Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

The Love Of Jesus


Antlerman

Recommended Posts

 

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.

So God died, but only just a little bit, and died for our sins, which was unnecessary since he was god, and now we have to speak to this god, and believe in this god, so we don't have to talk to the other god. Because even if we believed in the other god, that's not enough. Gotta believe the new one too, or fry forever.

 

And that dying thing was like - a sacrifice? Lame Lamb of God, right? Sacrifice to himself, which was only temporary, and somehow a partial death is good for us because... he took away sins, but we still have sin and are inherently sinful, so he really didn't take anything away.

 

"Me, forgive them, for they know not what they do!"

"Why have I forsaken myself? I can't remember!" "Into my hands, I commend my spirit, and I will sit on my right hand."

 

Jesus, what a load of crap.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 666
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Antlerman

    118

  • NotBlinded

    89

  • Pastorl5

    44

  • Shyone

    38

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

 

 

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...

 

 

To put it plainly, I agree with your definition of what the Love of Christ is, where I disagree is your application of said definition. Love is obtaining a Higher Consciousness, but it is not becoming that Love (or God) it is emulating that Love to the best of your ability. Love is obtaining a Higher Consciousness, but it is not placing that Love on ourselves, it's realizing that love found in the one who gave you that love in the first place.

 

With all that said, let me say this: Above anything I believe in God's Love being manifested through His grace. That even though we don't deserve to be saved, He chose to do so anyway. I cannot honestly stand here, and I don't think I've done so yet (if I have I apologized), and claim that anyone in this website is going to Hell. That is not my job, it is God's, and I hope that those on this website who claim to know "the Christ" yet reject the man who claimed to be that Christ can still gain access to God. All I know is what God has shown me through Jesus Christ, and in my studies I have found the man and the nature (or the ideology) are one in the same.

 

To put this as an example, if a tribe in a completely different culture worships the ideals and nature of Jesus Christ without knowing Him by name, would they be saved? I would think yes, since the Bible tells us that God makes His nature plain to everyone no matter who you are or where you live.

 

Christ's love is for everyone. Everyone can obtain it. Yet I believe that one can only obtain the full nature of this love (as I have explained before) through the placement of that love in the one true God. It is not found inherently within us, it is something we must be given by God when we accept His Son as our Lord and Savior.

 

I will also say that I agree wholeheartedly that there are more "Christians" out there who worry way too much about being "Christian" and not letting the Love of Christ dwell in their hearts. Yet that is not a misinterpretation of the texts that cause this, but too high of a focus on the self rather than on the God that supplies that love.

 

 

I hope this helps. I enjoy our dialogue. Until next time...

 

Peace, Love, and Soul

Larry

 

P.S. How do I get that questioner title off of my profile and get the title of "believer"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

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.

So God died, but only just a little bit, and died for our sins, which was unnecessary since he was god, and now we have to speak to this god, and believe in this god, so we don't have to talk to the other god. Because even if we believed in the other god, that's not enough. Gotta believe the new one too, or fry forever.

 

And that dying thing was like - a sacrifice? Lame Lamb of God, right? Sacrifice to himself, which was only temporary, and somehow a partial death is good for us because... he took away sins, but we still have sin and are inherently sinful, so he really didn't take anything away.

 

"Me, forgive them, for they know not what they do!"

"Why have I forsaken myself? I can't remember!" "Into my hands, I commend my spirit, and I will sit on my right hand."

 

Jesus, what a load of crap.

 

 

Once again your bitter, angry, senseless, and idiotic babble makes your statements not worth my time to even look at. If you would like to continue this discussion, put your big kid pants on and come respectfully to this conversation. Otherwise, stop making the wonderful people of this website look bad.

 

How's that for a load of Crap?

 

Larry

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To put it plainly, I agree with your definition of what the Love of Christ is, where I disagree is your application of said definition. Love is obtaining a Higher Consciousness, but it is not becoming that Love (or God) it is emulating that Love to the best of your ability. Love is obtaining a Higher Consciousness, but it is not placing that Love on ourselves, it's realizing that love found in the one who gave you that love in the first place.

 

May I jump in here? What kind of realization do you mean? An intellectual understanding that this love came from Jesus? It seems to me that you are splitting hairs here and possibly diminishing what was said about this Love.

 

To put this as an example, if a tribe in a completely different culture worships the ideals and nature of Jesus Christ without knowing Him by name, would they be saved? I would think yes, since the Bible tells us that God makes His nature plain to everyone no matter who you are or where you live.

