The Mechanism For Knowing God Through Christ

[Guest end3]

 

Most certainly.

Good. Then we both know that a lot of our miscommunication can basically be blamed on the constricts of language. It's unfortunate, but true.

 

This is almost exactly the point.....and I believe it to be true that language is a problem, but ultimately what I think I am trying to describe is maintaining a level of openness to the point of suffering ourselves to know what the other person is trying to say. I think there are times when it can't be done, but within the attempt, the manifestation of God becomes evident to the other party.

 

Let me answer theses questions to support my theory.

 

So you expect me to respect you when you are being disrespectful to me?

No, I expect me to be respectful and patient and longsuffering.

 

If you keep on discrediting my view, I will keep on discrediting yours.

I should work within wisdom to understand your view in forthcoming truth, etc.

 

Unfortunately, most of your arguments against me are based on complete misunderstanding on your part. I can't give anything of what I've said in any more straight way, but the fact is that we talk different languages.

Maybe I am not listening with the ability to hear due to my pride/ego.

 

If you keep on throwing the Christian Blanket over everything and discredit science to explain anything, we won't be able to talk. And if you keep on misrepresenting my views, you will keep on missing my points. So in the end, End, you will never learn anything from me.

 

Right, no Unity, no Oneness, no peace.

[Ouroboros]

This is almost exactly the point.....and I believe it to be true that language is a problem, but ultimately what I think I am trying to describe is maintaining a level of openness to the point of suffering ourselves to know what the other person is trying to say.

I don't know what "suffering ourselves to know" means.

 

I think there are times when it can't be done, but within the attempt, the manifestation of God becomes evident to the other party.

I'm certain that our views and perspectives of what God is are different from each other.

 

The question back to you would be "which God?"

[Guest end3]

I don't know what "suffering ourselves to know" means.

 

I would take it to mean whatever quality it is that one might endure to understand the other. For example, with children, to identify or validate them at their level, one might have to stop and play trucks or Power Rangers or whatever. The suffering might be that it takes you away from your golf game that you had planned. But, the "suffering" validates the child an makes them feel "known" and more importantly, loved. I would think that love would be the primary manifestation of God.

 

 

I'm certain that our views and perspectives of what God is are different from each other.

I am remembering you alluding to the Universe. I believe in the Christian God as defined as such, but to me nature on Earth appears largely the same.....a balance between things in relationships with each other, knowing each other, and dying next to each other.

[Ouroboros]

I don't know what "suffering ourselves to know" means.

 

I would take it to mean whatever quality it is that one might endure to understand the other. For example, with children, to identify or validate them at their level, one might have to stop and play trucks or Power Rangers or whatever. The suffering might be that it takes you away from your golf game that you had planned.

That's what Economists call opportunity cost. What you lose by doing something. You do X, which means you can't do Y. And it's about what you gain is larger than what you lose.

 

But, the "suffering" validates the child an makes them feel "known" and more importantly, loved. I would think that love would be the primary manifestation of God.

What you mean "that love" being the "primary manifestation"?

 

Do you intend to say that this behavior in people has a supernatural source? And that source must be God? That people do altruistic things means God created it in them?

 

I'm certain that our views and perspectives of what God is are different from each other.

I am remembering you alluding to the Universe. I believe in the Christian God as defined as such, but to me nature on Earth appears largely the same.....a balance between things in relationships with each other, knowing each other, and dying next to each other.

More than the Universe. Not just the Universe.

 

And the balance, you can see it all over the place. In the Universe, but also in religious beliefs and religious myths. There's always a need for counterparts. Good vs evil. Sin vs righteousness. Death vs life. And so on.

[Guest end3]

What you mean "that love" being the "primary manifestation"?

 

That Love/God is the "larger gain"......that "suffering" IS the mechanism for producing love.

 

Do you intend to say that this behavior in people has a supernatural source? And that source must be God? That people do altruistic things means God created it in them?

 

Just talking about a mechanism at this point. I think the mechanism is true to all.

 

Edit: Just look at the thread today that is competing with this thread. "Is it impossible to communicate with a fundy"? It's everywhere. I just feel certain that God is essentially Love and that to communicate, we must "suffer" some loss, die to self, as Christians say, so that the other person feels the manifestation or God.

