The Love Of Jesus

[Antlerman]

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

 

You are. You could say I "felt" to bring it up.

 

BTW, I'm really hoping that Pastorl5 hasn't gotten too put off from this sort of mystical talk. I really would like his participation in this. I'm concerned my half-joking comment about wanting to be the "4th member of the Trinity", may have sounded a bit over the top. He's probably just busy. I genuinely appreciate his participation in this.

[Pastorl5]

AM,

Trust me, none of this conversation has "put me off" I have a rule that on Sundays, outside of church, I spend with Family (so you'll never hear from me until Mondays). I was going to post earlier, but we have a member knocking on death's door, so I'm spending time with their family today. I just read the interesting (to say the least) dialogue between all of you and will have a response later tonight. I'm going to have to take notes on all of this, organize my thoughts, and get back to you later tonight. Until then...

 

Peace, Love, and Soul

 

Larry

[Antlerman]

AM,

Trust me, none of this conversation has "put me off" I have a rule that on Sundays, outside of church, I spend with Family (so you'll never hear from me until Mondays). I was going to post earlier, but we have a member knocking on death's door, so I'm spending time with their family today. I just read the interesting (to say the least) dialogue between all of you and will have a response later tonight. I'm going to have to take notes on all of this, organize my thoughts, and get back to you later tonight. Until then...

 

Peace, Love, and Soul

 

Larry

Thanks for touching base. I so much as figured Sunday's are a wash for a man of the cloth. Until then...

[NotBlinded]

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

I read your response to AM and I have to say, with respect of course, that you recognize how something sounds exclusive because you put a note in there. I smile, because I know you know.

 

When speaking of the symbols of mythology, I will have to refer to Joseph Campbell, a "living mythology" will "waken and maintain in the individual an experience of awe, humility, and respect, in recognition of that ultimate mystery, transcending names and forms, 'from which,' as we read in the Upanishads, 'words turn back.'"

 

If this is what the symbols of Christianity does for Christians, then that is wonderful. It's when the metaphors and symbols are taken as actually occuring in reality instead of inspiring the above, then something isn't working. These things could have occured, but that isn't the message. The symbols have become the reality instead of the "recognition of that ultimate mystery." The symbols vanish and we are left with saying nothing other than, "Oh my God!" There is truth, behind all symbols, behind all stories, there is the Truth that inspires all stories. If the symbols of any religion fails at this, then new symbols are needed.

 

You mention John 8:12 in your response to AM and said that it's not a matter of interpretation, but I believe it is. The name of God is "I Am." I believe this is what Jesus was saying; he was one with God, we know this, so he used this by stating "I am the way..." No one come to God except by understanding this. No one comes to the Father except by him, which isn't found in words in a book. He said a few things about searching the scriptures. He was trying to tell people that he is the only way to understand divine "sonship". This is what that symbol does for me. It opens me up to the mystery of the "I AM." If I was to take it as it being him solely, it wouldn't do that for me. It would leave me in an exclusive group which claims literal "knowledge" of the Divine and it can't be had outside of this group. No, that can't be it. Everyone can experience it, even those that use Jesus to do it.

[Guest end3]

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.

Ok, I can understand how this would be problematic.

 

And where do we find that true Self? In a book of rules, or with the Heart?

 

Thank goodness for the New Covenant, huh? Teasing

[Antlerman]

I think it may be worth us to lay down a little bit of understandings of what is meant by symbols and myths in how we use it. These are very complex things, with hardly one way they relate or are used in descriptions in conversation. I've found myself using the words myths and symbols in various ways, and Joseph Campbell's is definitely one of the ways we understand myth. Just to give a brief summary of the some of the different ways myth studies have expanded and grown, from examining a collection of quaint story's of primitive peoples, all the way through structuralist and post-structluralist language studies with semioticians such as Saussure and Barthes, here's a quote from the Christian scholar Burton Mack, The Christian Myth, pg. 17:

 

If the first phase of myth studies was quite content to explain myth away, or at least to explain why the older, archaic and "primitive" myths were now passe, the second phase sought to understand myth as essential for the creation and maintenance of a society.

Functionalist theories

looked for ways in which myths inculcated values and attitudes.

Symbolic Theories

emphasized the contribution myths made to images and symbols of importance for the definition, identity, and celebration of a society.

Structuralist theories

analyzed the way in which myths were put together in order to get at the logic of the story and the mode of thinking of a people. And so, in the hands of

ethnographers

, myths became essential ingredients in social description and analysis. And in the hands of

cultural anthropologists

, myths became windows into the otherwise unexpressed ways in which a people imagined themselves, thought about themselves, and negotiated their plans and values.

 

(Hyperlinks mine)

 

And those don't even touch into the Jungian archetypes that Campbell delves deeply into.

 

So suffice to say, the way in which symbols and myths operate is hugely complex, and marvelous actually. We live and function in a symbolic world, and to me the more we unravel the complexity of how we frame and express ideas of reality through these means, the freer it makes us to move beyond strict literal interpretations to the Heart that inspires them.