 

I have always had a problem with this. If true, why the missionaries? Since there are good people in every culture and religion, why not leave them alone if God has already made his nature plain? Why muck it up with insisting on belief in a certain set of dogmas?

 

Christ's love is for everyone. Everyone can obtain it. Yet I believe that one can only obtain the full nature of this love (as I have explained before) through the placement of that love in the one true God. It is not found inherently within us, it is something we must be given by God when we accept His Son as our Lord and Savior.

 

I don't believe that. There is no "love" that comes from the outside. It is all in the mind. It IS inherent. What makes you respond to beauty and love? Everyone can and does, whether they have an intellectual knowledge of Jesus.

 

I will also say that I agree wholeheartedly that there are more "Christians" out there who worry way too much about being "Christian" and not letting the Love of Christ dwell in their hearts. Yet that is not a misinterpretation of the texts that cause this, but too high of a focus on the self rather than on the God that supplies that love.

 

Yes that's true, but the reason they worry is because of the whole Christian system itself. Its focus IS on the self. What is MY relationship to God? Am I saved? There is this constant problem of the person separated from God and am I now unseparated because I believe some things written in a book?

 

P.S. How do I get that questioner title off of my profile and get the title of "believer"?

 

How about it, Mods? I think Larry needs a "True Christian Believer" badge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

That is a very modern view. I submit you would never be saying such a thing if you were a Protestant living in the 16th century. Many people died over these "details". There are actually some big differences. It is not becoming of you to diminish them.

 

By the way, it took centuries for the Church to work out what the nature of Jesus was, too.

 

I am sorry, but it seems like you have never read any church history to make such a statement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I apologize to all, and Pastorl5 especially for my emotional outburst yesterday. The death of a woman and her son caused me deep emotional pain, and I acted inappropriately. I had no intention to engage in a discussion, and I was instead venting. The thoughts were real, but they should not have been posted.

 

This thread seems to bring out the worst in me, and I will henceforth not be posting in this thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To put it plainly, I agree with your definition of what the Love of Christ is, where I disagree is your application of said definition. Love is obtaining a Higher Consciousness, but it is not becoming that Love (or God) it is emulating that Love to the best of your ability. Love is obtaining a Higher Consciousness, but it is not placing that Love on ourselves, it's realizing that love found in the one who gave you that love in the first place.

I'm not saying anything differently than what you say above, in effect. The issue seems to be hinged on your seeing everything in strict dualist terms, where I see them becoming non-dual at the Source. I would like for the language to not get in the way of the discussion so I'll for the sake of discussion point to the layers in my analogy of the pyramid prior to the state of Absolute ONENESS.

 

Like Deva said that conveys the meaning of what I'm saying in far fewer words, I'm not saying it originates in us - ex nihlo, out of nothing. I've said this before, and I see repeatedly a conceptual block that I'm saying, we're saying, that it only exists in us, and that we create it. No. Again no, that is not what I've ever said, don't not mean that, do not believe that. However it is in us, and we access it - my whole analogy of the athelte accessing the potentials in his body. He doesn't create the potentials, they are inherent in his body. What he does is release them. In effect, he manifests them through himself. Ditto. The come from within his body. Spirituality comes from within our nature. We release it, we realize it potentials to higher and higher states of potential.

 

Does that help? If not, let's come back to this as it is key to understanding the interconnected nature of all these systems that comprise the nature of our existence. There is not me here, and the world over there. Me here and Spirit there. It is "In all and through all."

 

So to that "Love of God". What that expresses is a higher realization of that nature, that potential that exists in us as part of the Whole, through states of greater awareness, a raised consciousness, which you have acknowledged above. The more that is realized, the greater the gained perspective through the transformation nature of realizing greater potential that exists in us though our existence within the Whole. The more that nature is realized in us, the more we become consistent with that nature, we manifest that nature through us, we expereience that nature, we become transformed into the 'image' of that nature. It affects all our thoughts, and actions, and experiences of being, and becoming.

 

Let me give you an example of this principle straight out of Jesus' mouth. The two great commandments, "Love God with all your heart... love your neighbor as yourself." Through the focus into the nature of higher being, our Spiritual nature (that nature which is throughout the Whole that we are part of and it consequently exists in us of necessity by virtue of that), results in the Realization of higher consciousness and resultant apprehension of transcended Love, which then after so filling us, naturally flows out of us, like "rivers of living water", out of our innermost being, into the world, out to others, manifest Love through us, from us, from the Source. The experience, the realization of that Love, changes us, and directly impacts our perceptions and results in the Natural Manifestation of that love.