[Ouroboros]

What you mean "that love" being the "primary manifestation"?

 

That Love/God is the "larger gain"......that "suffering" IS the mechanism for producing love.

I see a problem of equating God with Love. I see love as an expression, God is a noun or object. It's like saying, Green and Grass are the same things. And they're not. Grass can be green, but other things can be green as well.

 

So I assume that what you really mean is that God is the source of love. But how? Is love something like a vitamin or energy drink? A substance that we need to be filled with? I don't think it is. I think, again, love is action, not a "thing."

 

And suffering as the mechanism to produce love, I'm not so sure about that. I believe love can be expressed through suffering, but not necessarily that it must only be expressed that way. I think what you're saying that love is only when we give of ourselves and not expect something back. It's the non-selfish and sacrificing kind of love. I guess this depends on how we want to qualify or define what love is. It would assume that a phrase like "self-love" is a false statement, that "love" in that expression isn't love at all. Or to say that "I love potatoes" would also qualify as a false love. Basically, I think that you are talking about just one specific kind of love, the love that is sacrificing in nature. But then, it would be a kind of circular argument. To say, "self-sacrificing and suffering love, is the only true love because it is self-sacrificing and suffering," doesn't really prove anything, it only states a presumed axiom, a stipulation of sorts. But sure, if we say that only true love is suffering love, then suffering love is the only true love. It doesn't prove anything though, but maybe that's not what you're after anyway.

 

Do you intend to say that this behavior in people has a supernatural source? And that source must be God? That people do altruistic things means God created it in them?

 

Just talking about a mechanism at this point. I think the mechanism is true to all.

I believe that self-sacrifice and suffering is part of a much larger concept of evolved consciousness and social co-operation. Without it, we wouldn't be as successful as a species. It's required for our social progress.

 

Edit: Just look at the thread today that is competing with this thread. "Is it impossible to communicate with a fundy"? It's everywhere. I just feel certain that God is essentially Love and that to communicate, we must "suffer" some loss, die to self, as Christians say, so that the other person feels the manifestation or God.

I see. You want to preach by example instead of words, right? To sacrifice yourself for the higher cause and to prove to others that you have this unselfish character (presumable from God). I think that's honorable, and I suspect it would have a lot more effect than words (which we see way too much of from the apologists and philosophical Christians argue to prove Christianity, instead of proving be being). Actions talk louder than words. Agree?

 

---

 

On another note, do you know that some animals show altruistic behavior? There are animals who will protect their young, and even their tribe, by putting themselves in danger. They are willing to sacrifice themselves for the benefit of the group. Would that be an expression of God as well? If so, I see Nature as the guiding force and God for this to be true.

[Guest end3]

I see a problem of equating God with Love. I see love as an expression, God is a noun or object. It's like saying, Green and Grass are the same things. And they're not. Grass can be green, but other things can be green as well. So I assume that what you really mean is that God is the source of love. But how? Is love something like a vitamin or energy drink? A substance that we need to be filled with? I don't think it is. I think, again, love is action, not a "thing."

I agree. I don't know if God has form except through Christ for Christians. I see love as the most likely think being identified with God. Does love have a specific form? I think it would be similar to faith and works in that how do you manifest love except by faith AND a work...in this case, an action as you say. How can the manifestation take place unless there is an action that precipitates it.

 

And suffering as the mechanism to produce love, I'm not so sure about that. I believe love can be expressed through suffering, but not necessarily that it must only be expressed that way. I think what you're saying that love is only when we give of ourselves and not expect something back. It's the non-selfish and sacrificing kind of love. I guess this depends on how we want to qualify or define what love is. It would assume that a phrase like "self-love" is a false statement, that "love" in that expression isn't love at all. Or to say that "I love potatoes" would also qualify as a false love. Basically, I think that you are talking about just one specific kind of love, the love that is sacrificing in nature. But then, it would be a kind of circular argument. To say, "self-sacrificing and suffering love, is the only true love because it is self-sacrificing and suffering," doesn't really prove anything, it only states a presumed axiom, a stipulation of sorts. But sure, if we say that only true love is suffering love, then suffering love is the only true love. It doesn't prove anything though, but maybe that's not what you're after anyway.

