Value Of The Christian, "knock Out Blow."

[MormonJesus]

Antlerman: “But if you understand that these forms of God in the Christian context are in fact "fingers pointing at the moon", then you understand that call it what you will, it's the same thing in all religions.”

 

I wholeheartedly agree. Modern Christianity is a minor variation on a theme that is present in all major religions.

 

Antlerman: “In reality however, the thing that I see traditional Christianity lagging behind in is that they don't have any real practical means to realize what you say they should be in quoting John 17:3. For most 'believers' it's nothing more than a mental acknowledgment, an external thing to 'believe in'.” (Emphasis mine.)

 

Again, I wholeheartedly agree. Modern Christians are in the process of de-emphasizing the miraculous (i.e. supernatural) aspects of their religion. Stripped of its supernatural aspects, Christianity is essentially without credibility.

 

End3: “I would think that is why Jesus was manifested.....God knows Jesus, Jesus did His job in making Himself known to those God gave Him, and He says to those, you go out and do this to others. So no, I don't see it as supernatural.”

 

To me, this seems like a a good example of a modern Christian attempting to de-emphasize the supernatural aspects of his religion..(How can the “manifestation” of a supernatural being be seen as anything other than a supernatural event?)

 

I probably don’t understand what you’re trying to say, here--sorry about that. If that's not what you mean, you'll have to give me more info to work with.

[Guest end3]

End3: “I would think that is why Jesus was manifested.....God knows Jesus, Jesus did His job in making Himself known to those God gave Him, and He says to those, you go out and do this to others. So no, I don't see it as supernatural.”

 

To me, this seems like a a good example of a modern Christian attempting to de-emphasize the supernatural aspects of his religion..(How can the “manifestation” of a supernatural being be seen as anything other than a supernatural event?)

 

I probably don’t understand what you’re trying to say, here--sorry about that. If that's not what you mean, you'll have to give me more info to work with.

 

Just saying that if Jesus was born/lived as the story/doctrine states, then this would be supernatural. Specifically, I don't recognize Christ as being just an enlightened human without any supernatural aspects because it is easy for me to recognize my own limitations. The functionality or methodology to spread Christianity post Christ is now both supernatural and natural IMO. The natural part being the recognition of God in our own manifestations. I don't see how this can be refuted per Anterman as he points out that we are essentially God in a certain state.

[Antlerman]

Is it synonymous to prayer? No. It is not. Though prayer is in itself a form of mediation, a part of the practice, but meditation itself is a state of conscious awareness. Prayer may help you move into that state, but it is not synonymous with the state of meditation itself. It is within that state that there is an understanding that no amount of theorizing, models, theologies, doctrines, beliefs, reasoning, rationalities, logic, or any other mental activity can penetrate.

Yes, but one does not achieve that state solely through meditation.

 

I guarantee it's not a lateral move. It's a vertical move, above where you are presently, not just changing religions or beliefs laterally.

What I meant is what purpose would singularly achieving some higher conscousness be unless it was laterally meaningful as well.

Well, yes I agree. Although we shouldn't minimize the importance of these higher states, even if they are not yet realized as a permanent stage of development. These 'peak experience' serve to open you up to reality beyond the 'normal' consensus reality we are presently embedded within, depending on the stage of our development. They serve to draw you higher, towards adaptation. Higher states, lead one to grow into higher stages.

 

Yes, to just go experience seeking is not the point. You need to learn to integrate it, and then, 'by their fruits you shall know them'. It doesn't matter which religion you're part of. How you believe is not the point. Spiritual transformation is. As long as it works. Christian, or otherwise.

 

I heard an interesting comment by a Christian leader recently (can't recall his name). He said, "Christianity hasn't actually failed in the world. It's never be tried yet". I like that. This explains a lot. "By their fruits you shall know them", not by their 'right' beliefs.

 

I agree it is one prong of knowing itself. But when it comes to understanding spiritual truth directly, it is in fact the only way. Let's say you want to examine distant galaxies. The only way to do it is to use a type of telescope, something that allows you to peer into the distant space. You don't use a microscope. But to try to understand it with the mind, then you come up with various ways to talk about it, like your religion does. Don't mistake the ways to talk about the galaxies, with the galaxies themselves.

 

Fingers pointing at the moon, is not the moon itself.

It's the faith without works argument. And your point I believe with standard issue religion. (Don't know if you are discussing meditation here, but if you say that is the only way, then I disagree)

I am saying meditation is the only way, and I look forward to you explaining what other way you believe works.

 

I've already experienced resurrection. It has nothing to do with resuscitating human corpses from biological rot. Death and resurrection are common themes in religion. They are about spiritual awakening, not miracle zombies.

 

A nuance not many people are willing to accept. They don't want to consider that through practice they are now a part of the tree rather than outside the tree.

But why don't they want to know that? I know. It's fear. That is why.

 

But, with that said, doctrine says the uniting happens later.

No. And that is the core problem with Christianity and why people remain infants. Unity is fully available right now, right here. Jesus said so, "[i pray]that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us." Hmmm.... what does he say in the Gospel of Thomas?

 

"Jesus said, "If those who lead you say to you, 'See, the kingdom is in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you. If they say to you, 'It is in the sea,' then the fish will precede you. Rather, the kingdom is inside of you, and it is outside of you. When you come to know yourselves, then you will become known, and you will realize that it is you who are the sons of the living father. But if you will not know yourselves, you dwell in poverty and it is you who are that poverty."

 

Wow, looks like Enlightenment exposes that Unity in us! And of course my favorite saying,

 

"That which you have will save you if you bring it forth from yourselves. That which you do not have within you will kill you if you do not have it within you."

 

Why do you believe you cannot know this in yourself now? According to mystics the world over, and according to Jesus found in the rediscovery of the Gospel of Thomas, you already have it in you. It's what I've been saying, and it's what Jesus said right here above.

 

But I see your poiint as well. Some folks just can't go there. We ask ourselves, what is the Kingdom of God,.......pretty sure it's that joy I get listening to my children laugh.....I could elaborate, but am sure you understand.

Yes, it's in that and in all things. But you can't know what that even means. It's not something exclusive to Christianity.

[Guest end3]

Yes, to just go experience seeking is not the point. You need to learn to integrate it, and then, 'by their fruits you shall know them'. It doesn't matter which religion you're part of. How you believe is not the point. Spiritual transformation is. As long as it works. Christian, or otherwise.

I don't know that I agree with "as long as it works". The natural world doesn't come to its reality by nth different directions....IMO. I wouldn't see the spiritual nature to be any different. I would expect the stories/myths to make one of themselves more certain than the others. Maybe not.