 

What bothers me, is when I hear Chrisitans say what you expressed in saying things like, "it is not becoming that Love (or God) it is emulating that Love to the best of your ability" The problem I have with that Larry is because it doesn't come from the Source. It doesn't result naturally from communion and connection and transformation from the Source. It's "copying" its form. And trust me when I say it more often than not, in those who hear this message of them needing to 'emulate' Christ, it is an unnatural expression of Love. Love is natural. It will act, as it will act. All you do is know Love, and it will manifest through you. You don't need to follow a guideline of behavior book. And those who do are only "acting" nice. "I am being nice to you because I want to please my Lord". It is not Real. It is not a manifestation of Love. It does not reveal its Nature.

 

"Love works no ill". Book of Romans somewhere. "Love is the fulfilling of the law." "My law shall be written on the tablets of their heart". etc. "On these two commandments (love God and your neighbor) hang all the Bible (law and prophets)". The only emulation you as a Christian need to pursue is a life seeking Higher Love. The rest will flow naturally out of you from the Source, Manifesting that Nature. And when it does, you will see it everywhere in Manifestation - in that tribe you mentioned below, in all the world everywhere where humans desire and pursue the embrace of Love. It's seen in the simplest to the highest. None are outside it, and it is not missing anywhere in the Whole. It is only a matter of access and development. It is already 'given'. But it is not fully yet realized. And that's where these various systems come in, in pursuit of that Realization.

 

more later...

 

BTW, your designator to believer as you pointed out will be changed to that later today...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I apologize to all, and Pastorl5 especially for my emotional outburst yesterday. The death of a woman and her son caused me deep emotional pain, and I acted inappropriately. I had no intention to engage in a discussion, and I was instead venting. The thoughts were real, but they should not have been posted.

 

This thread seems to bring out the worst in me, and I will henceforth not be posting in this thread.

 

I too apologize for my outburst in response to your post. Thanks for the apology, I hope that you too can forgive me. I am deeply sorry for the loss you are going through and I hope you can find peace in comfort during this difficult time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

That is a very modern view. I submit you would never be saying such a thing if you were a Protestant living in the 16th century. Many people died over these "details". There are actually some big differences. It is not becoming of you to diminish them.

 

By the way, it took centuries for the Church to work out what the nature of Jesus was, too.

 

I am sorry, but it seems like you have never read any church history to make such a statement.

 

 

I have in fact studied Church History and it context of unity within it. Yet the context in which we are in today has forced us to rethink what unity means for the Christian church today. We are still one church, universally, but we have to realize that we are not going to agree on all things all the time. We have grace realizing that we cannot get all right, but as long as the basics of Christianity are being preached and teached, we have no problems (for the most part).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

 

Awesome post!! I mean, why does God put the key to salvation on a key ring with a few thousand other keys? Shouldn't it at least be color coded or something?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To put it plainly, I agree with your definition of what the Love of Christ is, where I disagree is your application of said definition. Love is obtaining a Higher Consciousness, but it is not becoming that Love (or God) it is emulating that Love to the best of your ability. Love is obtaining a Higher Consciousness, but it is not placing that Love on ourselves, it's realizing that love found in the one who gave you that love in the first place.

 

The Oneness that AM is describing, and you are saying emulating.....I think he is saying that the Oneness that I believe will happen in Heaven is achievable now. Jesus talks about being in the Father as the Father is in us. The only difference....Jesus was already in the Father as well as the Father in Him. We have the Father in us, but not yet are in the Father. Again, I think what AM and NBBTB are saying is that this union that we/I will take place in Heaven can happen now....the description of "no words"...which I believe as well. I though, don't think we can remain in that for more than just brief glimpses. It is thought, when you see it.....darned hopefilled and joyful.

 

The point: I doubt there will be many concessions other than through the means that we understand this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

And this is different from what I'm saying, how? Are you saying that we must "Love God", theologically? And that with correct beliefs about the Spiritual, as represented in various figures of cosmic beings such as the Christ, that then, only through proper symbols, can we gain access to that Love in order to manifest it?

 

Then if so, then how does my point about getting beyond the symbols to the Source, not make any sense?