 

I think we DO get something back....we get the manifestation back to us....the sincere love of a trusting relationship from the person we did it to, or just the satisfaction of a good and open relationship still remaining for future growth. In other words, we didn't kill or do detriment to the relationship.

 

Do you intend to say that this behavior in people has a supernatural source? And that source must be God? That people do altruistic things means God created it in them?

 

I faithfully lean that way.

 

I see. You want to preach by example instead of words, right? To sacrifice yourself for the higher cause and to prove to others that you have this unselfish character (presumable from God). I think that's honorable, and I suspect it would have a lot more effect than words (which we see way too much of from the apologists and philosophical Christians argue to prove Christianity, instead of proving be being). Actions talk louder than words. Agree?

 

I think it still speaks to faith and works.....one without the other appears dead. ---

 

On another note, do you know that some animals show altruistic behavior? There are animals who will protect their young, and even their tribe, by putting themselves in danger. They are willing to sacrifice themselves for the benefit of the group. Would that be an expression of God as well? If so, I see Nature as the guiding force and God for this to be true.

I don't know why the form shouldn't display the same message.

 

Edit: eternal life is defined as:

Jhn 17:3 Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.

 

I ask myself, what is it that I know through Christ? I know someone who knows me, a relationship, love, and that I am learning to know Him. So Christ brings us a covenant, a mechanism, to know.

[Legion]

End have I ever told you about the time I first saw the movie "Jesus of Nazereth"? I must have been about 5 years old at the time. My mom was asleep next to me when they crucified him. I remember thinking, "how could we do this to such a good man?"

 

I think the story of Jesus, at its best, awakens the compassion of people. Maybe that's the "mechanism of knowing God through Christ."

[Ouroboros]

I agree. I don't know if God has a form except through Christ for Christians.

You mean as in physical form? Didn't Moses see God's back? Didn't Adam and Eve talk to God in the garden? So your God must have some form according to your book. Right?

 

I see love as the most likely think being identified with God. Does love have a specific form? I think it would be similar to faith and works in that how do you manifest love except by faith AND a work...in this case, an action as you say. How can the manifestation take place unless there is an action that precipitates it.

But that's exactly it. If God is a form or not, or a being or not, really doesn't affect that Love isn't a form but rather an abstract. You can't touch or weigh love. It's a feeling and an action. So how can God be the source of it? He puts the feeling in us? But doesn't he have the same feeling, so who puts the feeling in him? Is he self-generating it into himself? Or would you agree that love is a power way beyond God?

 

I think we DO get something back....we get the manifestation back to us....the sincere love of a trusting relationship from the person we did it to, or just the satisfaction of a good and open relationship still remaining for future growth. In other words, we didn't kill or do detriment to the relationship.

So then it's not completely unselfish. If love comes with some kind of reciprocation, is it still pure and true love?

 

Do you intend to say that this behavior in people has a supernatural source? And that source must be God? That people do altruistic things means God created it in them?

 

I faithfully lean that way.

So how about animals showing the same behavior? God created it in them? How about the animals that only show selfish behavior and have no altruistic behavior? Did God intentionally leave those out?

 

I think it still speaks to faith and works.....one without the other appears dead. ---

Faith? Why would faith be mixed into love? Are you expanding the topic?

 

I don't know why the form shouldn't display the same message.

To me, it shows that love and altruism is a necessity for social structure. The animals that show these behaviors manage to live in groups and keep the whole group safe.

 

Hugging chimps:

 

Did you know that chimps use tools and weapons? And they teach their offspring to use them too? Or did you know that many ape cultures have different greetings and handshakes? Or that they groom each other for showing something we easily would consider to be affection and love?

[Guest end3]

You mean as in physical form? Didn't Moses see God's back? Didn't Adam and Eve talk to God in the garden? So your God must have some form according to your book. Right?

 

I would think so, but I don't recall any descriptions in either of those accounts, you?

