a while). You are going to find venting here, and bashing, and poking fun, and sometimes rage, because these are normal things hurt people go through in the process of working out their issues. They're steps in a healing process. This is a safe place for ex-Christians to discuss these things with others who have been through similar things, and there is no reason to expect people to turn around and show "love" towards a system of beliefs -- or perpetrators of that system -- that they found damaging. Not at early or middle stages of healing, anyway... at least, not in my experience. This forum is something of a unique place in that respect. It's is not a broad cross-section of non-Christians, but a specific sub-set dealing with specific issues that members here have in common.

[Antlerman]

That was an interesting response End. It seems some curious readings of my words have set you off. Allow me to untie its shoe laces and see where it falls....

 

I think you assume the we are products of a culture. I personally despised Christianity what has been the majority of my life.

I'm wondering if it's a this point at the outset that you worked off some assumption of what I was saying, and the rest of your response just fell in line off that. When I say we are products of our culture, that is hardly an assumption. That is a simple fact. There is no way that any human being alive who is a participant in his society is not influenced by his culture! That is a fact of nature.

 

However... maybe where you took this was in the phrase, "Product of our culture". Perhaps you interpreted my use of the this common phrase to assume I mean it in a strictly deterministic sense of the word. I do not. I believe we are participants in our culture as individuals, both influencing it through our individuality, and being influenced by our collective individual values, beliefs, attitudes, customs, rituals, rites, and behaviors. Absolutely that takes place - in ways that seem completely invisible to us. I am always amazed, that no matter how independent or original in thought an idea I have seems to be to me, that inevitably there are existing tendrals of connection to my culture. To claim we are absolutely free from this is entirely a fantasy of wishful thinking. But again, I do not believe that we are incapable of innovation and original thought, but it is usually a gradual process of building on earlier thoughts, improvements, etc.

 

Which BTW, is one reason why when I look at the history of the development of Christianity, I in fact do see innovation, but innovation and uniqueness built off previous thoughts and attitudes - just like it happens today. If the man Jesus was somehow removed from this natural process by virtue of being transplanted from Heaven into Earth, then I would expect to see utterly ground breaking ideas without precedent anywhere, like you would see if we took our society's ideas and time-traveled back to an ancient culture and suddenly burst forth all this context-less knowledge. Anyway....

 

The drive comes from reality, the reality of a relationship with God. You drive not to convert back to Christianity I dare say is just as insatiable not allowing compromise. And NO to the "I am the only free one in my find" attitude. Freedom from hate in my case is so devistatingly great, I am thankful all the way down to the tips of my toes to be free from that.....acceptance and community are not the only reasons.

That the drive comes from reality, or as you put it a relationship with God, I'll agree with. I see it as a process of natural evolution, the Spirit of Evolution, if you will. We are pulled to greater heights and depths always.

 

Now to your comment that I have a drive to "not convert back to Christianity," and that that is "just as insatiable not allowing compromise", completely misunderstands and misrepresents me. It is dead wrong. In fact for a very long time I have been searching to find someway to bring it forward enough to be able to meet me with where I am at, but in the end find it not the right solution for me. I looked at interpreting it in the light of intellectualized interpretations of its myths, in the vein of those like Joseph Campbell (Much like Origen did and got condemned for - as Neon mentioned his name). And a host of other ways to see how, if in any way it could be salvaged for me. But alas, no.

 

The only point where I was actively pushing Christianity away from me was early on, in order to be able to clear the playing field in order for me to be able to sort it all out. Once I had the freedom to be able to evaluate everything on a equal playing field, then I could look at my old relationship in a new light and see if it could be salvaged. I'm long past that active rejection phase.

 

For me, it would be like asking me to go back to a previous relationship having grown beyond it. Some people can stay with that spouse their entirely lives and be perfectly happy with them. But that relationship for me broke, it didn't work for me. Since then I've grown with different criteria for a new relationship having been given that freedom to explore meaning and truth in me (which always happens following a break up). I now look for something that addresses those parts of me. What I found is that for me to go back to that first relationship would mean abandoning everything that has become deeply positive things for me, helping me become healthier and happier. I can't go back, because of the drive that has brought me here to keep looking for a relationship that works to free and release the light of love that lives in my heart as well as everyone else's. It's not a drive to not go back, any more that you feel driven to not be a teenager anymore. It's a drive to make it work, to move forward.