 

I heard an interesting comment by a Christian leader recently (can't recall his name). He said, "Christianity hasn't actually failed in the world. It's never be tried yet". I like that. This explains a lot. "By their fruits you shall know them", not by their 'right' beliefs.

 

Yes, but incorrect instruction doesn't lead to a beautiful fruit cobbler.

 

 

 

I am saying meditation is the only way, and I look forward to you explaining what other way you believe works.

Seeing God in someone else. For that matter, all of the senses probably play a role. If you are saying it has to go through the mind, then yes by default. If "God" can move vertically and laterally, then exposure can come from either direction.

 

But why don't they want to know that? I know. It's fear. That is why.

Many reasons. One, if I am remembering correctly, Jesus didn't want to equate Himself to God. And two, for ME, it's pretty straightforward that my midset spends more time outside of that higher state than in.

 

 

No. And that is the core problem with Christianity and why people remain infants. Unity is fully available right now, right here. Jesus said so, "[i pray]that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us." Hmmm.... what does he say in the Gospel of Thomas?

And it says we are capable of agape love as well. Truthfully, I don't know why there are campers vs hikers. I still think it has to do with the total functionality of the endeavor. There are many people in many different phases of development. Some think it vitally important, the fundamental aspect.....some Grace. That's just speculation.

 

 

"Jesus said, "If those who lead you say to you, 'See, the kingdom is in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you. If they say to you, 'It is in the sea,' then the fish will precede you. Rather, the kingdom is inside of you, and it is outside of you. When you come to know yourselves, then you will become known, and you will realize that it is you who are the sons of the living father. But if you will not know yourselves, you dwell in poverty and it is you who are that poverty."

 

Goes hand in hand that we must love ourselves before we can love others.

 

 

AM said "Wow, looks like Enlightenment exposes that Unity in us! And of course my favorite saying,

 

"That which you have will save you if you bring it forth from yourselves. That which you do not have within you will kill you if you do not have it within you."

So what can we conclude about the general population from this? If this statement is true, what is it we have from within that we can't get from outside.....and MOSTLY, where does it come from?

 

 

AM said "Why do you believe you cannot know this in yourself now? According to mystics the world over, and according to Jesus found in the rediscovery of the Gospel of Thomas, you already have it in you. It's what I've been saying, and it's what Jesus said right here above."

I can see the property in me more now than ever, but I don't see myself as the Source, rather a manifestation of the Sources Property.

 

 

AM said "Yes, it's in that and in all things. But you can't know what that even means. It's not something exclusive to Christianity."

Christianity is a competing story. Certainly it's prevalent in all things. But don't sell me short K. I see it today. and saw it yesterday. thankfully.

[Antlerman]

Yes, to just go experience seeking is not the point. You need to learn to integrate it, and then, 'by their fruits you shall know them'. It doesn't matter which religion you're part of. How you believe is not the point. Spiritual transformation is. As long as it works. Christian, or otherwise.

I don't know that I agree with "as long as it works". The natural world doesn't come to its reality by nth different directions....IMO. I wouldn't see the spiritual nature to be any different. I would expect the stories/myths to make one of themselves more certain than the others. Maybe not.

You have a couple confusion points in here, and I think this is part of the crux of your issue why you have a hard time seeing all this sometimes. I said as long as it works, it doesn't matter. I did not saying anything and all things work! Clearly not. But if some 'other path' does in fact, actually take you up the side of that mountain where at the peak we ALL stare at a single bright moon, that you are in fact producing good fruits, then how in the heck is it not valid?

 

That is the crux of why these True Believers™ who dismiss other religions because they don't have correct doctrine, don't hold True Beliefs™, are substituting beliefs for actual spiritual realization themselves. If they had that, then they could, and would, be able to see it in others. The finger pointing at the moon is not the moon itself, except to them.

 

But I agree with you that not all paths lead up that mountain. Don't mistake me saying many paths with all paths. Continued greed, envy, lust, etc., will prevent you from walking up any particular path to enlightenment.

 

I heard an interesting comment by a Christian leader recently (can't recall his name). He said, "Christianity hasn't actually failed in the world. It's never be tried yet". I like that. This explains a lot. "By their fruits you shall know them", not by their 'right' beliefs.

 

Yes, but incorrect instruction doesn't lead to a beautiful fruit cobbler.

Which I think was his point. Christianity has not yet been practiced. Where is that fruit cobbler?

 

I am saying meditation is the only way, and I look forward to you explaining what other way you believe works.

Seeing God in someone else. For that matter, all of the senses probably play a role. If you are saying it has to go through the mind, then yes by default. If "God" can move vertically and laterally, then exposure can come from either direction.

The only way to truly see God in someone else is to know it in yourself. The only way to know it in yourself is to see beyond yourself. The only way to see beyond yourself is to go inward, through meditation.

 

As you do and the world opens to you, then seeing God in others is a continuation of that meditation. It begins within. Even Jesus said this, and called it what the entire Bible itself hangs upon. "Love God with all your heart, mind, soul, and strength, and love your neighbor as yourself". It begins in the inner Realization which then fills you, then flows out to others. You become Love in the world, by becoming Love in yourself.

 

Christianity does see this, but who practices it? They see loving God as obeying a bunch of laws. It is meant as a path of interior union with the One, to use another way to speak of it. As they guy said, Christianity hasn't failed, it's never been tried. Instead, they prefer to say everyone else is wrong and they are unique in all the world's religions; substituting beliefs for actual, inner Realization.

 

But why don't they want to know that? I know. It's fear. That is why.

Many reasons. One, if I am remembering correctly, Jesus didn't want to equate Himself to God. And two, for ME, it's pretty straightforward that my midset spends more time outside of that higher state than in.

The more practice you do, the more time you spend in it. Eventually there is no other way of seeing the world. But to go there, you have to be willing to abandon what you currently hold on to that you identify with. All religions teach this. You have to die to self.

 

Did Jesus equate himself to God? "I and my Father are One"? "I pray they may be one, even as we are one"?

 

I think Christians make a huge mistake in singling Jesus out as something utterly unique. I prefer what many of the other groups of early Christians saw Jesus as, as a spiritual Master to guide them to that Unity with God in themselves. To become "like Jesus" is to become like the Buddha, to become Enlightened as he was. There are many Buddhas, not just one. It's sad actually that the church denies you that path. Is that what Jesus actually taught, that you can't become One with God?