 

But that's exactly it. If God is a form or not, or a being or not, really doesn't affect that Love isn't a form but rather an abstract. You can't touch or weigh love. It's a feeling and an action. So how can God be the source of it? He puts the feeling in us? But doesn't he have the same feeling, so who puts the feeling in him? Is he self-generating it into himself? Or would you agree that love is a power way beyond God?

 

Why couldn't the mechanism be defined by the processes of a relationship?....the pushes and pulls? He would be the source as defined by what was created and how it all relates to itself. For example, A+B = C. Now, A suffering B = love. Kind of interesting

 

Love = A suffering B

Love - B = A suffering

Love - A = B suffering

B + Love = A suffering (loss of self)

A + Love = B suffering (loss of self)

 

So then it's not completely unselfish. If love comes with some kind of reciprocation, is it still pure and true love

 

Take the Christ example

 

I am equating God as Love for this example

 

Pure Love = Christ ~ humanity. What I see is the Christ transferring pure or true love to humanity, but the equality is broken by man's inability to make it equal, so Jesus makes the inequality valid through the relationship....the new Covenant.

 

So how about animals showing the same behavior? God created it in them? How about the animals that only show selfish behavior and have no altruistic behavior? Did God intentionally leave those out?

 

You might give me some examples....I haven't considered it much outside of humanity.

 

To me, it shows that love and altruism is a necessity for social structure. The animals that show these behaviors manage to live in groups and keep the whole group safe.

 

Safe in like salvation?

 

Did you know that chimps use tools and weapons? And they teach their offspring to use them too? Or did you know that many ape cultures have different greetings and handshakes? Or that they groom each other for showing something we easily would consider to be affection and love?

 

I guess I am missing the point Hans.

 

Edit: btw....look at asanerman's status on the right of the main page at the moment.

[Guest end3]

End have I ever told you about the time I first saw the movie "Jesus of Nazereth"? I must have been about 5 years old at the time. My mom was asleep next to me when they crucified him. I remember thinking, "how could we do this to such a good man?"

 

I think the story of Jesus, at its best, awakens the compassion of people. Maybe that's the "mechanism of knowing God through Christ."

 

probably a safe bet

[Ouroboros]

But that's exactly it. If God is a form or not, or a being or not, really doesn't affect that Love isn't a form but rather an abstract. You can't touch or weigh love. It's a feeling and an action. So how can God be the source of it? He puts the feeling in us? But doesn't he have the same feeling, so who puts the feeling in him? Is he self-generating it into himself? Or would you agree that love is a power way beyond God?

 

Why couldn't the mechanism be defined by the processes of a relationship?....the pushes and pulls? He would be the source as defined by what was created and how it all relates to itself. For example, A+B = C. Now, A suffering B = love. Kind of interesting

 

Love = A suffering B

Love - B = A suffering

Love - A = B suffering

B + Love = A suffering (loss of self)

A + Love = B suffering (loss of self)

You're absolute right. My response earlier was to one of your posts where you indicated that "love" somehow comes from God. And I fail to see how that works in practical terms. Love is something a person does, and not something a person gets from someone else so he can later do it. Love isn't a gift-wrapped thing that a person can get from God, so he or she later can be "loving" to someone else. Love is innate in nature and being itself. It doesn't come from someone except from the person who does the loving act.

 

Take the Christ example

 

I am equating God as Love for this example

 

Pure Love = Christ ~ humanity. What I see is the Christ transferring pure or true love to humanity, but the equality is broken by man's inability to make it equal, so Jesus makes the inequality valid through the relationship....the new Covenant.

I believe people were able to show pure love before Jesus. There are older texts than the New Testament, Greek dramas and literature, and religious texts from India, etc, that describe unconditional and sacrificing love. Jesus wasn't first.

 

You might give me some examples....I haven't considered it much outside of humanity.

There are apes who walk around and guard the tribe, putting themselves in danger. There are other apes (and other species) where they have guards, and when they see a threat, they scream or give signal, which reveals where they are but warns the tribe. So the guard is put in danger. There are many examples of animals protecting their kids from threats. Many birds does it. For instance, some birds when they are threatened by a predator, one or both of the parents will fly away from the nest to lure the predator away from the babies, risking their own lives to preserve the children. And so on.

 

To me, it shows that love and altruism is a necessity for social structure. The animals that show these behaviors manage to live in groups and keep the whole group safe.