 

That's my two cents to it. But the point of this post is a reference point, not a full blown topic of discussion. These are the ways in which I refer to myth when I speak, and it's largely through context that the meaning is given.

[Guest I Love Dog]

Hello fellow conversers. Interesting topic!

 

Thank you for raising these questions, Antlerman, and thank you for your thoughtful response, Larry. I'm not interested in contributing at this time, but I am very interested in following the conversation, so if you could clarify a couple of your statments, Larry, I would appreciate it. I want to make sure I understand what you are saying.

 

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 thought a couple of times that I grasped your view, but it keeps slipping because I'm not sure how the three statements I have bolded above match up. You say that Jesus' love is an expression of human experience, but not of humans, and that seems contradictory to me.

 

Perhaps it would be helpful if you could define the qualities of "an expression of human experience"?

 

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.

 

Which parts are we missing?

 

Namaste,

Phanta

 

 

Phanta,

 

Sorry for the confusion, we can chalk that up to my experience in discussing in this type of format. To understand my viewpoint of God's love as a human experience that humans cannot create, you'd have to understand my assumption that God is real. Humans can experience God's love, that is true, but God's love is not something they create it is something that God gives to them when they accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior (I'm really trying to stay away from Christian cliches but it is hard, so excuse me for using them).

 

When I say that the love of Christ is an expression of human experience what I mean is that the Love of Christ is seen, in our viewpoints, when we express our love for Him (either through worship, serving others, praying, etc.).

 

I hope this clarifies what I'm trying to say. Thanks for the respectful response, I look forward to continuing this conversation.

 

Peace, Love, and Soul

Larry

 

Seems strange to me that I can feel all that without believing in Jesus or god or gods and I'm sure that you are not a better person that I am or enjoy life and living more than I do or appreciate all the wonderful natural things that exist and happen around us more than I do or love fellow humans more than I do or treat fellow humans better than I do.

 

I'd rather express my love for humans, people who matter to me, rather than an invisible deity for whose existence there is absolutely no evidence.

[Pastorl5]

Hello fellow conversers. Interesting topic!

 

Thank you for raising these questions, Antlerman, and thank you for your thoughtful response, Larry. I'm not interested in contributing at this time, but I am very interested in following the conversation, so if you could clarify a couple of your statments, Larry, I would appreciate it. I want to make sure I understand what you are saying.

 

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 thought a couple of times that I grasped your view, but it keeps slipping because I'm not sure how the three statements I have bolded above match up. You say that Jesus' love is an expression of human experience, but not of humans, and that seems contradictory to me.

 

Perhaps it would be helpful if you could define the qualities of "an expression of human experience"?

 

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.

 

Which parts are we missing?

 

Namaste,

Phanta

 

 

Phanta,

 

Sorry for the confusion, we can chalk that up to my experience in discussing in this type of format. To understand my viewpoint of God's love as a human experience that humans cannot create, you'd have to understand my assumption that God is real. Humans can experience God's love, that is true, but God's love is not something they create it is something that God gives to them when they accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior (I'm really trying to stay away from Christian cliches but it is hard, so excuse me for using them).

 

When I say that the love of Christ is an expression of human experience what I mean is that the Love of Christ is seen, in our viewpoints, when we express our love for Him (either through worship, serving others, praying, etc.).

 

I hope this clarifies what I'm trying to say. Thanks for the respectful response, I look forward to continuing this conversation.

 

Peace, Love, and Soul

Larry

 

Seems strange to me that I can feel all that without believing in Jesus or god or gods and I'm sure that you are not a better person that I am or enjoy life and living more than I do or appreciate all the wonderful natural things that exist and happen around us more than I do or love fellow humans more than I do or treat fellow humans better than I do.

 

I'd rather express my love for humans, people who matter to me, rather than an invisible deity for whose existence there is absolutely no evidence.

 

 

I Love Dog,

May I call you ILD for short? I hope you are not assuming that a person who puts their love in Christ cannot in turn love their fellow man. You are completely right, I do not love more than you nor am I a better person; that's why I need Christ. With Christ I don't love more, my love has more meaning. When I love it has eternal benefits, when a Non-Christian loves it makes a person feel good for a lifetime; but what about the after life? Now I have no idea what you think about the other side of this life, but assuming it does exist, wouldn't you want the love that you share with others to have an impact on where they spend eternity? It's not about the feeling of love that makes Christian love any different, it's the meaning behind that love that makes all the difference.

I know you'll have a response to this, so I look forward to what you have to say. Until then...

 

Peace, Love, and Soul

 

Larry

[Pastorl5]

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

I read your response to AM and I have to say, with respect of course, that you recognize how something sounds exclusive because you put a note in there. I smile, because I know you know.

 

When speaking of the symbols of mythology, I will have to refer to Joseph Campbell, a "living mythology" will "waken and maintain in the individual an experience of awe, humility, and respect, in recognition of that ultimate mystery, transcending names and forms, 'from which,' as we read in the Upanishads, 'words turn back.'"