 

This is why I find it unfortunate when someone looks at one's committed relationships and judges the truth of the individual by that external relationship. That is such a sad, superficial judgment of the heart of another individual who equally shares that experience of Love. Some systems simply do not work for the individual. You judge by the fruits that result, not their affiliations with an organization.

 

But it is not irrational to suggest that it works for some. Here's the beauty of where your feet are planted on this earth. We have exactly what you are describing and should be abundantly thankful for such, that is, the freedom to search for that happiness.

No, it's not irrational at all. I haven't suggested otherwise. It obviously worked for me for a time. I just outgrew it because of my personality and circumstances with it. I'm sure you could read that in what I said, but for some reason aren't seeing that.

 

But as much as I can be happy for your experience, there is also much larger issues with the system as a whole, that go beyond those few who are able to find freedom in it. The Church as an Institution has become a millstone around the neck of the human species in its embodiment and control of mythic systems controlling society and human progress. I believe in a symbiotic relationship of creativity and human desire for knowledge that define our very essence, and systems of belief or philosophies that help integrate them into society.

 

As opposed to what? Reality. It was and is reality. Good luck with the bolded part.

You lost me here. I was saying that society needs some sort of umbrella, integrating philosophy/belief system in order to pull together and integrate our value systems, our knowledge systems, and the expression our individuality. That is a necessary reality for it to work sucessfully. The mythic system provided that - up to the point those "Big Three" needed liberty out from underneath the yoke of myth in order to have the freedom to develop. That has occurred. But we currently lack an truly cohesive integrating system of philosophy that governs a world of global community. Christianity can't work in its current state of affairs, being too tied to its past. Etc.

 

I do believe it will happen at some point, just as the mythic systems successfully replaced the magic systems as rule of society in the ancient past, just as magic systems had replaced the archaic systems, etc. Rationality and Reason were able to differentiate out of the myth mode of interpreting reality, but something is needed to integrate them. Eventually, through the process of natural evolution, through necessity of environment, it has to happen. That was always does and always will, or else the species becomes extinct. So no "luck" is actually necessary. It's just a matter of process and time.

 

I am anxiously awaiting a plan, and the means. Oops, reality again. Sorry

We're all part of that process, right now, here in this discussion. It all is adding to the stew that will at some point emerge. Nature is creative. It always is. It just takes time and the right conditions, then all the precedents are culled together and 'pop' there is a new emergent level of Nature.

 

The problem with literalism, is that seeks to halt that process of Nature. No change = Dead.

But I will allow for some progress with thanks to those individuals who try to help it change. But alas, it may not be enough. Something else may need to speak to the hearts of this world, something less 'religion'?

 

It will happen exactly as it will happen, but that doesn't mean you can't start a wave.

Precisely my point.

 

"That's one of my criticisms of the teachings that are part of the Christian religion. The whole idea of 'after this life'. No. When you tell yourself that that's not for here, that that happens after death, then you in fact will not realize it here even though there is nothing to prevent that now. I don't know if you read that quote of myself from some time ago here, where I talked about my experience of "God", but I can say with all confidence that the whole "Now we seek through a glass darkly, but then face to face. Now we know in part, but then we shall know even as we are known", was in fact realized in me here, in this life."

You are one AM. One. Are you there now, is the white light shining as you are reading this? How can you claim that you are face to face 100% of the time? I like visiting with you, but you too must face reality.

I have never suggested or claimed that. You should not make so many leaps of assumptions in your surface readings. But I certainly do claim to have experienced that Absolute Being. It certainly has left a life changed worldview and experience in my heart and mind. All these things I've said, never once claiming a permanent state. That would be nice however, and a worthwhile aspiration, wouldn't you say?

 

 

Good try, but show me the fruit.

You've got to be joking. I could offer and very long list of transformations in my life that impact and affect nearly every aspect of my life, in attitudes, behaviors, etc. Perfection on the other hand, is nothing I every claim. I am still human, still seeking to develop, still seeking to improve. Hopefully there is an overall improvement, and at time huge evolutionary leaps can occur and can move to a new level.

 

I still see you as a flawed human, despite your experience. But I don't expect otherwise, nor how that out as some silly measuring stick against the validity of your claims.

 

Why do you ask?

[Guest end3]

That was an interesting response End. It seems some curious readings of my words have set you off. Allow me to untie its shoe laces and see where it falls....