 

No. And that is the core problem with Christianity and why people remain infants. Unity is fully available right now, right here. Jesus said so, "[i pray]that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us." Hmmm.... what does he say in the Gospel of Thomas?

And it says we are capable of agape love as well. Truthfully, I don't know why there are campers vs hikers. I still think it has to do with the total functionality of the endeavor. There are many people in many different phases of development. Some think it vitally important, the fundamental aspect.....some Grace. That's just speculation.

If we are capable of agape love, then we are as God. Yes, people are in many different phases of development. We all are. Some are highly advanced, others not. Who are your teachers? Children teaching children? Don't assume when I child reads the words of any master, he understands what is written.

 

That's the problem I see with all these churches everywhere. Who has it themselves in order to teach others? All I see is a bunch of kids reading the diaries of adults and trying to tell others what it is to be an adult, themselves having no experience to speak from. "No, you're not playing right! Off to the stake with you! You're not an adult, I am! Heretic!"

 

(continued....)

[Antlerman]

(continued....)

 

"Jesus said, "If those who lead you say to you, 'See, the kingdom is in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you. If they say to you, 'It is in the sea,' then the fish will precede you. Rather, the kingdom is inside of you, and it is outside of you. When you come to know yourselves, then you will become known, and you will realize that it is you who are the sons of the living father. But if you will not know yourselves, you dwell in poverty and it is you who are that poverty."

 

Goes hand in hand that we must love ourselves before we can love others.

Bingo. Keep going... how do we first love ourselves? What tool do you use to go deep within to find the Source of that love?

 

AM said "Wow, looks like Enlightenment exposes that Unity in us! And of course my favorite saying,

 

"That which you have will save you if you bring it forth from yourselves. That which you do not have within you will kill you if you do not have it within you."

So what can we conclude about the general population from this? If this statement is true, what is it we have from within that we can't get from outside.....and MOSTLY, where does it come from?

I see it as our true Self, our prior Self. That Source. I AM That. To touch that, to be filled with that, beyond the ego, exposes our minds to that ultimate reality. And from that, will are filled and flow out into the world with that Love. Love creates.

 

This is why it is both 'outside us', and 'inside us'. We see ourselves as separate by the mental constructions of our realities, a separate self. But the reality is we arise from that same Source, and are That in ourselves. I'm a nondualist, which means that I can see and experience that Unity within these dualities. I am both, I am neither.

 

AM said "Why do you believe you cannot know this in yourself now? According to mystics the world over, and according to Jesus found in the rediscovery of the Gospel of Thomas, you already have it in you. It's what I've been saying, and it's what Jesus said right here above."

I can see the property in me more now than ever, but I don't see myself as the Source, rather a manifestation of the Sources Property.

You will at some point, but all this so far is good. I describe it as "heaven dissolves". In meditation, that sensed Presence, that dualistic Face of 'heaven' eventually merges into yourself and you awaken as That. It is no "where" to be found, but simply is within all things, and you are That seeing through your eyes. All that arises in the world, is that and you are that. "I and my Father are One", to use that saying. That is the nondual experience.

 

AM said "Yes, it's in that and in all things. But you can't know what that even means. It's not something exclusive to Christianity."

Christianity is a competing story. Certainly it's prevalent in all things. But don't sell me short K. I see it today. and saw it yesterday. thankfully.

It's sad it's a competing story, rather than a complementary one. Don't you think? Wouldn't it be nice if it could recognize that Truth in others? Wouldn't that be serving that Truth, more than the way they currently do not?

 

I have no problems with someone following the Christian way, if they actually did. But as that Christian leader says, "Christianity really hasn't been tried yet", and by that he meant the Church has never followed it.

[Guest end3]

You have a couple confusion points in here, and I think this is part of the crux of your issue why you have a hard time seeing all this sometimes. I said as long as it works, it doesn't matter. I did not saying anything and all things work! Clearly not. But if some 'other path' does in fact, actually take you up the side of that mountain where at the peak we ALL stare at a single bright moon, that you are in fact producing good fruits, then how in the heck is it not valid?

 

That is the crux of why these True Believers™ who dismiss other religions because they don't have correct doctrine, don't hold True Beliefs™, are substituting beliefs for actual spiritual realization themselves. If they had that, then they could, and would, be able to see it in others. The finger pointing at the moon is not the moon itself, except to them.

 

But I agree with you that not all paths lead up that mountain. Don't mistake me saying many paths with all paths. Continued greed, envy, lust, etc., will prevent you from walking up any particular path to enlightenment.

To the bolded. The experiences and descriptions we have climbing the mountain are real and valid. but this doesn't necessarily prove that all paths up the mountain, i.e. all expeiences, are the correct description for the origin of the mountain and moon. I hear what you are saying about the story being a hindrance to the goal, but what I am trying to describe is that the story is necessarily important for those on a certain path at a certain time ON the path. As they traverse this same path. the importances of base camp two will not be as important to them when they are at camp four. But it is darn important when the arrive at camp 2. What I hear you saying is the camp two description hinders those on a separate path on the other side of the mountain. Why is it any less valid to not convict any of those at every camp 2 of the same offense? Also, if I have four trail guides leading groups up the mountain all telling independant stories of how the mountain and moon came about, this doesn't necessarily mean any of them have the correct story. With Christianity, the validity of the climb is based on the story.

 

 

Which I think was his point. Christianity has not yet been practiced. Where is that fruit cobbler?

You can't convict the whole result by the vast majority learning to read the receipe.

 

The only way to truly see God in someone else is to know it in yourself. The only way to know it in yourself is to see beyond yourself. The only way to see beyond yourself is to go inward, through meditation.

I don't know K. This goes to innate vs inherent. I've leaned both ways in my life.

 

 

Christianity does see this, but who practices it? They see loving God as obeying a bunch of laws. It is meant as a path of interior union with the One, to use another way to speak of it. As they guy said, Christianity hasn't failed, it's never been tried. Instead, they prefer to say everyone else is wrong and they are unique in all the world's religions; substituting beliefs for actual, inner Realization.

In my mind you are convicting those on pages 47 though 59 and discounting the FEW that make it to page 86. For example, what are the ratios of "finishedness", those we can identify as path guides within other beliefs. I think if we acknowledge this, we would decide that there are few relative to the membersihip.

 

 

. Is that what Jesus actually taught, that you can't become One with God?

I hear what you are saying, I don't personally see it as realistic. It would be great no doubt.