 

If this is what the symbols of Christianity does for Christians, then that is wonderful. It's when the metaphors and symbols are taken as actually occuring in reality instead of inspiring the above, then something isn't working. These things could have occured, but that isn't the message. The symbols have become the reality instead of the "recognition of that ultimate mystery." The symbols vanish and we are left with saying nothing other than, "Oh my God!" There is truth, behind all symbols, behind all stories, there is the Truth that inspires all stories. If the symbols of any religion fails at this, then new symbols are needed.

 

You mention John 8:12 in your response to AM and said that it's not a matter of interpretation, but I believe it is. The name of God is "I Am." I believe this is what Jesus was saying; he was one with God, we know this, so he used this by stating "I am the way..." No one come to God except by understanding this. No one comes to the Father except by him, which isn't found in words in a book. He said a few things about searching the scriptures. He was trying to tell people that he is the only way to understand divine "sonship". This is what that symbol does for me. It opens me up to the mystery of the "I AM." If I was to take it as it being him solely, it wouldn't do that for me. It would leave me in an exclusive group which claims literal "knowledge" of the Divine and it can't be had outside of this group. No, that can't be it. Everyone can experience it, even those that use Jesus to do it.

 

 

 

Before I actually respond may I ask a clarifying question: Are you suggesting that Jesus Christ is a symbol of Christianity?

 

Thanks for the clarification.

 

Larry

[Pastorl5]

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.

 

It seems as if we need to turn this conversation towards how we measure the depth of love between a Christian and a Non-Christian. I completely agree that there is no difference between the sincerity of my heart and the sincerity of your heart, yet there is a difference that we have not looked at. One of the verses I have used time and time again in our conversation has been 1 Corinthians 13, it is here that we see the qualitative difference between the love that a Christian has compared to the love that a Non-Christian has.

 

Reading 1 Corinthians 13 suggests that without Christian love (I realize that the word "Christian" isn't in that text, but it is a word we can assume is meant by the author of that book) what we do is meaningless. Without the love of Christ in our hearts, no matter what we do will be seen as meaningless in the eyes of God. Why is that? Allow me to take time to explain that:

 

First and foremost, for the Christian Jesus Christ is the center of all meaning. He is called the "Author and Perfecter of our Faith" (Hebrews 12:2) and the one that we should fix our eyes on (Hebrews 12:2). Therefore, if we do anything without Christ as the focus, we are doing it without Love, and what we are doing becomes useless (Remember Christ is Love). Secondly if what we are doing or showing others isn't for the purpose of showing people the love of Christ then what we are doing becomes useless due to the lack of meaning or purpose behind our actions.

 

Now to your question as to whether or not I have questioned God's love so much that I have needed to force myself to align with God's Word instead of challenging it: allow me to say this: I first came to Christianity due to the leading of my older brother. As you can imagine, his theology became my theology, I literally had no idea why I believed what I believed. Instead of going to God I hid in the shadow of my brother's faith (not the right idea). When I went to college I began to challenge my belief system and the validity of my faith, so I took to apologetics (on my own studies and not listening to the apologetics of others) and I studied exactly what I believed: yet instead of being led astray, my faith became stronger and my resolve steadier. The Love of Christ became more real than any before because I had finally made it my own. I don't think God merely wants us to align ourselves to His Word, that's not true love. He wants us to understand His Laws and His Love and to become rooted in the Faith on our own, not through the faith of others.

 

 

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'?

 

I could not agree more with your assertion here. The Church has made huge mistakes since the Age of Enlightenment and the Age of reason. Why? Because the church was afraid it was being replaced; they had lost their love for the people and certainly their love for Christ and became more and more political instead of what it should have been all along: The Spiritual guide to the world. Yet let me go back to the original claim I've made: Do not blame the God we follow: blame the institution. God is still speaking through faithful people and bringing change to His church; not all of God's churches are bad (I know a lot who I believe make positive changes within their community and do not control their people).

 

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?

 

The mere fact that we cannot know everything until we meet Jesus Christ does not necessarily mean we cannot experience the fullness of our humanity here on earth (that is to live a perfect life). While I think it is incredibly hard I do believe, as Christian Theology suggests, that we as humans can obtain a level of righteousness, or holiness, or perfection (call it what you will). Yet, we cannot do this on our own, we need help. We must realize that we fail when we try to achieve perfection on our own. That is why we need Christ, because He was perfect as a human on this Earth through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. In the Same way, without the indwelling of the Holy Spirit we cannot and will not achieve that level of holiness that we all long for.

 

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.

 

 

Again, I go back to the difference found in the meaning, find the meaning and you find the difference.

 

I hope this was understandable, I look forward to your response. Until then...

 

 

Peace, Love, and Soul

Larry

[Franko47]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It seems as if we need to turn this conversation towards how we measure the depth of love between a Christian and a Non-Christian. I completely agree that there is no difference between the sincerity of my heart and the sincerity of your heart, yet there is a difference that we have not looked at. One of the verses I have used time and time again in our conversation has been 1 Corinthians 13, it is here that we see the qualitative difference between the love that a Christian has compared to the love that a Non-Christian has.