 

Safe in like salvation?

Safe as in not being threatened by predators, death, harm, sickness, war, ...

 

Did you know that chimps use tools and weapons? And they teach their offspring to use them too? Or did you know that many ape cultures have different greetings and handshakes? Or that they groom each other for showing something we easily would consider to be affection and love?

 

I guess I am missing the point Hans.

I see how nature provides examples and evidence that lower species of animals have similar (or simpler) versions of our behaviors and feelings. I truly believe that some animals can feel love, they just don't know how to express it in words. Or put it this way, what we consider to "feel love" or act lovingly, are to a large degree the same feelings and actions many animals show. Hence, I believe we are in unity with nature, and nature is our true God, not Jesus.

 

Jesus is just a poetic version of our inner beings. We, humans, have created this image (Jesus) to show what we consider to be the perfect love. Jesus is a symbol for what we consider pure love. That doesn't mean that Jesus exists or that Jesus was first, it only means that we (the first Christians) created this image to express our (humans) inner understanding of pure love.

 

So, if you take and use Jesus as such an image or symbol, I can understand it. However, I fail to see why Jesus would have to be a real person in the past or now. The symbol is what is important, not the making of the symbol to become literal.

[Ouroboros]

Edit: btw....look at asanerman's status on the right of the main page at the moment.

From Wikipedia:

"Nature Boy" is a song by Eden Ahbez, published in 1947. The song tells a fantasy of a "strange enchanted boy... who wandered very far" only to learn that "the greatest thing... was just to love and be loved in return".

 

You see, the fantasy or story of a person can touch us and tell us what love is. That's what Jesus is. A story, which reflects our inner feelings about love. But ultimately, this feeling grew out of the jungle. We need it. We want it. And our society wouldn't survive without it.

 

Did you know that Bonobos (a sub-species of apes) share their food equally? They make sure everyone gets a piece and not let one take it all.

[Guest end3]

Edit: btw....look at asanerman's status on the right of the main page at the moment.

From Wikipedia:

"Nature Boy" is a song by Eden Ahbez, published in 1947. The song tells a fantasy of a "strange enchanted boy... who wandered very far" only to learn that "the greatest thing... was just to love and be loved in return".

 

You see, the fantasy or story of a person can touch us and tell us what love is. That's what Jesus is. A story, which reflects our inner feelings about love. But ultimately, this feeling grew out of the jungle. We need it. We want it. And our society wouldn't survive without it.

 

Did you know that Bonobos (a sub-species of apes) share their food equally? They make sure everyone gets a piece and not let one take it all.

 

Well, you have obviously considered this more than I have, and I am actually surprised(pleasently) at your answers. This concept is new to me, but seems vital. I shall keep searching on my end.

 

I'll have to see if I can find that tune....thanks for the info.

 

Edit: Found it! a version by Nat King Cole.

[Ouroboros]

Well, you have obviously considered this more than I have, and I am actually surprised(pleasently) at your answers. This concept is new to me, but seems vital. I shall keep searching on my end.

Please do.

 

Here's some other interesting stuff about apes, some of them have learned cultures. There are tribes of apes that have handshakes, and what is interesting is that other tribes of the same species have developed other kinds of handshakes and cultural behaviors, yet they're the exact same species. They inherit the behaviors from their parents.

 

And here's another interesting thing about some animals, some of them have what is called a "closed system" language. They have different sounds for different kinds of threats, food, and such. It's like they only can do the noun part of language. And apes can even do subject-verb combination. The only thing they can't do is subject-verb-object or more complex sentence structures. And it seems, according to some research, that this is related to that we humans have a better short-term memory.

 

Did you know that humans and chimps are closer genetically that horses and donkeys? And one research done in Korea (I think it was) they induced a human ova with chimp semen, and it was fertile, but they stopped the cell-splitting after a few days (moral issue, of course). But our DNA is compatible.

 

Kind of strange that God made it that way.

 

I'll have to see if I can find that tune....thanks for the info.

To me, reality, nature, the universe, everything, is bigger than Yahweh. Yahweh is separated from us and all that we know exists. But my so-called "God" is everything. So if your God exists, my God is both your God and everything else. Which one do you think is bigger?