 

 

That's the problem I see with all these churches everywhere. Who has it themselves in order to teach others? All I see is a bunch of kids reading the diaries of adults and trying to tell others what it is to be an adult, themselves having no experience to speak from. "No, you're not playing right! Off to the stake with you! You're not an adult, I am! Heretic!"

 

So you take that attitude which is valid on occasion and then if you are not careful, you become the one carrying the rule book.

[Guest end3]

Bingo. Keep going... how do we first love ourselves? What tool do you use to go deep within to find the Source of that love?

Here are the choices i see. Security and wellness come from me knowing I am ultimately a good person despite my actions on occasion. So my options are these. I know this myself and rationalize that the only entity that really knows me is the Creation itself and faith in that. Otherwise I am left with competing manifestations of the Creation, specifically man, that leave me short of that knowing.....always pointing out how their own necessity to be known.

 

 

I see it as our true Self, our prior Self. That Source. I AM That. To touch that, to be filled with that, beyond the ego, exposes our minds to that ultimate reality. And from that, will are filled and flow out into the world with that Love. Love creates.

Again, I am with you but the Manifestations are not seemingly congruent with the Whole. The process of the unfolding before the bloom seems rather violent relative to the beauty of the flower.

 

 

This is why it is both 'outside us', and 'inside us'. We see ourselves as separate by the mental constructions of our realities, a separate self. But the reality is we arise from that same Source, and are That in ourselves. I'm a nondualist, which means that I can see and experience that Unity within these dualities. I am both, I am neither.

 

I just see the flower as grace and the growing plant as the fundamentalist nature and can VISUALIZE nondualist but can't adeqately define it to live there....if that makes sense.

[Antlerman]

ME:But if some 'other path' does in fact, actually take you up the side of that mountain where at the peak we ALL stare at a single bright moon, that you are in fact producing good fruits, then how in the heck is it not valid?

 

End3: To the bolded. The experiences and descriptions we have climbing the mountain are real and valid. but this doesn't necessarily prove that all paths up the mountain, i.e. all expeiences, are the correct description for the origin of the mountain and moon.

Why is the correct description important? What difference does that make? In fact I will say this that NO description is the Truth itself. Not yours, not anyone's. It does not matter.

 

Why? Because these are all just mental, symbolic ways of talking about something beyond the way of talking about it. Again, they are fingers pointing at the moon, not the moon itself. Insisting on having the right description, the right definitions, mistakes the finger for the moon itself. That is substituting the religion for the Realization.

 

Again, "By their fruits you shall know them". You don't get those, if you aren't doing something right. It's not, "By their beliefs you shall know them". It does not matter. Whatever actually works, whatever actually produces fruit, does. And if your religion causes you to stumble or prevent you from that, then reject it.

 

I hear what you are saying about the story being a hindrance to the goal, but what I am trying to describe is that the story is necessarily important for those on a certain path at a certain time ON the path.

Why? I see having some sort of structure to be useful, but it is an error to look to that structure as the truth itself.

 

I love what the Buddha said, "To insist on a spiritual practice that served you in the past is to carry the raft on your back after you have crossed the river." The practice, the belief, the metaphysics, is a tool to be set aside. They are not the Truth itself. They are rafts, not the shore. It doesn't matter what raft you use, so long as it gets you to the other shore.

 

As they traverse this same path. the importances of base camp two will not be as important to them when they are at camp four. But it is darn important when the arrive at camp 2. What I hear you saying is the camp two description hinders those on a separate path on the other side of the mountain. Why is it any less valid to not convict any of those at every camp 2 of the same offense?

You're carrying this metaphor to far and too literally. But yes, so long as you come up the mountain, then it's working. I will not say Christianity is wrong, so long as it works. Are you willing to say this of other paths up that mountain? If it works, it works. The only way you can criticize is that you show it is somehow invalid in what it yields the practitioner. That's where the argument needs to go if you reject them as a false for some reason.

 

You can't convict the whole result by the vast majority learning to read the receipe.

I won't deny the whole thing. In fact I believe if you look at it, you'll see it saying the same things as other religions following Wisdom traditions. Not every word of it, of course. But it's there. I'm glad you acknowledge that the vast majority don't get it. I agree with that.

 

ME: Christianity does see this, but who practices it? They see loving God as obeying a bunch of laws. It is meant as a path of interior union with the One, to use another way to speak of it. As they guy said, Christianity hasn't failed, it's never been tried. Instead, they prefer to say everyone else is wrong and they are unique in all the world's religions; substituting beliefs for actual, inner Realization.

 

End3: In my mind you are convicting those on pages 47 though 59 and discounting the FEW that make it to page 86. For example, what are the ratios of "finishedness", those we can identify as path guides within other beliefs. I think if we acknowledge this, we would decide that there are few relative to the membersihip.

Well, not really. I understand this. Literalism exists in all religions, making the same errors as you see in Christianity. That is a matter of growth. My criticism is that the system as whole is being led by the mostly blind. Very few have any real developed depth. Certainly almost non-existent in your most vocal, "We have the truth!" churches. Nonsense. Sad and tragic. Children leading children and denying them any real path of growth. Where are the mature teachers? Where is the mature understanding? It isn't there. "I have a relationship with Jesus, and if you don't you're going to hell!" That is a four-year-old's worldview. Jesus is a magic doll that will curry the favor of the great god if they own it. Magical thinking.

 

Again, I get those at this stage. I don't get there being no adults who know better.

 

. Is that what Jesus actually taught, that you can't become One with God?

I hear what you are saying, I don't personally see it as realistic. It would be great no doubt.

It is realistic. I know it first hand, every day.

 

That's the problem I see with all these churches everywhere. Who has it themselves in order to teach others? All I see is a bunch of kids reading the diaries of adults and trying to tell others what it is to be an adult, themselves having no experience to speak from. "No, you're not playing right! Off to the stake with you! You're not an adult, I am! Heretic!"

 

So you take that attitude which is valid on occasion and then if you are not careful, you become the one carrying the rule book.

Well, yes of course. There is always the danger of becoming judgmental of others on their path. And as that happens, I become aware of it and look at what I am lacking inside, or what's going on with me that makes me elevate my ego as a substitute for that inner awareness. I try not to be critical of those who are less mature, but I am critical of leaders who deny them that growth through terrorizing them with threats of exclusion for not adhering to their group. Didn't Jesus condemn them also? Didn't he say woe to those who cause one of the little ones to stumble? I see that as falling on those who instruct as authorities in spiritual development.

 

 

More later....

[Guest end3]

More later....