 

Reading 1 Corinthians 13 suggests that without Christian love (I realize that the word "Christian" isn't in that text, but it is a word we can assume is meant by the author of that book) what we do is meaningless. Without the love of Christ in our hearts, no matter what we do will be seen as meaningless in the eyes of God. Why is that? Allow me to take time to explain that:

 

First and foremost, for the Christian Jesus Christ is the center of all meaning. He is called the "Author and Perfecter of our Faith" (Hebrews 12:2) and the one that we should fix our eyes on (Hebrews 12:2). Therefore, if we do anything without Christ as the focus, we are doing it without Love, and what we are doing becomes useless (Remember Christ is Love). Secondly if what we are doing or showing others isn't for the purpose of showing people the love of Christ then what we are doing becomes useless due to the lack of meaning or purpose behind our actions.

 

 

 

Due to the congenial nature of this conversation I won't sound off about this particular commentary at this time; perhaps Antlerman or others will address it.

[Antlerman]

It seems as if we need to turn this conversation towards how we measure the depth of love between a Christian and a Non-Christian. I completely agree that there is no difference between the sincerity of my heart and the sincerity of your heart, yet there is a difference that we have not looked at. One of the verses I have used time and time again in our conversation has been 1 Corinthians 13, it is here that we see the qualitative difference between the love that a Christian has compared to the love that a Non-Christian has.

 

Reading 1 Corinthians 13 suggests that without Christian love (I realize that the word "Christian" isn't in that text, but it is a word we can assume is meant by the author of that book) what we do is meaningless. Without the love of Christ in our hearts, no matter what we do will be seen as meaningless in the eyes of God. Why is that? Allow me to take time to explain that:

 

First and foremost, for the Christian Jesus Christ is the center of all meaning. He is called the "Author and Perfecter of our Faith" (Hebrews 12:2) and the one that we should fix our eyes on (Hebrews 12:2). Therefore, if we do anything without Christ as the focus, we are doing it without Love, and what we are doing becomes useless (Remember Christ is Love). Secondly if what we are doing or showing others isn't for the purpose of showing people the love of Christ then what we are doing becomes useless due to the lack of meaning or purpose behind our actions.

I'm only going to take a couple minutes now, but will offer a fuller response later as time permits.

 

I agree it will be appropriate to discuss perceived qualitative differences between the experiences of love for the sake of this discussion. In fact I believe, or at the least hope, that through that it may allow for an opening of understanding of just how broad and transcendent the experience of the type of love you are calling "the Love of Jesus" is, without it being tied to being a follower of Jesus as a Christian. If you can see that exact same thing, and more, in others who are not Christian, what does that say?

 

To begin, I agree what we are talking about is a transcendent experience of love that goes beyond what is experienced in normal experiences of emotions we call love. In no way does that belittle any of that, as it is in fact all part of the same thing and has as much value as understood in that context. But the experience of Love will and does vary in various contexts, and as such its imparted meanings and impact will also differ in dimension.

 

I would visualize it one way as a pyramid of stacked layers with a line drawn through the center of it from top to bottom. The higher you ascend up that axis, the greater the depth of layers there are, and the deeper the apprehension of the line of Love is. And since we are talking about Love, then we are talking about the internal experience or awareness of it. We are talking about levels of consciousness.

 

As we mature as individuals, our experience of that Love growth in depth and significance. The child's apprehension of Love through seeing the world through the magical/mythical-like beings of his Parents, or through other various symbols of his culture, like Santa Clause, is not different in its nature, then when he is an adult with a wife and family, even if it is now apprehended in a different, less magical/mythological context or framework of "reality". It is still the same love, but it most certainly takes on more imparted meaning, more depth and dimension, and its affect on the individual likewise is of a greater significance.

 

Now to the "Love of Jesus" (or Christ, or God). What those are, what I hear you trying to express by those terms, are a transcendent level of experience of Love in higher consciousness, just as our awareness has progressed as humans through stages of development, or as a species from simpler consciousness to modern humans in our social development. It is the apprehension of a higher awareness of Love that transcends the "ordinary" experience of Love as a human in daily life. It is the path of higher consciousness (and the goal of the mystic). And as at any point as a daily-life human, to call it that, Love can have a great impact on us, and it likewise can be experienced and evaluated existentially with many facets and depths and dimensions, all of which are deeply significant.

 

In the development of a raised, or transcending consciousness, it offers a different "level", a different perch, and different depth upon which to both experience and fathom and percieve the world from and through. That love is felt and experienced in yet another way. It's impact and affect is to move beyond the ego to an experience and perception through Love that sees from a new, higher perspective. It's still the same Love, just more awareness of it, more depth of it from our vantage point within it, and it within us. And on that goes, up, to the point that it all dissolves into a single state of Absolute Being that is Love, at which state nothing is perceived except directly through love. And one that point occurs, it is no longer you experiencing love, but becoming Love itself.