 

And this means that love as experienced and shown by us humans, is part of my God as well. But we are also part of it. And we are the expression of that love. Without us, there wouldn't be any discussion about love.

 

There wouldn't be any music without musicians...

[Phanta]

I think the thing that jumps out at me if I feel that I am with God is the learning to consider empathy as my primary thought(s), with regard to considering a situation. That feeling is not always present for me.

 

It's taking practice with me, but I am getting much better at it.

 

How can you know that it is not you who is missing a more dominant or pressing theme? The only thing you know is what is important to Ed in Ed's life. The other person generally knows their situation better than you know their situation. One aspect of their experience may look familiar to you, but the way it interacts with other aspects of their character and life experience means that what you find important to you in that same basic situation may be different than what they find important--what they need-- even in core ways. That is for them to judge.

 

Excellent point. Yeah, we do not know....but within the "mechanism", I don't think that it matters, but becomes much more of a Manifestation of "learning/knowing" when more than just one side recognizes the process.

 

Sure, thinking with love and compassion is a great mechanism for empathy. And sometimes I am aware of something that is working on my partner in discussion/work/life. I think you were alluding to this earlier. I just caution against judging that is an area others should work on in general. I might wish they would work on it, because it's an issue between us (or for me, more accurately), but it's not for me to say that it should be a priority for the other. It is, perhaps, work they will never prioritize in this lifetime, perhaps even at the expense of a relationship.

 

So "knowing" is a tricky word to use...it's easy to think it means we know what is best, rather than we have empathy. One leads to folly, the other to a better chance at support and connection. (So I prefer to just say empathy.)

 

Yes, that's right, but over time, I think the thing is to recognize people as we did as children.....humans.

 

That is my thing. I think it is a great thing!

 

Christ would retreat, we must retreat on occasion....and sometimes, you just have to let someone be, because of them being in a drastically different place of experience. Large leaps are few and far between I would bet.

 

In my experience, yeah. Everyone is not for everyone.

 

Christ, I suspect, being perfect, retreated for some other reason than being tired, seeing as Christ is supposedly Source, yes?

 

My sense is that Christians do everything and don't do everything possible for humans to do or not do in this world, including having faith that their sufficiency lies in their works.

 

Oh yeah. I was looking at a Christian forum the other day. They were discussing transformation as BAM, you are now in perfect mode. I don't see that at all, nor have I experienced that for myself. "Glory to glory" would be a Christian-eze term for the stairstepping nature of revelation....or just simply maturing. The difference is, IMO, that the Bible and Spirit work together to give people unexpected jumps of understanding.....in conjuction most likely with God's will for them. That would be definately an IMO.

 

Yeah, their view is narrower. Yours is wider, to include your own experiences. And mine is even wider, to include my experience, non-Biblical jumps of wisdom and understanding (often through reading Buddhist philosophy).

 

Good thought. I think the validation is an intial step in the process P. It takes someone else's suffering if you will, to stand us back up as people.....then giving us the freedom to use our gifts to then stand someone else up as we mature. I see you as a stubborn flower that was knocked down a few times, but keeps standing her ownself up.

 

Thanks for writing that, Ed, about me standing back up. That feels good to read. I do have a lot of good people in my life who pull me up by the elbows, too.

 

Edit: fwiw....have you noticed how many conversations you witness don't get this concept we have been discussing and literally don't see it, because they are just unable to from being in a different place?

 

This concept and many others, for sure. And when I am in a compassionate place, I don't point it out to those who aren't interested in that. And then, there are the other times... Oops!

 

Phanta

[Phanta]

 

Edit: fwiw....have you noticed how many conversations you witness don't get this concept we have been discussing and literally don't see it, because they are just unable to from being in a different place?

 

Or it's reversed.

 

It's an inevitability of human limitedness, that others will always know some things deeper than us, and us deeper than them. We cannot have all experiences. If we did, our lives would have to be very long!