 

Almost every response I would generate to post 34 would be arguing the same stuff. it appears that your nondualism is the key to me. I can't place myself as the entire manifestation. I am a human. I am not the wind that I walk through nor the sun that shines on me. Maybe someday K. I just can't make it happen in my mind.

 

As an experiment I tried visualizing myself as the whole when I walked between two buildings.here at our plant. The thing that I noticed first was there was resistance from the wind when I moved through. It can be argued that the wind knows me and I know the wind and that we share common starstuff, but the second thing that I noticed was that the wind was hot today......and I was thinking that it was getting uncomfortable. If my mind were truely nondual, then I would think that the wind temp would be exactly right for my daily potential. But it's not. Maybe some day I can move to that level. I don't know, but I accept those times, those higher state times, as more a culmination of factors.....but again, not a constant.

 

Post 33 has some good stuff. I'm interested in your response to it. Thanks.

[asanerman]

Yes, to just go experience seeking is not the point. You need to learn to integrate it, and then, 'by their fruits you shall know them'. It doesn't matter which religion you're part of. How you believe is not the point. Spiritual transformation is. As long as it works. Christian, or otherwise.

I don't know that I agree with "as long as it works". The natural world doesn't come to its reality by nth different directions....IMO. I wouldn't see the spiritual nature to be any different. I would expect the stories/myths to make one of themselves more certain than the others. Maybe not.

You have a couple confusion points in here, and I think this is part of the crux of your issue why you have a hard time seeing all this sometimes. I said as long as it works, it doesn't matter. I did not saying anything and all things work! Clearly not. But if some 'other path' does in fact, actually take you up the side of that mountain where at the peak we ALL stare at a single bright moon, that you are in fact producing good fruits, then how in the heck is it not valid?

 

That is the crux of why these True Believers™ who dismiss other religions because they don't have correct doctrine, don't hold True Beliefs™, are substituting beliefs for actual spiritual realization themselves. If they had that, then they could, and would, be able to see it in others. The finger pointing at the moon is not the moon itself, except to them.

 

But I agree with you that not all paths lead up that mountain. Don't mistake me saying many paths with all paths. Continued greed, envy, lust, etc., will prevent you from walking up any particular path to enlightenment.

 

Aman, I think Cynthia Bourgeault, an Episcopal priest, teacher, retreat leader and conference leader, comes close to unraveling the problematic dualism inherent in the Christian Myth when she writes;

 

Unfortunately, Christianity as a religion has never had a sufficient metaphysical understanding of its own core truth.

The message gets obscured by its primary interpretive vehicle: the theology of fall and redemption. Virtually all Christian

teaching begins from the supposition that Jesus's incarnation is brought about by the fall of Adam and happens in response to it….

..Thus the incarnation is framed from the start within the context of God’s response to a mistake that should have never have happened in the first place. This assumption, in turn, deeply colors our understanding of the phrase, “For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son.” It sounds like: “God didn’t give up on us, God bailed us out.”

~Cynthia Bourgeault, The Wisdom Jesus, (Boston, Mass: Shambhala Publications 2008), p. 95.

 

Bourgeault suggest a more affirmative approach to the mystery of the incarnation envisions the steady and increasingly intimate revelation of divine love along a trajectory that was there from the beginning.” ibid, p. 96.

 

At least with this insight Bourgeault seems to have “pushed the envelope of Christian metaphysics” which for centuries has been “substituting beliefs for actual spiritual realization themselves” and has not understood that “the finger pointing at the moon is not the moon itself, except to them.”

 

 

I heard an interesting comment by a Christian leader recently (can't recall his name). He said, "Christianity hasn't actually failed in the world. It's never be tried yet". I like that. This explains a lot. "By their fruits you shall know them", not by their 'right' beliefs.

 

I've read that statement also.

 

I suppose to the extent an individual can manage to see beyond the "root" conceptional framework that relies on fall and redemption, a supernatural "cosmic-course correction" and rescue mission, will she or he be able "to recognize" and "to make real" the character that emerges from conscious compassion and awareness.

 

As you say Aman;

I have no problems with someone following the Christian way, if they actually did. But as that Christian leader says, "Christianity really hasn't been tried yet", and by that he meant the Church has never followed it.

 

I'm not so concerned as to what a person "believes" as long a it makes of them a seasoned, conscious, compassionate, authentic responsible human being, capable of loving/care, reason, and justice.

 

Amongst all the "jagged and hard edges" we experience in the human predicament "the act of loving and understanding brings hidden potential to full expression, and the more intimate and costly the self-giving, the more precious the quality of love reveled" (Bourgeault).

 

"By their fruit you shall know them." All the rest is academic!

[Antlerman]

More later....

 

Almost every response I would generate to post 34 would be arguing the same stuff. it appears that your nondualism is the key to me. I can't place myself as the entire manifestation. I am a human. I am not the wind that I walk through nor the sun that shines on me. Maybe someday K. I just can't make it happen in my mind.

I don't see that what I am saying requires a nondual perspective to understand it. The points I made make sense within a dualistic perspective. I'm not asking you to make the leap to nondualism, just simply a more integral understanding. I would enjoy hearing your responses to the points I raised in my last post from your current perspective. I think you'll see all that is required is a simple shift in how you look at this, not some satori-level experience that makes you one with everything.

 

I'll go ahead and respond to your other earlier post to continue this discussion with you.

 

If my mind were truely nondual, then I would think that the wind temp would be exactly right for my daily potential. But it's not.

This is not nondualism. It's making everything the same with no differentiation. It's like before where you understand that Emptiness means a blank. That's not that either. Emptiness is formlessness before form, but it is that causal Source, so it is anything but a blank void. It is only a void from the perspective of form. Nondualism is a stage beyond that Emptiness where form and formlessness are realized at the same moment. As such the temperature of the wind is in fact different than the temperature of my body, but the wind, my body, the air, the bird, the thought in my head, are all expressions of that One that is me, and it is realized in the perception and experience of everything. I am still me and you are you, but we are also not. It is a paradox that reason cannot unfold. It is a perceptual reality.

 

I'll get to the rest of my response later. In the meantime, plan to respond to my points. It doesn't require nondualism to understand or get it.

[Guest end3]

Why is the correct description important? What difference does that make? In fact I will say this that NO description is the Truth itself. Not yours, not anyone's. It does not matter.

 

Why? Because these are all just mental, symbolic ways of talking about something beyond the way of talking about it. Again, they are fingers pointing at the moon, not the moon itself. Insisting on having the right description, the right definitions, mistakes the finger for the moon itself. That is substituting the religion for the Realization.