 

I think you assume the we are products of a culture. I personally despised Christianity what has been the majority of my life.

I'm wondering if it's a this point at the outset that you worked off some assumption of what I was saying, and the rest of your response just fell in line off that. When I say we are products of our culture, that is hardly an assumption. That is a simple fact. There is no way that any human being alive who is a participant in his society is not influenced by his culture! That is a fact of nature.

 

However... maybe where you took this was in the phrase, "Product of our culture". Perhaps you interpreted my use of the this common phrase to assume I mean it in a strictly deterministic sense of the word. I do not. I believe we are participants in our culture as individuals, both influencing it through our individuality, and being influenced by our collective individual values, beliefs, attitudes, customs, rituals, rites, and behaviors. Absolutely that takes place - in ways that seem completely invisible to us. I am always amazed, that no matter how independent or original in thought an idea I have seems to be to me, that inevitably there are existing tendrals of connection to my culture. To claim we are absolutely free from this is entirely a fantasy of wishful thinking. But again, I do not believe that we are incapable of innovation and original thought, but it is usually a gradual process of building on earlier thoughts, improvements, etc.

In a broader sense, culture, sure, I agree.

 

Which BTW, is one reason why when I look at the history of the development of Christianity, I in fact do see innovation, but innovation and uniqueness built off previous thoughts and attitudes - just like it happens today. If the man Jesus was somehow removed from this natural process by virtue of being transplanted from Heaven into Earth, then I would expect to see utterly ground breaking ideas without precedent anywhere, like you would see if we took our society's ideas and time-traveled back to an ancient culture and suddenly burst forth all this context-less knowledge. Anyway....

Maybe, but I haven't run into anyone yet that can describe when Jesus was man and when He was God.

 

 

The drive comes from reality, the reality of a relationship with God. You drive not to convert back to Christianity I dare say is just as insatiable not allowing compromise. And NO to the "I am the only free one in my find" attitude. Freedom from hate in my case is so devistatingly great, I am thankful all the way down to the tips of my toes to be free from that.....acceptance and community are not the only reasons.

That the drive comes from reality, or as you put it a relationship with God, I'll agree with. I see it as a process of natural evolution, the Spirit of Evolution, if you will. We are pulled to greater heights and depths always.

 

Now to your comment that I have a drive to "not convert back to Christianity," and that that is "just as insatiable not allowing compromise", completely misunderstands and misrepresents me. It is dead wrong. In fact for a very long time I have been searching to find someway to bring it forward enough to be able to meet me with where I am at, but in the end find it not the right solution for me. I looked at interpreting it in the light of intellectualized interpretations of its myths, in the vein of those like Joseph Campbell (Much like Origen did and got condemned for - as Neon mentioned his name). And a host of other ways to see how, if in any way it could be salvaged for me. But alas, no.

An admitted assumption on my part. What I was hearing was you saying that "the only way" was ....

 

 

 

For me, it would be like asking me to go back to a previous relationship having grown beyond it. Some people can stay with that spouse their entirely lives and be perfectly happy with them. But that relationship for me broke, it didn't work for me. Since then I've grown with different criteria for a new relationship having been given that freedom to explore meaning and truth in me (which always happens following a break up). I now look for something that addresses those parts of me. What I found is that for me to go back to that first relationship would mean abandoning everything that has become deeply positive things for me, helping me become healthier and happier. I can't go back, because of the drive that has brought me here to keep looking for a relationship that works to free and release the light of love that lives in my heart as well as everyone else's. It's not a drive to not go back, any more that you feel driven to not be a teenager anymore. It's a drive to make it work, to move forward.

 

Let me ask you this.....you seem to be saying with a great deal of emphasis that perhaps finding God is more of an individual set of qualities/circumstances? Maybe you have been saying this for a long time, but I am only hearing this today. With that, why would you think that human form doesn't limit somewhat the way everyone would see/hear God?

 

You lost me here. I was saying that society needs some sort of umbrella, integrating philosophy/belief system in order to pull together and integrate our value systems, our knowledge systems, and the expression our individuality. That is a necessary reality for it to work sucessfully. The mythic system provided that - up to the point those "Big Three" needed liberty out from underneath the yoke of myth in order to have the freedom to develop. That has occurred. But we currently lack an truly cohesive integrating system of philosophy that governs a world of global community. Christianity can't work in its current state of affairs, being too tied to its past. Etc.