 

So to the question... is the Christian experience of 'Transcendent Love", which is what we are talking about in saying "the Love of Christ", or God, etc, different Love, than the Sufi mystic experiences and Realizes? Different from what I have experienced and known? I would in a split second say it is all of the Same. It is not a different Love. It's not human love here, and God's love there. How would that be? It's about higher consciousness Larry. It's about greater depth of human experience of Life through systems meant to help facilitate that growth within individuals in a path of ascent. Salvation, is nothing other that moving from the Cave of Shadows of form and symbols, into the full light of the day in our awareness. And that awareness, that knowledge (as I said) transcends just mental awareness, it's the full apprehension of ALL within ourselves in all its Being - full love, full awareness, full compassion, full knowledge, full being, etc. "Knowing Love", is becoming and being Love.

 

"I will know even as I am known," means I will apprehend, I will perceive, I will embrace all, even as I am known, loved, embraced - with full a perfect apprehension. I will perceive all, known all, experience all through the nature of God. That is what I meant when I said what I did before referencing this. It is absolute. It is infinite. If that doesn't qualify as "knowing" (apprehending, experiencing, being) "God's Love", I don't know what possibly else could. Infinite is infinite.

 

To me, to hear a Christian look at another who is not a Christian and evaluate them on the criteria of whether or not it is 'genuine' because of its conformity to written texts (and their subsequent interpretations of said texts), demonstrates a lack of listening to the 'higher Love', that "Love of God" in them. It demonstrates a blocked awareness of it. I can quote lists of verses that talk about that, "Having ears to hear..." etc.

 

As for the 1 Cor 13 above, I do not agree that the context of it supports a comparison of Christian love to non-Christians. It is specifically addressing Christians who are practicing their religion that are not following Love, and demonstrating how all that, the external affiliations with the religion, are meaningless if it does not result in a transformed being as a result of knowing higher love. So... I apply that verse, not the Christians versus non-Christians, but to Christians who genuinely apprehend love and manifest its effects into the whole world - as Love does for individuals, Christian or otherwise, versus those Christians who claim to have higher truth but don't because their focus is on 'being Christian', rather than following Love.

 

I'll leave it there for the moment...

[oddbird1963]

It seems as if we need to turn this conversation towards how we measure the depth of love between a Christian and a Non-Christian. I completely agree that there is no difference between the sincerity of my heart and the sincerity of your heart, yet there is a difference that we have not looked at. One of the verses I have used time and time again in our conversation has been 1 Corinthians 13, it is here that we see the qualitative difference between the love that a Christian has compared to the love that a Non-Christian has.

 

Pastor15,

 

Please allow me to comment on your remarks.

 

1 Cor. 13 offers a beautiful , appealing ideal of love. But it is one thing to say that Christians aspire to this kind of love. It is an entirely different entity altogether to say that only Christians can achieve this kind of love.

 

I can tell you I am a non-Christian, but

 

 

• I am patient
  
• I am kind
  
• I am not the envious type
  
• I am not filled with hubris
  
• Nor am I the sort to brag
  
• I am a generous, self-sacrificing sort
  
• I am a protective, trustworthy, persevering kind of guy!
  

 

Now, in your symbol system, all you can say is "NO, Scott. You may be a bit patient, but you're not REALLY patient. You can't REALLY be kind like a Christian!" And I will say, "Yes I am. Yes I can. You've got it wrong."

 

And this is what you are saying. But you have no way to verify this. It is just a theoretical, theological belief based on a particular symbolic system. How do you honestly know that millions of non-Christians throughout the world, throughout the ages have not achieved a high degree of the qualities brought out in 1 Cor. 13? On what basis do you draw this conclusion? Do you have some comprehensive double blind study to which you can point?

 

I don't think you can prove this.

 

 

Reading 1 Corinthians 13 suggests that without Christian love (I realize that the word "Christian" isn't in that text, but it is a word we can assume is meant by the author of that book) what we do is meaningless. Without the love of Christ in our hearts, no matter what we do will be seen as meaningless in the eyes of God. Why is that? Allow me to take time to explain that:

 

The point of 1 Cor 13 was that love be the central, unifying force for the church,

 

1 Cor. 14:1

Follow the way of love and eagerly desire spiritual gifts, especially the gift of prophecy.

 

This was in contrast to the factious motivation of seeking status based of the type of spiritual gift one claimed to possess.

 

It strikes me as a faulty hermeneutic to suggest that this passage is teaching that only Christians can truly and meaningfully love others. I believe you are torturing the scripture slightly to make it say what you want it to say - - for the preservation of a symbolic system that needs an exclusive distinctive to preserve itself.

 

First and foremost, for the Christian Jesus Christ is the center of all meaning. He is called the "Author and Perfecter of our Faith" (Hebrews 12:2) and the one that we should fix our eyes on (Hebrews 12:2). Therefore, if we do anything without Christ as the focus, we are doing it without Love, and what we are doing becomes useless (Remember Christ is Love). Secondly if what we are doing or showing others isn't for the purpose of showing people the love of Christ then what we are doing becomes useless due to the lack of meaning or purpose behind our actions.

 

I would say that what you have shown here is that the theological figure of Jesus Christ is the center of all meaning within the symbolic system that is the Christian faith. You still cannot show that non-believers do not possess a capacity to love which equals or surpasses the ideals of 1 Cor. 13.