 

Again, "By their fruits you shall know them". You don't get those, if you aren't doing something right. It's not, "By their beliefs you shall know them". It does not matter. Whatever actually works, whatever actually produces fruit, does. And if your religion causes you to stumble or prevent you from that, then reject it.

 

I don't know that all fruit in this case would be fruit. A particular story would offer particular fruit. For example, I would expect your version of fruit would be allowing gay marriage, where I believe the symbolic fullness of marriage comes from the differences in men and women......this is just an example, I do not wish to get into a gay marriage debate. I don't see how I can be nondual or even truely have that perspective if I am a particular manifestation.

 

 

 

Why? I see having some sort of structure to be useful, but it is an error to look to that structure as the truth itself.

Again, very simply, I am limited IMO to the form I am given. Insert "Potter and pot scripture here". Like I said, on occasion I can view from a larger perspective and somewhat forget about my personal identity when I am in that mindset, but fully removing myself 24/7 to that mindset is not realistic for me.

 

 

I love what the Buddha said, "To insist on a spiritual practice that served you in the past is to carry the raft on your back after you have crossed the river." The practice, the belief, the metaphysics, is a tool to be set aside. They are not the Truth itself. They are rafts, not the shore. It doesn't matter what raft you use, so long as it gets you to the other shore.

Sounds very wise....that I could deflate my raft after floating across.

 

 

You're carrying this metaphor to far and too literally. But yes, so long as you come up the mountain, then it's working. I will not say Christianity is wrong, so long as it works. Are you willing to say this of other paths up that mountain? If it works, it works. The only way you can criticize is that you show it is somehow invalid in what it yields the practitioner. That's where the argument needs to go if you reject them as a false for some reason.

I don't know how to explain it very well K. Here's the key. You claim you can go nondual and reach the summit. From my perspective, I am still climbing and am understanding that to reach the summit (nondual) that I must faithfully take the tunnel Christ. If I can't already stand on the mountaintop by my own reality, then I'm not inclined to believe other men's account that they are standing there. My experience with humanity doesn't allow me to believe that over my experience with God. And from what I can tell thusfar, I am not today on the mountaintop.

 

 

 

Well, yes of course. There is always the danger of becoming judgmental of others on their path. And as that happens, I become aware of it and look at what I am lacking inside, or what's going on with me that makes me elevate my ego as a substitute for that inner awareness. I try not to be critical of those who are less mature, but I am critical of leaders who deny them that growth through terrorizing them with threats of exclusion for not adhering to their group. Didn't Jesus condemn them also? Didn't he say woe to those who cause one of the little ones to stumble? I see that as falling on those who instruct as authorities in spiritual development.

It's not an easy transition between rules and grace. There have been numerous times where people here ask me what about this or that. I have at times said I haven't had that relelation to understand why the greater perspective allows me to see the wisdom in not adhering ridigly to the rule. Grace allows people to move and be free. I expect there is some requirement to pay attention to the resistance in their movement.

 

I asked H to delete my account, so if necessary we can continue on FB. Thanks.

[Antlerman]

Why is the correct description important? What difference does that make? In fact I will say this that NO description is the Truth itself. Not yours, not anyone's. It does not matter.

 

Why? Because these are all just mental, symbolic ways of talking about something beyond the way of talking about it. Again, they are fingers pointing at the moon, not the moon itself. Insisting on having the right description, the right definitions, mistakes the finger for the moon itself. That is substituting the religion for the Realization.

 

Again, "By their fruits you shall know them". You don't get those, if you aren't doing something right. It's not, "By their beliefs you shall know them". It does not matter. Whatever actually works, whatever actually produces fruit, does. And if your religion causes you to stumble or prevent you from that, then reject it.

 

I don't know that all fruit in this case would be fruit. A particular story would offer particular fruit. For example, I would expect your version of fruit would be allowing gay marriage, where I believe the symbolic fullness of marriage comes from the differences in men and women......this is just an example, I do not wish to get into a gay marriage debate. I don't see how I can be nondual or even truely have that perspective if I am a particular manifestation.

How someone participates in society and culture will of course be determined by many factors. Having the fruits of spirit, so to speak, does not mean everything thinks alike! This is getting to the core reason you have difficulty embracing others outside your group as on at least equal ground. You externalize things. Someone can have a heart full of love, and choose to apply that in markedly different ways. We don't lose our personalities and become nothing but sameness. Even Christianity teaches this.

 

I see this being an extension of bad theology, that says 'one faith' means one mode of thinking, one set of values, etc. This is group-centric thinking, not spiritual thinking. It is substituting beliefs for spiritual Realization. That spiritual realization helps inform decisions and actions, but does not dictate them. There is no single right or wrong, but a matter of evolving appropriateness. A heart opened to that sort of inclusiveness that spiritual realization gives us is better able to make wise decisions, but they are not moral absolutes. That is the core problem, you look externally for these, whereas in reality they arise from within us, and the more our Heart is filled with Love, the better, more informed our perceptions and choices are. There is room for diversity and dialog. But someone who is operating solely from ego, pride, greed, and deceit, become obvious. It's not what you choose, but how.

 

Why? I see having some sort of structure to be useful, but it is an error to look to that structure as the truth itself.

Again, very simply, I am limited IMO to the form I am given. Insert "Potter and pot scripture here". Like I said, on occasion I can view from a larger perspective and somewhat forget about my personal identity when I am in that mindset, but fully removing myself 24/7 to that mindset is not realistic for me.

It's only unrealistic, or correctly so for you to say that, because you have not yet developed and matured to that as your normal state of being. It's like moments where a 12 year old can be mature beyond his years, but he cannot be 28 years old overnight. It's a process of integrating stages of development. It's the same for me as it is for you. But we should have that as our goal. And that's exactly what structures are for. To help us learn how to integrate the current level sufficiently enough in order to move up to the next level, with its structures. See it?

 

I outgrew the structures that the Christianity I was in offered, but they were somewhat appropriate then. Not now. You're eyes have been opened to something more through your peak experience. Now it's a matter of growing in that, not remaining a child. Same for you as for me.

 

I love what the Buddha said, "To insist on a spiritual practice that served you in the past is to carry the raft on your back after you have crossed the river." The practice, the belief, the metaphysics, is a tool to be set aside. They are not the Truth itself. They are rafts, not the shore. It doesn't matter what raft you use, so long as it gets you to the other shore.

Sounds very wise....that I could deflate my raft after floating across.

Understand that this means the systems, these structures are means to the end, vehicles to take you to the temple that you have to leave outside. Most of the time, these vehicles run out of gas long before you even get to the temple. The rest you walk on foot, alone, which is were you will really move into that space of becoming.