 

Phanta

[Guest end3]

ecoSure, thinking with love and compassion is a great mechanism for empathy. And sometimes I am aware of something that is working on my partner in discussion/work/life. I think you were alluding to this earlier. I just caution against judging that is an area others should work on in general. I might wish they would work on it, because it's an issue between us (or for me, more accurately), but it's not for me to say that it should be a priority for the other. It is, perhaps, work they will never prioritize in this lifetime, perhaps even at the expense of a relationship.

 

I disagree with the bolded a little P. I think it is truly good news for us to share the method for knowing and being known. But I also agree in a sense that some are "lost" from the mechanism for whatever reason. I think if some knew clearly, they might have a change of heart. Experience seems somewhat vital....."good soil" if you will.

And here's the point.....I don't see that it is something to be rejected based solely on a name, but evaluated on it's merits.

 

 

So "knowing" is a tricky word to use...it's easy to think it means we know what is best, rather than we have empathy. One leads to folly, the other to a better chance at support and connection. (So I prefer to just say empathy.)

 

I agree, "knowing" could put yourself in the wrong position.

 

Christ, I suspect, being perfect, retreated for some other reason than being tired, seeing as Christ is supposedly Source, yes?

 

Prayer mostly, if I recall correctly....

 

This concept and many others, for sure. And when I am in a compassionate place, I don't point it out to those who aren't interested in that. And then, there are the other times... Oops!

 

Oops is a nice word....lol.

[Phanta]

You didn't bold anything.

[Guest end3]

Sorry.

 

 

ecoSure, thinking with love and compassion is a great mechanism for empathy. And sometimes I am aware of something that is working on my partner in discussion/work/life. I think you were alluding to this earlier. I just caution against judging that is an area others should work on in general. I might wish they would work on it, because it's an issue between us (or for me, more accurately), but it's not for me to say that it should be a priority for the other. It is, perhaps, work they will never prioritize in this lifetime, perhaps even at the expense of a relationship.

 

I disagree with the bolded a little P. I think it is truly good news for us to share the method for knowing and being known. But I also agree in a sense that some are "lost" from the mechanism for whatever reason. I think if some knew clearly, they might have a change of heart. Experience seems somewhat vital....."good soil" if you will.

And here's the point.....I don't see that it is something to be rejected based solely on a name, but evaluated on it's merits.

 

 

So "knowing" is a tricky word to use...it's easy to think it means we know what is best, rather than we have empathy. One leads to folly, the other to a better chance at support and connection. (So I prefer to just say empathy.)

 

I agree, "knowing" could put yourself in the wrong position.

 

Christ, I suspect, being perfect, retreated for some other reason than being tired, seeing as Christ is supposedly Source, yes?

 

Prayer mostly, if I recall correctly....

 

This concept and many others, for sure. And when I am in a compassionate place, I don't point it out to those who aren't interested in that. And then, there are the other times... Oops!

 

Oops is a nice word....lol.

[Phanta]

Sorry.

 

 

ecoSure, thinking with love and compassion is a great mechanism for empathy. And sometimes I am aware of something that is working on my partner in discussion/work/life. I think you were alluding to this earlier. I just caution against judging that is an area others should work on in general. I might wish they would work on it, because it's an issue between us (or for me, more accurately), but it's not for me to say that it should be a priority for the other. It is, perhaps, work they will never prioritize in this lifetime, perhaps even at the expense of a relationship.

 

Wow! You are quick to give up your autonomy.

 

So...in what format would you like your new life priorities? Is a list here fine, or would you prefer a PM? I can also do Powerpoint.

 

Phanta

[Guest end3]

Sorry.

 

 

ecoSure, thinking with love and compassion is a great mechanism for empathy. And sometimes I am aware of something that is working on my partner in discussion/work/life. I think you were alluding to this earlier. I just caution against judging that is an area others should work on in general. I might wish they would work on it, because it's an issue between us (or for me, more accurately), but it's not for me to say that it should be a priority for the other. It is, perhaps, work they will never prioritize in this lifetime, perhaps even at the expense of a relationship.

 

Wow! You are quick to give up your autonomy.

 

So...in what format would you like your new life priorities? Is a list here fine, or would you prefer a PM? I can also do Powerpoint.

 

Phanta

 

Powerpoint with pictures please . I think if we run the process to an end, what is more freeing than independence WITH love and acceptance?