[oddbird1963]

With Christ I don't love more, my love has more meaning. When I love it has eternal benefits, when a Non-Christian loves it makes a person feel good for a lifetime; but what about the after life? Now I have no idea what you think about the other side of this life, but assuming it does exist, wouldn't you want the love that you share with others to have an impact on where they spend eternity? It's not about the feeling of love that makes Christian love any different, it's the meaning behind that love that makes all the difference.

Pastor15,

 

It seems that you are being unclear about this "meaning behind . . . love."

 

Non-christians can love: they can forgive, they can sacrifice themselves for another person's benefit, they can conduct themselves humbly . They can expend their resources seeing to it that widows and orphans are provided for.

 

BUT, none of this has real meaning unless "the love that you share with others" has "an impact on where they spend eternity?"

 

It sounds as if the only difference between the love non-Christians can show and the meaningful love you propose is a gospel tract. In order to be meaningful, the Non-christian could do what they do and give the other person a copy of Steps to Peace with God or Four Spiritual Laws. Is this true? Is this the only difference between the "love of Christ" and the love of non-Christians? A mass-produced, illustrated gospel presentation?

 

Thus, an evangelistic presentation , which is an appeal to your symbolic system as the exclusive system, is the only essential difference.

 

For the Christian then, love means getting the non christian to take up my symbols and get rid of the very symbols that have made them the loving person that they are today.

[Antlerman]

Now to your question as to whether or not I have questioned God's love so much that I have needed to force myself to align with God's Word instead of challenging it:

I just picked up on this. I didn't ask you if you have questioned God's love, I asked if you have ever found that what was in you heart conflicted with the doctrines of faith as read from the pages of the Bible. There's a huge difference between the two, but you seem to equate them.

 

I meant that the experience of God's Love, extends ones heart way above and beyond the pages of a holy book, and in fact listening to that Heart may run headlong into and against the beliefs of the religion. Such as the experience of God would show that Love knows no bounds, the Love would never burn souls in hell, the Love shows infinite compassion, etc. Yet when one, if one takes as literal and authoritative, what it written and interpreted from the pages of their holy book as what the Heart must align with, there is and will be a conflict that needs to be resolved. The Love of God I knew that I took with me into being a student of the Bible lead me into great conflict and crisis of Spirit. Even though I could see that Love expressed in various places, that were meaningful to me, certainly there were ideas about God in it that ran contrary to the Perfect Nature of the Spirit. No way, was that some minor thing.

 

And so my question is, simply put, if you experience those depths of transcendent love I explained above, do you not see or feel any inherent conflict in seeing God's Love narrowly and exclusively defined in religious context? As you look at us, and listen to us, and hear what we say with confidence and depth, that we are "outside" God? That instead of likewise being part of that Whole, we are 'the other'? It was what the ears of my Heart heard, what the eyes of my Soul saw, what my spirit in Spirit knew, that conflicted with the theological boxes of religious affiliation that I was being presented as the definition and substance and measuring stick of Truth™. It forces the Heart to conform its Reality to the interpreters of ancient books using only the mind.

 

 

(more later... doing installments as time permits )

[NotBlinded]

Before I actually respond may I ask a clarifying question: Are you suggesting that Jesus Christ is a symbol of Christianity?

 

Thanks for the clarification.

 

Larry

Jesus the man; Christ they symbol. Jesus was a beacon that called people to the Source. He isn't the Source, as in a separate union with the source that not everyone can attain. Christ is a symbol of the indwelling Source, or God.

 

Somewhere along the line, followers and the creators of the religion took Jesus to be the one and only Christ. The one and only person to be of the essence of God. This took the symbol of Christ and made it concrete, not allowing everyone access to it other than through worshiping him. This concrete symbol of Christ is now a mental idol no different than a statue made of wood or gold. It is something that is external in reality and not a living, breathing symbol of life.

 

You stated this in a later post to AM:

 

First and foremost, for the Christian Jesus Christ is the center of all meaning. He is called the "Author and Perfecter of our Faith" (Hebrews 12:2) and the one that we should fix our eyes on (Hebrews 12:2). Therefore, if we do anything without Christ as the focus, we are doing it without Love, and what we are doing becomes useless (Remember Christ is Love). Secondly if what we are doing or showing others isn't for the purpose of showing people the love of Christ then what we are doing becomes useless due to the lack of meaning or purpose behind our actions.

 

This is what I am talking about. You don't have to be a Christian to get this. This "Christ" is in everyone. You don't have to worship the man to feel the "Christ" nature.

[Neon Genesis]

 

 

First and foremost, for the Christian Jesus Christ is the center of all meaning. He is called the "Author and Perfecter of our Faith" (Hebrews 12:2) and the one that we should fix our eyes on (Hebrews 12:2). Therefore, if we do anything without Christ as the focus, we are doing it without Love, and what we are doing becomes useless (Remember Christ is Love).

Do you believe the love of the good Samaritan had no meaning even though Jesus praised someone from a different faith of being more of a good neighbor than the pious Jewish leaders of the time?

Just then a lawyer stood up to test Jesus.* ‘Teacher,’ he said, ‘what must I do to inherit eternal life?’ 26He said to him, ‘What is written in the law? What do you read there?’ 27He answered, ‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbour as yourself.’ 28And he said to him, ‘You have given the right answer; do this, and you will live.’