 

I don't know how to explain it very well K. Here's the key. You claim you can go nondual and reach the summit. From my perspective, I am still climbing and am understanding that to reach the summit (nondual) that I must faithfully take the tunnel Christ. If I can't already stand on the mountaintop by my own reality, then I'm not inclined to believe other men's account that they are standing there. My experience with humanity doesn't allow me to believe that over my experience with God. And from what I can tell thusfar, I am not today on the mountaintop.

Fair enough, and I don't claim to be standing on it myself. It's an infinite movement into it. I'm on my path as well. One thing to say with respect to Christ. I do not minimize the importance of such a 'guide' on your path, so long as what you are looking to is inner development. This is the role of the Guru in spiritual practice. Believe me when I say I understand the power and need for these. Eventually, that inner Guru becomes realized in ourselves, and we see that we are that, we were that all along. But it takes that 'mediator' as it were, to help us see ourselves within that Light.

 

This is a very different, and much more powerful and meaningful and useful understanding than that of some blood sacrifice as a bridge to God. A Guru, the word Guru, means dispeller of darkness. They help through working with us to remove those obstacles in our own lives that obstruct our path towards that Realization in ourselves. Once we have that, then the Guru is no longer needed. He is now your brother.

 

It's not an easy transition between rules and grace. There have been numerous times where people here ask me what about this or that. I have at times said I haven't had that relelation to understand why the greater perspective allows me to see the wisdom in not adhering ridigly to the rule. Grace allows people to move and be free. I expect there is some requirement to pay attention to the resistance in their movement.

Through developing that in yourself it becomes apparent from within you. That grace will come from a Heart that is filled with that. This takes a regular practice to develop that within yourself, where you become grace. Look at it this way. When you find yourself falling into looking to external rules to fall back on, let that be an indication that you are losing touch with what is in you. Use it as an opportunity to get back to looking there. Once you have that, then you will see these external rules for what they are - static, non-living things like fences, rather than organic life. What does it say about the law living in the heart, not on stone tablets?

 

I asked H to delete my account, so if necessary we can continue on FB. Thanks.

I don't understand why. If you're leaning towards more philosophical discussions and not all this banter, then start topics in the Colosseum. If someone wants their account "deleted", that creates a real mess on the site. I suggest they just don't log back in, and if they feel they can't help themselves, then we can put their account on a permanent suspension, which can in fact be reversed when they decide they want to come back. That way they can't log in, unless they ask their account be opened again.

 

Myself, I can't do these types of discussions on Facebook. It's isn't the right format to do this. Tried it, and it doesn't work.

[roadrunner]

I think christianity is unique. Its the only religion that lets you be a gossiping, lustful, hypocrite and still be washed in the blood of a person who may not have even existed and still go to heaven. Now thats a piece of cake.........that I wont eat anymore. No other religion lets people off the hook that easy. If its too good to be true it probably isnt true.

[Guest end3]

But someone who is operating solely from ego, pride, greed, and deceit, become obvious. It's not what you choose, but how.

I'm not even sure we always know when we are operating from these attributes. I would argue that if we did, and understood the realization of operating outside of these, then yes we would be operating with sameness and morality.

 

 

[Guest end3]

It seems like BECAUSE we are unique manifestations that this would drive some of the aforementioned attributes. But, I think within that functionality there exists a system of operation that allows for unity and is moral regardless of manifestation. This is probably a better statement.

[Antlerman]

But someone who is operating solely from ego, pride, greed, and deceit, become obvious. It's not what you choose, but how.

I'm not even sure we always know when we are operating from these attributes. I would argue that if we did, and understood the realization of operating outside of these, then yes we would be operating with sameness and morality.

Well I believe we can know this. It requires an introspective life. The more you learn to operate outside these modes, the more you become aware of those old habits, those 'old ways' to use a familiar term to you. I find myself increasingly aware of being in that 'old' mode of awareness. I really liken it to those stages of growing up, like when you move from your preteen years to your teen years. You become less and less a preteen, the more you live life as a teen. And so on, from teen to adult, etc. It's just that when we hit adult, culturally that is considered the 'stopping' place. It isn't.

 

As we pursue those 'higher' stages of development, it's that process all over again, adopting new modes of perceiving and relating to the world. But you have to develop it. It's not something that just happens naturally because your surrounding culture is more 'adult' than you. You'll be a bit of a lone fish on this one.

 

But to answer the question, you most certainly become aware of it, more and more and more. You see and feel the difference.

[Antlerman]

It seems like BECAUSE we are unique manifestations that this would drive some of the aforementioned attributes. But, I think within that functionality there exists a system of operation that allows for unity and is moral regardless of manifestation. This is probably a better statement.

Where I disagree is when you say a "system of operation" that allows for unity. I don't know how to express this. I would say there is a Nature to that Stream that we are all part of, and there are certain qualities to this which center around Unity, Love, and Peace. Any system that centers around this, is in tune with that. These systems need to be diverse, because of who we are, growing up in diverse cultures, with our diverse personalities. God, if you will is dynamic, not static.

 

Chew on that and let me know your thoughts.

[Guest end3]

It seems like BECAUSE we are unique manifestations that this would drive some of the aforementioned attributes. But, I think within that functionality there exists a system of operation that allows for unity and is moral regardless of manifestation. This is probably a better statement.

Where I disagree is when you say a "system of operation" that allows for unity. I don't know how to express this. I would say there is a Nature to that Stream that we are all part of, and there are certain qualities to this which center around Unity, Love, and Peace. Any system that centers around this, is in tune with that. These systems need to be diverse, because of who we are, growing up in diverse cultures, with our diverse personalities. God, if you will is dynamic, not static.

 

Chew on that and let me know your thoughts.

 

All I have to add is that despite the actions that result in love let's say, there are sub-ideas that lead to love...yet love through freedom is facilitated by Grace....which makes the sub-ideas(rules/religion) more meaningless than anything. I think they provide for a place to get there or various mechanizations, but ultimately do not replace the thing itself. So I would describe the relgions as dynamic but God as more static...that I know of.

[Antlerman]

It seems like BECAUSE we are unique manifestations that this would drive some of the aforementioned attributes. But, I think within that functionality there exists a system of operation that allows for unity and is moral regardless of manifestation. This is probably a better statement.