 

But again, I don't like the wording that "truly Holiness is found only when we truly Love our neighbors". It places the discovery of it through the actions, whereas I would say the actions take the apprehension of it a make it manifest. We experience its Nature through manifestation, but we don't get to its Nature through the actions. You seek its Source - and the symbols are only a means to point, not the Source themselves. "God beyond God". As we understand internal its Nature and it fills us, then it is also realized through action and its internal nature is realized eternally. I liken that to the whole of the Universe as manifestation of Spirit.

 

BTW, I never heard you respond to what I laid out about Logos earlier...

 

(more thoughts to come...)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But again, I don't like the wording that "truly Holiness is found only when we truly Love our neighbors". It places the discovery of it through the actions, whereas I would say the actions take the apprehension of it a make it manifest. We experience its Nature through manifestation, but we don't get to its Nature through the actions. You seek its Source - and the symbols are only a means to point, not the Source themselves. "God beyond God". As we understand internal its Nature and it fills us, then it is also realized through action and its internal nature is realized eternally. I liken that to the whole of the Universe as manifestation of Spirit.

 

Don't go nitpicking....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Oneness that AM is describing, and you are saying emulating.....I think he is saying that the Oneness that I believe will happen in Heaven is achievable now. Jesus talks about being in the Father as the Father is in us. The only difference....Jesus was already in the Father as well as the Father in Him. We have the Father in us, but not yet are in the Father. Again, I think what AM and NBBTB are saying is that this union that we/I will take place in Heaven can happen now....the description of "no words"...which I believe as well. I though, don't think we can remain in that for more than just brief glimpses. It is thought, when you see it.....darned hopefilled and joyful.

 

End3, if you would just toss out the words that make the division - "Father" and "Jesus" and just use "Oneness" or "totality" or some other words, you would have stated this very well. Heaven not only "can happen now," but it must, and if you don't get it now, you never will. That may sound harsh, but that is what oneness is. It is not division of any kind. It is not heaven or hell, its not here and there, it is not all these dualities. It is not that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have in fact studied Church History and it context of unity within it. Yet the context in which we are in today has forced us to rethink what unity means for the Christian church today. We are still one church, universally, but we have to realize that we are not going to agree on all things all the time. We have grace realizing that we cannot get all right, but as long as the basics of Christianity are being preached and teached, we have no problems (for the most part).

 

Certainly the church of today, divided as it is, is not that of yesterday, but if there is no actual agreement on how salvation works and what is necessary for a person to be assured of said salvation, I would say that is rather a significant thing, right?

 

May I ask if you would be equally comfortable with the type of Christianity taught by, say, the Russian Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches?

 

I am harping on this because I heard this type of thing said in the Baptist Church long ago and yet they believe many other churches aren't really Christian. Its a bit dishonest IMO. I am not accusing you, it just sounds that way to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like Deva said that conveys the meaning of what I'm saying in far fewer words, I'm not saying it originates in us - ex nihlo, out of nothing. I've said this before, and I see repeatedly a conceptual block that I'm saying, we're saying, that it only exists in us, and that we create it. No. Again no, that is not what I've ever said, don't not mean that, do not believe that. However it is in us, and we access it - my whole analogy of the athelte accessing the potentials in his body. He doesn't create the potentials, they are inherent in his body. What he does is release them. In effect, he manifests them through himself. Ditto. The come from within his body. Spirituality comes from within our nature. We release it, we realize it potentials to higher and higher states of potential.

 

Does that help? If not, let's come back to this as it is key to understanding the interconnected nature of all these systems that comprise the nature of our existence. There is not me here, and the world over there. Me here and Spirit there. It is "In all and through all."

 

So to that "Love of God". What that expresses is a higher realization of that nature, that potential that exists in us as part of the Whole, through states of greater awareness, a raised consciousness, which you have acknowledged above. The more that is realized, the greater the gained perspective through the transformation nature of realizing greater potential that exists in us though our existence within the Whole. The more that nature is realized in us, the more we become consistent with that nature, we manifest that nature through us, we expereience that nature, we become transformed into the 'image' of that nature. It affects all our thoughts, and actions, and experiences of being, and becoming.

 

Yes, I think we are on the same page with this. We are not talking about origins. We are talking about this love being inherent in every person. It is obscured by duality, which prevents its manifestation. I like the words "transformation" and "realization."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Heaven not only "can happen now," but it must

I just wanted to underscore that. If ever I've felt like saying "Amen" again, it's to that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

I have in fact studied Church History and it context of unity within it. Yet the context in which we are in today has forced us to rethink what unity means for the Christian church today. We are still one church, universally, but we have to realize that we are not going to agree on all things all the time. We have grace realizing that we cannot get all right, but as long as the basics of Christianity are being preached and teached, we have no problems (for the most part).