 

29 But wanting to justify himself, he asked Jesus, ‘And who is my neighbour?’ 30Jesus replied, ‘A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell into the hands of robbers, who stripped him, beat him, and went away, leaving him half dead. 31Now by chance a priest was going down that road; and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side. 32So likewise a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. 33But a Samaritan while travelling came near him; and when he saw him, he was moved with pity. 34He went to him and bandaged his wounds, having poured oil and wine on them. Then he put him on his own animal, brought him to an inn, and took care of him. 35The next day he took out two denarii,* gave them to the innkeeper, and said, “Take care of him; and when I come back, I will repay you whatever more you spend.” 36Which of these three, do you think, was a neighbour to the man who fell into the hands of the robbers?’ 37He said, ‘The one who showed him mercy.’ Jesus said to him, ‘Go and do likewise.’

[Antlerman]

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'?

 

I could not agree more with your assertion here. The Church has made huge mistakes since the Age of Enlightenment and the Age of reason. Why? Because the church was afraid it was being replaced; they had lost their love for the people and certainly their love for Christ and became more and more political instead of what it should have been all along: The Spiritual guide to the world. Yet let me go back to the original claim I've made: Do not blame the God we follow: blame the institution. God is still speaking through faithful people and bringing change to His church; not all of God's churches are bad (I know a lot who I believe make positive changes within their community and do not control their people).

I certainly don't blame God. God is God and man makes religions. I personally do not believe Jesus had ever intended a religion to be formed in his name. Here's a thread I started near a couple years ago that seems might tie into what you just said: http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?/topic/23961-the-conundrum-of-religion/page__p__376262__fromsearch__1entry376262

[Pastorl5]

 

 

First and foremost, for the Christian Jesus Christ is the center of all meaning. He is called the "Author and Perfecter of our Faith" (Hebrews 12:2) and the one that we should fix our eyes on (Hebrews 12:2). Therefore, if we do anything without Christ as the focus, we are doing it without Love, and what we are doing becomes useless (Remember Christ is Love).

Do you believe the love of the good Samaritan had no meaning even though Jesus praised someone from a different faith of being more of a good neighbor than the pious Jewish leaders of the time?

Just then a lawyer stood up to test Jesus.* ‘Teacher,’ he said, ‘what must I do to inherit eternal life?’ 26He said to him, ‘What is written in the law? What do you read there?’ 27He answered, ‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbour as yourself.’ 28And he said to him, ‘You have given the right answer; do this, and you will live.’

 

29 But wanting to justify himself, he asked Jesus, ‘And who is my neighbour?’ 30Jesus replied, ‘A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell into the hands of robbers, who stripped him, beat him, and went away, leaving him half dead. 31Now by chance a priest was going down that road; and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side. 32So likewise a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. 33But a Samaritan while travelling came near him; and when he saw him, he was moved with pity. 34He went to him and bandaged his wounds, having poured oil and wine on them. Then he put him on his own animal, brought him to an inn, and took care of him. 35The next day he took out two denarii,* gave them to the innkeeper, and said, “Take care of him; and when I come back, I will repay you whatever more you spend.” 36Which of these three, do you think, was a neighbour to the man who fell into the hands of the robbers?’ 37He said, ‘The one who showed him mercy.’ Jesus said to him, ‘Go and do likewise.’

 

 

You realize that Samaritans were a different sect of Judaism right (even though they were "half-jews", they still believed in the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob)?

 

Peace, Love, and Soul

Larry

[Neon Genesis]

 

You realize that Samaritans were a different sect of Judaism right (even though they were "half-jews", they still believed in the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob)?

 

Peace, Love, and Soul

Larry

But the point of Jesus' parable was that having a correct set of beliefs did not lead to someone being more moral or loving and it was often the people who claimed to be the most holy who acted the most immoral. The point of the parable is that those who show mercy are good neighbors, not those who are true believers.

[Pastorl5]

 

Jesus the man; Christ they symbol. Jesus was a beacon that called people to the Source. He isn't the Source, as in a separate union with the source that not everyone can attain. Christ is a symbol of the indwelling Source, or God.

 

Somewhere along the line, followers and the creators of the religion took Jesus to be the one and only Christ. The one and only person to be of the essence of God. This took the symbol of Christ and made it concrete, not allowing everyone access to it other than through worshiping him. This concrete symbol of Christ is now a mental idol no different than a statue made of wood or gold. It is something that is external in reality and not a living, breathing symbol of life.

 

This is what I am talking about. You don't have to be a Christian to get this. This "Christ" is in everyone. You don't have to worship the man to feel the "Christ" nature.

 

Since when can you separate the ideology from the man? To talk about the nature of Christ while throwing out the man Christ is standing on shaky ground. You just can't pick and choose which part of Jesus you want to believe in and what parts you want to throw away. Even if you take the ideals of "The Christ" this becomes impossible. What evidence do you have to support that there are more than one "Christ's"? The only one who claimed to be the "Christ" told us that no one else can be what He was and is today. That is why we need Jesus, because only He can be the Way, the Truth, and the Life. Perhaps having a discussion of what the term "Christ" means would be beneficial to this discussion.