For some reason, I feel that you are in this for greater humanity, and I am open to suggestions. I will equally ponder the thought. But, since you are in the position outside the orthodoxy, then what would you suggest. Something real/tangible that I could introduce in conjunction with my beliefs to my "across the tracks" Wednesday night class. These are youths that show up high to my class. My ears are open....sincerely.

 

Why do I ask? I ask out of frustration.

 

I look at what I wrote last evening and didn't even recognize some of what I had written. Interesting indeed.

Please push through my attitude(s). Again, they are in frustration for not reaching people. I gave the children's sermon yesterday, and the kids looked like they were somewhere else. It's discouraging. I am sure ministers preach and look to see people doing all sorts of things. Probably discouraging for them as well. Could it be the system? I will go with a tentative maybe for you.

 

Hang in there friend.

[Guest end3]

Now, of course, the way I experienced it might not be quite the same as you experience it, or as other Christians experience it, but how is anyone really going to know the difference? All we have are descriptions, and one group of us (i.e. believers) who are ideologically wedded to the theory that only True Christians can have that experience at all.

 

You raise an extremely valid point. Thank you for posting. But there is the point as well. Why should it make a difference? I don't know that it should. But we, as humans, contentiously make the point that it should.

 

Well, I have heard some say that it should make a difference because Christian "love" should somehow show that one is Christian. "They will know we are Christians by our love," we used to sing in our high school and college groups. It implies, and I believed as a Christian, that our love was somehow "better", or "stronger", more "universal", or something. It was never really explained, but it was implied.

 

After being out for quite a while, I no longer have any reason to believe that, though. I have seen people of all kinds show love that was just as good, strong, generous, and universal as anything I saw Christians do.

 

Why should my love as a Christian directed at humanity reveal anything but Love. Does the belief in Christ yield a diffent quality of love shown to others?

 

Indeed, why should anybody's love directed at humanity reveal anything but love?

As far as belief in Jesus producing a different quality of love, well, I've seen very mixed actual results coming from people professing Christ who profess to love their fellow human beings. As mixed as any other group, as far as I can tell.

 

So from my observations, I'd say that on average, no, there isn't a different quality.

 

Certainly bashing others about there beliefs that help them wouldn't be in good standing with love, you reckon?

 

This is a good point, and you know, as I healed from my own negative Christian experience I did find that I was able to be much more open, understanding, and even supportive (in some ways at least) of Christians' healthy belief in their religion again. I'll never go back, myself, but my past experience no longer stops me from being able to appreciate what others tell me they find in the religion, even if I don't agree with it. And I do ask, just because I like religious/spiritual topics and like to hear what people I know have experienced along these lines.

 

I think it's helpful to keep in mind that this forum was set up for people who are leaving or have left the faith, many of whom were hurt to some extent by their involvement, some hurt very badly. Many active participants haven't been out as long and haven't healed as much as those who've drifted away from this site and moved on to other things (like I did for a while). You are going to find venting here, and bashing, and poking fun, and sometimes rage, because these are normal things hurt people go through in the process of working out their issues. They're steps in a healing process. This is a safe place for ex-Christians to discuss these things with others who have been through similar things, and there is no reason to expect people to turn around and show "love" towards a system of beliefs -- or perpetrators of that system -- that they found damaging. Not at early or middle stages of healing, anyway... at least, not in my experience. This forum is something of a unique place in that respect. It's is not a broad cross-section of non-Christians, but a specific sub-set dealing with specific issues that members here have in common.

I hear you. Thanks.

[Antlerman]

Maybe, but I haven't run into anyone yet that can describe when Jesus was man and when He was God.

Generally when I make that distinction, it can also be understood within the Christian context. There was the human Jesus: teacher, Rabbi, brother, son, etc. In other words Jesus of Nazareth. Then you have the Cosmic Christ, Son of God, 2nd person in the Trinity, Eternal Logos, Savior, etc. So when I say the man Jesus, I would be referring the Jesus of Nazareth. And in my world where I would treat the Cosmic Christ as a transcendent myth, fully of imagery and transcendent significance, my treatment and evaluation of the man Jesus would be as human being who walked about in Galilee speaking as a member of human society - like you or me, or Gandhi if you prefer. Even Orthodox Christianity recognizes this. It's called the mystery of the Hypostatic Union, where he is fully human and fully God: 100%+100%=100%. How could God die? But a human could. And hence why it's called a mystery, like the Trinity 1+1+1=1 1/3=1 (Heavenly math).