Do you think progressive Christians who don't believe in hell are part of this church "unity" and are also counted as true Christians?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Oneness that AM is describing, and you are saying emulating.....I think he is saying that the Oneness that I believe will happen in Heaven is achievable now. Jesus talks about being in the Father as the Father is in us. The only difference....Jesus was already in the Father as well as the Father in Him. We have the Father in us, but not yet are in the Father. Again, I think what AM and NBBTB are saying is that this union that we/I will take place in Heaven can happen now....the description of "no words"...which I believe as well. I though, don't think we can remain in that for more than just brief glimpses. It is thought, when you see it.....darned hopefilled and joyful.

 

End3, if you would just toss out the words that make the division - "Father" and "Jesus" and just use "Oneness" or "totality" or some other words, you would have stated this very well. Heaven not only "can happen now," but it must, and if you don't get it now, you never will. That may sound harsh, but that is what oneness is. It is not division of any kind. It is not heaven or hell, its not here and there, it is not all these dualities. It is not that.

 

Let me try to be more clear Ms. D. The experience of Oneness is not in question. "Complete Oneness" as in "uninterrupted Oneness" is for me. Also, by particular experience, mine, it was in encounter with Jesus that lasted only seconds. I am faithful that a constant state of the Oneness happens when we die and go to Heaven. Maybe this is where we are miscommunicating. Access vs. time and remaining in access. This to me is the difference because if I can't access it at any given time, then I can't see that it is from within. If it were from within, then why do I not put myself there all the time and live as though?

 

What we seem to be questioning is......is this encounter with Oneness....is it Jesus, or the Source, or the Ground of Being, or any other names one might give to the Oneness experience.

 

I love you to death Ms. D., but I believe that this Oneness is Jesus. I can't compromise at this point regardless of how much I would like to. Our conversations for about the last month are littered with,"yes AM, yes NBBTB, but X".

 

Maybe time will allow me that freedom. I don't know....yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love you to death Ms. D., but I believe that this Oneness is Jesus. I can't compromise at this point regardless of how much I would like to. Our conversations for about the last month are littered with,"yes AM, yes NBBTB, but X".

X works. X is beyond description.

 

Put it this way, it is called Unknowable, for a reason. Or Emptiness. Or Void. Or Silence. Those simply attempt, and fail, to describe what is beyond description. You can only describe or define a manifestation of it. But it, X, is Source of manifestation. All definitions emanate from that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Let me try to be more clear Ms. D. The experience of Oneness is not in question. "Complete Oneness" as in "uninterrupted Oneness" is for me. Also, by particular experience, mine, it was in encounter with Jesus that lasted only seconds. I am faithful that a constant state of the Oneness happens when we die and go to Heaven. Maybe this is where we are miscommunicating. Access vs. time and remaining in access. This to me is the difference because if I can't access it at any given time, then I can't see that it is from within. If it were from within, then why do I not put myself there all the time and live as though?

 

What we seem to be questioning is......is this encounter with Oneness....is it Jesus, or the Source, or the Ground of Being, or any other names one might give to the Oneness experience.

 

I love you to death Ms. D., but I believe that this Oneness is Jesus. I can't compromise at this point regardless of how much I would like to. Our conversations for about the last month are littered with,"yes AM, yes NBBTB, but X".

 

Maybe time will allow me that freedom. I don't know....yet.

 

Look End3, I really appreciate your trying to explain and to understand where I am coming from. If its just a question of language (and isn't it always?) you can use the word "Jesus" for "oneness" , its OK, as long as I know that is what you mean by that word. The darn problem is that word is used for some other stuff too. I don't think there is a state of difference after death - that seems to be the major difference between us, End.

 

I love you too, End3.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

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.

Before I answer your post to me, I have to address this. Someone may have beat me to it, but I'll answer anyway.

 

I don't read Jesus saying to love him with all of our being and then love our neighbor. As neon posted earlier:

 

29"The most important one," answered Jesus, "is this: 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one.[e] 30Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.'[f] 31The second is this: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'[g]There is no commandment greater than these."

 

Where is Jesus saying to love him? When a person loves, it is God. You may call it want you wish, but it doesn't come from thinking that loving a certain man opens a person up to all love. That really boggles my mind.