Where I disagree is when you say a "system of operation" that allows for unity. I don't know how to express this. I would say there is a Nature to that Stream that we are all part of, and there are certain qualities to this which center around Unity, Love, and Peace. Any system that centers around this, is in tune with that. These systems need to be diverse, because of who we are, growing up in diverse cultures, with our diverse personalities. God, if you will is dynamic, not static.

 

Chew on that and let me know your thoughts.

 

All I have to add is that despite the actions that result in love let's say, there are sub-ideas that lead to love...yet love through freedom is facilitated by Grace....which makes the sub-ideas(rules/religion) more meaningless than anything. I think they provide for a place to get there or various mechanizations, but ultimately do not replace the thing itself. So I would describe the relgions as dynamic but God as more static...that I know of.

Alright.... yes. I think what I was trying to say is that how we express things like morals, metaphysics, and whatnot are dynamic expressions of that. Man, what was it I wrote earlier that said something to this effect? Oh yes, here:

 

It doesn't matter what structure someone find works for them. What is important is that people find that inner voice, their own inner voice and grow and develop that. That, is coming to know yourself. And in coming to know ourselves, wow. Then we all share that with one another and grow and learn. It's not about being "right". It's about be True, each in our own uniqueness.

 

Self-realization defines living spiritually.

You shine from within, not defined by or held up by your belief structures. You stand

free

of them, rooted and grounded in your Self. And that freedom, since it is not bound to beliefs and structures, the body or any object, for lack of any better word, is as air in breath, wind, or "Spirit". Hence, "spiritual".

IMO. We exist everywhere, and no where. We are that Freedom in ourselves.

 

Have you ever read from the Christian mystic Meister Eckhart? You should. I think you would appreciate his thoughts. I had this book with his thoughts and various sermons with me in my backpack on the various bike trails I was riding this last week. I'd stop to rest along the way and read from it. You should read it End. I think it would gel with you. Keep going man... keep going. He is what Christianity is at pains to become.

[Fweethawt]

I never had much luck with the supernatural…

I HAVE!!!

 

Supernatural is a very entertaining television series and I've been waiting for like FOREVER for season 7 to be made available on Netflix.

 

Cool show...

With a cool car...

 

*singing* - Carry on my wayward suuu-uh-un! There'll be peace when you are done. Lay your weary head to re-eh-est. Don't you cry no more.

[Guest end3]

It seems like BECAUSE we are unique manifestations that this would drive some of the aforementioned attributes. But, I think within that functionality there exists a system of operation that allows for unity and is moral regardless of manifestation. This is probably a better statement.

Where I disagree is when you say a "system of operation" that allows for unity. I don't know how to express this. I would say there is a Nature to that Stream that we are all part of, and there are certain qualities to this which center around Unity, Love, and Peace. Any system that centers around this, is in tune with that. These systems need to be diverse, because of who we are, growing up in diverse cultures, with our diverse personalities. God, if you will is dynamic, not static.

 

Chew on that and let me know your thoughts.

 

All I have to add is that despite the actions that result in love let's say, there are sub-ideas that lead to love...yet love through freedom is facilitated by Grace....which makes the sub-ideas(rules/religion) more meaningless than anything. I think they provide for a place to get there or various mechanizations, but ultimately do not replace the thing itself. So I would describe the relgions as dynamic but God as more static...that I know of.

Alright.... yes. I think what I was trying to say is that how we express things like morals, metaphysics, and whatnot are dynamic expressions of that. Man, what was it I wrote earlier that said something to this effect? Oh yes, here:

 

It doesn't matter what structure someone find works for them. What is important is that people find that inner voice, their own inner voice and grow and develop that. That, is coming to know yourself. And in coming to know ourselves, wow. Then we all share that with one another and grow and learn. It's not about being "right". It's about be True, each in our own uniqueness.

 

Self-realization defines living spiritually.

You shine from within, not defined by or held up by your belief structures. You stand

free

of them, rooted and grounded in your Self. And that freedom, since it is not bound to beliefs and structures, the body or any object, for lack of any better word, is as air in breath, wind, or "Spirit". Hence, "spiritual".

IMO. We exist everywhere, and no where. We are that Freedom in ourselves.

 

Have you ever read from the Christian mystic Meister Eckhart? You should. I think you would appreciate his thoughts. I had this book with his thoughts and various sermons with me in my backpack on the various bike trails I was riding this last week. I'd stop to rest along the way and read from it. You should read it End. I think it would gel with you. Keep going man... keep going. He is what Christianity is at pains to become.

 

Here's the deal. TRUE freedom for others is derived by Grace. Ultimately we have to learn on our own. To do that we have to have life and the True Spirit that "God" would want us to live by. He allow his "wife", i.e. humanity to learn via being divorced from the relationship, thus allowing the growth. And there is no greater sacrifice that allowing your family to come in harms way for their own freedom.....but I think this is what is happening....particularly explaining the "abscence of Christ".

[Antlerman]

Here's the deal. TRUE freedom for others is derived by Grace. Ultimately we have to learn on our own. To do that we have to have life and the True Spirit that "God" would want us to live by. He allow his "wife", i.e. humanity to learn via being divorced from the relationship, thus allowing the growth. And there is no greater sacrifice that allowing your family to come in harms way for their own freedom.....but I think this is what is happening....particularly explaining the "abscence of Christ".

True freedom for all is realized through grace. It is not owned by any religion. It owns all religions. And yes, we all have to learn on our own. I view it all as a path to Unity, and as we try all manner of substitutes there is a process where 'the body' sends out antibodies, so to speak to break down what doesn't serve that growth into a healthy body. I see it as a natural process of the whole system, on every level. If there is any 'absence of Christ', as you would understand that, it is only in the course of your own separation of yourself from it. It is never not there.

[Guest end3]

Here's the deal. TRUE freedom for others is derived by Grace. Ultimately we have to learn on our own. To do that we have to have life and the True Spirit that "God" would want us to live by. He allow his "wife", i.e. humanity to learn via being divorced from the relationship, thus allowing the growth. And there is no greater sacrifice that allowing your family to come in harms way for their own freedom.....but I think this is what is happening....particularly explaining the "abscence of Christ".

True freedom for all is realized through grace. It is not owned by any religion. It owns all religions. And yes, we all have to learn on our own. I view it all as a path to Unity, and as we try all manner of substitutes there is a process where 'the body' sends out antibodies, so to speak to break down what doesn't serve that growth into a healthy body. I see it as a natural process of the whole system, on every level. If there is any 'absence of Christ', as you would understand that, it is only in the course of your own separation of yourself from it. It is never not there.

 

yes, but learning the difference is the key. I agree. Just a very difficult proceedure.