 

For me, it would be like asking me to go back to a previous relationship having grown beyond it. Some people can stay with that spouse their entirely lives and be perfectly happy with them. But that relationship for me broke, it didn't work for me. Since then I've grown with different criteria for a new relationship having been given that freedom to explore meaning and truth in me (which always happens following a break up). I now look for something that addresses those parts of me. What I found is that for me to go back to that first relationship would mean abandoning everything that has become deeply positive things for me, helping me become healthier and happier. I can't go back, because of the drive that has brought me here to keep looking for a relationship that works to free and release the light of love that lives in my heart as well as everyone else's. It's not a drive to not go back, any more that you feel driven to not be a teenager anymore. It's a drive to make it work, to move forward.

 

Let me ask you this.....you seem to be saying with a great deal of emphasis that perhaps finding God is more of an individual set of qualities/circumstances? Maybe you have been saying this for a long time, but I am only hearing this today. With that, why would you think that human form doesn't limit somewhat the way everyone would see/hear God?

It is always a human fault to think that what we found works, is what should work for everyone else too! I'll admit falling into that sometimes in my thinking, however I do know that it's not true, once I'm able to rise above my own ego. Gaining a more global perspective on things helps everyone. And that is kind of my point about developing a state of higher consciousness - gaining that transcendent perspective, tapping into something that broadens perspectives and allow to find an integration point.

 

So yes, when I was a Christian that was how I saw the world, and it worked for me at that time. It defined truth for me, it gave me the tools I needed in order to meet the needs I had at that time. It fit my personality and stage of development there. But once those needs were met, and others that were as deeply a part of my personality, or even more deeply so, we needing to be spoken to, that's when things began falling apart. At every point of growth however, we never completely eradicate what we learned at the previous stage. Instead it is integrated into a new stage that is unique in itself.

 

Another way to put it is what sort of methods work best to help us learn. I tend to be someone who does best listening to a lecture and taking notes. Others can't stand that, and prefer to just be given the book to read. Not all people respond to the same things. Now extend those languages of communication into various cultures and interpersonal relationships, and personality types, and on and on... This is why I say that there is no "One size fits all" approach to spiritual truth and growth. Using mythic systems works to a point, but it is my strong belief that at a certain point, at a certain level, it of necessity transcends all symbols into Pure Being.

 

What we are talking about End is the of path mysticism:

 

Mysticism (from the Greek μυστικός, mystikos, an initiate of a mystery religion)[1] is the pursuit of communion with, identity with, or conscious awareness of an ultimate reality, divinity, spiritual truth, or God through direct experience, intuition, instinct or insight. Mysticism usually centers on a practice or practices intended to nurture those experiences or awareness. Mysticism may be dualistic, maintaining a distinction between the self and the divine, or may be nondualistic. Differing religious traditions have described this fundamental mystical experience in different ways:

 

* Nullification and absorption within God's Infinite Light (Hassidic schools of Judaism)

* Complete non-identification with the world (Kaivalya in some schools of Hinduism, including Sankhya and Yoga; Jhana in Buddhism)

* Liberation from the cycles of Karma (Moksha in Jainism and Hinduism, Nirvana in Buddhism)

* Deep intrinsic connection to the world (Satori in Mahayana Buddhism, Te in Taoism)

* Union with God (Henosis in Neoplatonism and Theosis in Eastern and Catholic Christianity, Brahma-Prapti or Brahma-Nirvana in Hinduism)

* Innate Knowledge (Irfan and Sufism in Islam)

* Experience of one's true blissful nature (Samadhi Svarupa-Avirbhava in Hinduism and Buddhism)

* Seeing the Light, or "that of God", in everyone (Quakerism)

 

There are mystics in all religious traditions, including Christianity:

 

Christian mysticism is the pursuit of communion with, identity with, or conscious awareness of the Christian God through direct experience, intuition, instinct or insight. Christian mysticism usually centers on a practice or practices intended to nurture those experiences or awareness, such as deep prayer (ie. meditation, contemplation) involving the person of Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost. This approach and lifestyle is distinguished from other forms of Christian practice by its aim of achieving unity with the divine. In the words of Oswald Chambers, "We receive His blessings and know His Word, but do we know Him?"[1]