 

What you are saying goes against love itself. It is laying a claim to it to which you surely realize isn't true.

 

Jesus was a beacon, not the Source.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

It's really easy. I can take the ideology from any person and use it or I can dismiss it leaving the person as they were. We are talking about symboloism. There were many "Christs" throughout history. I used the word "Christ" nature in order to get you to understand what I was saying. It is something you can relate to. If you can get past this "one and only" thinking, you will be able to see what we are saying.

 

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.

We have Kristos in the Greek, Krista in Sanskrit. Christ and Krishna, both "gods". But that isn't what is important. What is important is what one is being pointed to. They are talking about the indwelling nature in all people. "A rose is a rose by any other name."

 

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.

I can see it hurts your heart to say that you don't think that Christ is in everyone. You use words such as "Unfortunately" and other comments when you say something exclusive. You recognize this, yet you chose not to see "us."

 

And, yes, of course they would have the "Christ within" them. That is my entire point.

 

Colossians 3

Rules for Holy Living

1Since, then, you have been raised with Christ, set your hearts on things above, where Christ is seated at the right hand of God. 2Set your minds on things above, not on earthly things. 3For you died, and your life is now hidden with Christ in God. 4When Christ, who is your[a] life, appears, then you also will appear with him in glory.

 

5Put to death, therefore, whatever belongs to your earthly nature: sexual immorality, impurity, lust, evil desires and greed, which is idolatry. 6Because of these, the wrath of God is coming. 7You used to walk in these ways, in the life you once lived. 8But now you must rid yourselves of all such things as these: anger, rage, malice, slander, and filthy language from your lips. 9Do not lie to each other, since you have taken off your old self with its practices 10and have put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge in the image of its Creator. 11Here there is no Greek or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all, and is in all.

 

12Therefore, as God's chosen people, holy and dearly loved, clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience. 13Bear with each other and forgive whatever grievances you may have against one another. Forgive as the Lord forgave you. 14And over all these virtues put on love, which binds them all together in perfect unity.

 

I can see the correlation between this thinking above and Buddhism and Hinduism. This is enlightenment, nirvana, the dying of the ego, etc. This is Buddha nature, Christ nature, Krishna nature (or Atman)... There is what they all were pointing to. If you worship the one pointing, you don't understand.

 

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

 

Peace, Love, and Soul

Larry

I think you need to open your heart and soul a little. You'll feel better not having to use so many disclaimers. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To put this as an example, if a tribe in a completely different culture worships the ideals and nature of Jesus Christ without knowing Him by name, would they be saved? I would think yes, since the Bible tells us that God makes His nature plain to everyone no matter who you are or where you live.

 

Christ's love is for everyone. Everyone can obtain it. Yet I believe that one can only obtain the full nature of this love (as I have explained before) through the placement of that love in the one true God. It is not found inherently within us, it is something we must be given by God when we accept His Son as our Lord and Savior.

Larry,

 

Those two paragraphs are at odds with each other. I don't understand how you can think the first paragraph to be true yet still state the second one?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To put it plainly, I agree with your definition of what the Love of Christ is, where I disagree is your application of said definition. Love is obtaining a Higher Consciousness, but it is not becoming that Love (or God) it is emulating that Love to the best of your ability. Love is obtaining a Higher Consciousness, but it is not placing that Love on ourselves, it's realizing that love found in the one who gave you that love in the first place.

 

The Oneness that AM is describing, and you are saying emulating.....I think he is saying that the Oneness that I believe will happen in Heaven is achievable now. Jesus talks about being in the Father as the Father is in us. The only difference....Jesus was already in the Father as well as the Father in Him. We have the Father in us, but not yet are in the Father. Again, I think what AM and NBBTB are saying is that this union that we/I will take place in Heaven can happen now....the description of "no words"...which I believe as well. I though, don't think we can remain in that for more than just brief glimpses. It is thought, when you see it.....darned hopefilled and joyful.

 

The point: I doubt there will be many concessions other than through the means that we understand this.

End, you do understand! :wub:

 

Yes, Jesus had huge glimpses into this oneness and was able to still help others "see" it.

 

I agree...I would love to have more than just little, bitty, glimpses myself. But, we couldn't function if we did. We still live in a dualistic world and in order to function, we must play and treat it like a dance. Do you have any suggestions? I can't even seem to dance without getting angry at my feet...metaphorically speaking. :HaHa:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.