 

Unfortunately I have to disagree that this Christ is in everyone. Christ can only be in the ones who believe in the Christ, that is Jesus. I don't think even you would suggest that a person who rejects your viewpoint would have that Christ within them.

 

What do you think? Looking forward to your response. Until then...

 

Peace, Love, and Soul

Larry

[Pastorl5]

 

You realize that Samaritans were a different sect of Judaism right (even though they were "half-jews", they still believed in the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob)?

 

Peace, Love, and Soul

Larry

But the point of Jesus' parable was that having a correct set of beliefs did not lead to someone being more moral or loving and it was often the people who claimed to be the most holy who acted the most immoral. The point of the parable is that those who show mercy are good neighbors, not those who are true believers.

 

 

Key word their is "acted". Jesus was telling us that truly Holiness is found only when we truly Love our neighbors. Don't forget though, that Jesus extends this definition when He tells us that first and foremost we are called to Love Him with all of our being and then Love our neighbor as ourselves. Again, this points to my earlier assertion that you cannot perfect this thing called Love, or give it true meaning, without first Loving God.

[Neon Genesis]

 

 

Since when can you separate the ideology from the man? To talk about the nature of Christ while throwing out the man Christ is standing on shaky ground. You just can't pick and choose which part of Jesus you want to believe in and what parts you want to throw away. Even if you take the ideals of "The Christ" this becomes impossible.

 

 

The problem with suggesting you can't separate the theology from the man is that the theology of the man is unknown to us today. The gospels are not historically accurate accounts of the life of Jesus. Much of the sayings attributed to Jesus in the gospels likely do not date back to him and instead are representative of the theology of the gospel authors and their communities. Then you also have to take into account that you're still filtering the gospels through an Augustian mindset that was developed centuries later than the gospels which were written long after the death of Jesus and anyone who could claim to be an eyewitness. Then you have about 35,000 denominations of Christianity in existence each one claiming their understanding of Jesus' theology is the correct one, so how can we discover what the theology of the man is when there's so much extra theology we have to filter through to get to the man beneath the legend?

[Pastorl5]

 

 

Since when can you separate the ideology from the man? To talk about the nature of Christ while throwing out the man Christ is standing on shaky ground. You just can't pick and choose which part of Jesus you want to believe in and what parts you want to throw away. Even if you take the ideals of "The Christ" this becomes impossible.

 

 

The problem with suggesting you can't separate the theology from the man is that the theology of the man is unknown to us today. The gospels are not historically accurate accounts of the life of Jesus. Much of the sayings attributed to Jesus in the gospels likely do not date back to him and instead are representative of the theology of the gospel authors and their communities. Then you also have to take into account that you're still filtering the gospels through an Augustian mindset that was developed centuries later than the gospels which were written long after the death of Jesus and anyone who could claim to be an eyewitness. Then you have about 35,000 denominations of Christianity in existence each one claiming their understanding of Jesus' theology is the correct one, so how can we discover what the theology of the man is when there's so much extra theology we have to filter through to get to the man beneath the legend?

 

 

I would completely disagree with your assertion that you cannot know the Theology of the man. With all of the Scriptures that we have that do date back to the years right after Jesus' death we can be assured that what we have, if nothing else, is actually from the eyewitnesses of the Gospel Account. Being a Pastor I have studied the Scriptures and can dive into that deeper, just not in this post as we are not talking about the validity of Scripture but the doctrine of the Love of Christ.

 

As to your point on the many denominations, we may have those, but we all agree on the basics of Christianity (i.e Jesus is the Son of God, is God, who became a human, died on the cross, resurrected three days later, died for our sins, the way to salvation, will come back again, etc.). We may differ on the details, but we get the big picture.

 

Good point, I hope I clarified these things for you.

[Neon Genesis]

But Christians don't agree on the big picture. For example, what is the key to salvation? Do you have to be baptized to be saved or is just saying the sinner's prayer enough? Do you have to be baptized submerged under water for it to count or is just a little sprinkle enough? Do you have to be re-baptized or is baptism once enough? Should children be baptized or do you have to reach the age of reason for it to count? What should the age of reason be? Should it be seven or should there be no specific age? Do children who are not baptized before dying as children immediately go to heaven or do they go to purgatory? Do you have to be baptized in the correct church or does it not matter what church you were baptized? Is it baptism itself that saves you or is it just a symbolic act to become a member of a congregation? Can you be baptized at anytime you want or do you have to arrange a ceremony for it to count? Would you go to hell if you weren't baptized but had already decided to believe or would you still get into heaven? Is there a baptism of water and a separate baptism through fire that gives you the gifts of the spirit? Do Christians still recieve the gifts of tongues through baptism or did those cease with the deaths of the apostles? If Christians can't even agree on how to be saved, how can we know what the theology of Jesus was and when Christians have so many different opinions on who's receiving the love of Jesus, how do we know who's receiving Jesus' love or not?