 

Whereas Christian doctrine generally maintains that God dwells in all Christians and that they can experience God directly through belief in Jesus,[2] Christian mysticism aspires to apprehend spiritual truths inaccessible through intellectual means, typically by learning how to think like Christ. William Inge divides this scala perfectionis into three stages: the "purgative" or ascetic stage, the "illuminative" or contemplative stage, and the "unitive" stage, in which God may be beheld "face to face."[3]

 

OM on the site would be in the latter tradition. But what happens, as I said, is that once your consciousness attains a certain level of perception in this state, all divisions disappear, and perceiving "God's" accessibility and power as limited to the Christian doctrines becomes pretty much negated. There is Absolute UNITY, and there are none or nothing outside it. There is no such thing as hell. Anyone within the Christian mystic tradition who experienced "God" on that level has forever had their perceptions altered, and the meaning of their traditions by far transcends any literal, historic or doctrinal relevance. I don't know how else to describe it. There is only Purity and Absolute Power and Grace and Love and Being and Knowledge and Awareness, ALL and ALL in Absolute ONE.

 

And this is why I had a hard time in Christianity after a certain point of getting my social needs met. I started at that transcendent level of awareness/immersion of all being, and tried to fit in backward into the mythological level. God was already bigger for me than the system. Now had I had access to the mystic traditions, that may have been a different story. Someone like OM and I have little issue seeing eye to eye.

 

You lost me here. I was saying that society needs some sort of umbrella, integrating philosophy/belief system in order to pull together and integrate our value systems, our knowledge systems, and the expression our individuality. That is a necessary reality for it to work successfully. The mythic system provided that - up to the point those "Big Three" needed liberty out from underneath the yoke of myth in order to have the freedom to develop. That has occurred. But we currently lack an truly cohesive integrating system of philosophy that governs a world of global community. Christianity can't work in its current state of affairs, being too tied to its past. Etc.

For some reason, I feel that you are in this for greater humanity, and I am open to suggestions. I will equally ponder the thought. But, since you are in the position outside the orthodoxy, then what would you suggest. Something real/tangible that I could introduce in conjunction with my beliefs to my "across the tracks" Wednesday night class. These are youths that show up high to my class. My ears are open....sincerely.

 

Why do I ask? I ask out of frustration.

Of course I'm in this for the greater humanity. I'm doing my part by following what is inside me to do, work as best I can to sort it out and be part of this. It's all a great bubbling stew of mind and idea and spirit and nature, evolving ever upward. This is a very cool time, and I would love to see us 500 years from now - even it there is great loss to our species on the way there due to our negligence and greed. But "life always finds a way". Hopefully we will continue to be part of that future as a species.

 

Personally I think the mystic traditions are a good discussion piece for your group, as if you read the various Christian authors, they will speak in far greater global terms of God than your typical traditional stories. Look at books like The Mystic Heart: Discovering a Universal Spirituality in the World's Religions by Wayne Teasdale, John of the Cross, Fr. Thomas Keating, etc. (these are names the OM respects). I'm just saying it may be worth your while to look at this part of the religion that is usually shuffled off somewhere quite.. Perhaps it may offer something that would help process some of this under a new perspective on things. Maybe then, I wouldn't sound quite so 'frustrating".

 

I think anything that will help to open our perceptions beyond the socio-centric and ethno-centric mentalities inherent in mythic-membership systems, to a genuine, all encompassing respect for all people, embraced as full equals in Spirit, that that would be the path to healing, peace, and a principle philosophy which helps guide and govern our actions and choices in interactions with others and our environment. No easy answers, just find our true Self first, will be a huge step in the right direction. And where do we find that true Self? In a book of rules, or with the Heart?

[Guest end3]

Haven't digested your response, but the preacher that just quit our church had labeled me a "mystic". I thought that interesting that you bring this up. I asked him if that was good or bad..lol. He just kind of . Interesting

[Shyone]

Haven't digested your response, but the preacher that just quit our church labeled me a "mystic". I thought that interesting that you bring this up. I asked him if that was good or bad..lol. He just kind of . Interesting

Sometimes we gain perspective on ourselves through the eyes of others. The others may be wrong, but isn't it interesting?

 

My priest told me I had "doubts." I hadn't realized that. I thought I had questions. Who knew?