True Follower's Of Christ

[NotBlinded]

Absolute moral or good, without the counterpart of evil, represents an infinite regression of inflation of good. "Good" can not exist anymore, or doesn't represent anything anymore. It's like storing sand in Fort Knox as the financial backing of the dollar instead of gold. If gold was as common as dust, then gold wouldn't be as valuable. Same thing with "good", it doesn't have a value if it existed only by itself.

I agree (I think!), to an extent, but I think of it more in line with the natural state of life. When a child is satisfied, what does it do? It smiles or coos and is perfectly content until something interups this state. This state of aggitation arrises from this state of contentment and then disappears. What we are left with when it is gone is our natural state once again...IMO, this is the God essence. But what the heck do I know?? It just makes sense to me. So, this "natural state" is always with us and is part of us, just as silence is always a part of sound. I don't think it would be the opposite because we would laugh and rejoice everytime we were hurting. Although, there are some that make me wonder!

 

This is how, in my semi-logical mind, I can totally understand the notion of 'oneness'.

[Antlerman]

Absolute moral or good, without the counterpart of evil, represents an infinite regression of inflation of good. "Good" can not exist anymore, or doesn't represent anything anymore. It's like storing sand in Fort Knox as the financial backing of the dollar instead of gold. If gold was as common as dust, then gold wouldn't be as valuable. Same thing with "good", it doesn't have a value if it existed only by itself.

I agree (I think!), to an extent, but I think of it more in line with the natural state of life. When a child is satisfied, what does it do? It smiles or coos and is perfectly content until something interups this state. This state of aggitation arrises from this state of contentment and then disappears. What we are left with when it is gone is our natural state once again...IMO, this is the God essence. But what the heck do I know?? It just makes sense to me. So, this "natural state" is always with us and is part of us, just as silence is always a part of sound. I don't think it would be the opposite because we would laugh and rejoice everytime we were hurting. Although, there are some that make me wonder!

 

This is how, in my semi-logical mind, I can totally understand the notion of 'oneness'.

Though I like your analogy with the contentment of a child being the God essence, doesn't the child exist in a world of duality, and its contentment is already influenced by its environment? The child enters the world in a blast of pain: noise, lights, air into lungs, squeezed through a tight canal, grabbed and lifted by hands around its feet, smacked on its ass, cold, frightened, separated, etc. That's moving into contrast, opposites, duality.

 

So then this begs the question, since contentment is an experience in the world of duality, then existence before duality is what? Is it peace? Is it love? Is it joy? Awareness? Is the God essence like life in the womb? Even in the womb, the child is influenced by the outside world. Stressed out mothers give birth to difficult children; drug abusers affect the bodies of their offspring; etc. Children hear the voice of their mothers, feel discomforts, kick mommy, etc. They are already in the world of duality.

 

So we have nothing in the world that we can reference as a state of non-duality.

 

Even though I appreciate the sentiment of "God is Love", it can only be known or called that in a dualistic existence.

 

So if all things are "reconciled" in Christ, that we return to a pre-fall state on ONENESS, that "death is swallowed up and is no more", what is the experience of that? Those who experience "transcendence" here, such as communion with God or ONENESS, are doing so in a body tied to earth, tied to duality.

 

Is it wrong to suggest that the state of existence outside temporal life would be known as we knew it prior to conception? Prior to my physical body in my mother's womb, I knew no dualities. I knew NOTHINGNESS, rather experienced nothingness, or better stated, did not experience anything; or one step further, for all intents and purposes - did not exist. It is impossible to define, as we are tied to this world. So why do we say ONENESS is Love, peace, and contentment?

 

Just rambling here.... any thoughts?

[Amanda]

So, I think this was built upon the Luciferion Theory, that the morning star came down and distroyed the earth. The dawn of man. See Isiaiah 14:12 here, go to verse 12, and click on Lucifer, and you will find the morning star. Do you know of any pagan beliefs that this was built upon?

Good question. I've been listening to so many things last week that it's a bit information overload at the moment. I did hear something about the morning star. It is the brightest star just before the sun (God) comes up and kills it (or overtakes it powers). So the morningstar was a inferior god or "angel" (messenger of the coming God).

 

Jesus was said to be the morning star too. In Revelations.

Now what cracks me up is that Paul said that "Satan transforms himself into an angel of light" (2 Corin 11:14), a deceiver, one with "a bag of tricks" (Ephesians 6:11).

 

How did Paul describe his assumed vision of Jesus in Acts 22:9 again? Light. So who really spoke to him... Jesus? Satan? Or the heat of the desert?

 

HanSolo, yes, Jesus was the Morning Star too! This is key, IMO, to understanding the core of the whole Bible!

 

Rhemtron, my friend, yes, Satan, the lie appears as truth, the light? If it did not, we would not fall for it ... right? And tricks are also defined as trickery. Yes, we would NOT fall for the lie if it were not trickery.

 

What is interesting is the verse that follows:

 

Ephesisans 6:12

For we wrestle not against * flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

 

Which upon further research says that we don't fight against flesh and blood but of the religous right and the government! Check it out, if you're really interested, by clicking on each word and how it evolved to get a true picture. Go here, then to 6:12.

 

As far as Acts 22:9, go here for a true definition, and tell me what you think. I've spent awhile figuring it out, and am curious to know if you come up with the same conclusion as I?

 

 

And what's more, Satan was supposedly an angel from the beginning, and an angel of light (morning star), so Satan never had to transform himself to anything, he is a frigging angel already (maybe not just a nice one).

 

Paul must've missed that part of the theology, maybe he didn't read the same books as us?

HanSolo, Satan and Lucifer are NOT the same entity. Yes, Lucifer and the morning star are the same. Yes, Lucifer was an 'angel', a 'cherubim'. Please show me where Satan and Lucifer are the same... I bet they are NOT.

 

 

 

 

NBBTB, you are so ahead of me... I am always in awe of everything you write!

 

I always attribute it to your Buddhist background, so humor me on this one, okay?

[RHEMtron]

HanSolo, yes, Jesus was the Morning Star too! This is key, IMO, to understanding the core of the whole Bible!

 

*snip* and *edit*

 

Satan and Lucifer are NOT the same entity

I agree. Lucifer and Satan were not the same. Lucifer was actually a vulgate translation of an epithet of Venus. Most bibles dont even say Lucifer, but rather "star". But whether it's "Lucifer" or "star" listed, the context used is still in reference to the King of Babylon.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucifer#Biblical_origins

 

Rhemtron, my friend, yes, Satan, the lie appears as truth, the light? If it did not, we would not fall for it ... right? And tricks are also defined as trickery. Yes, we would NOT fall for the lie

 

*snip*

 

true definition, and tell me what you think. I've spent awhile figuring it out, and am curious to know if you come up with the same conclusion as I?

Amanda my buddy!! Didnt get to research it too much, but here's what i found....

 

The greek word used for light in the verses being attributed to both Satan and Jesus, is foß, or phao.

 

the methaphorical definition is as followed:

metaph.

 

1. God is light because light has the extremely delicate, subtle, pure, brilliant quality

2. of truth and its knowledge, together with the spiritual purity associated with it

3. that which is exposed to the view of all, openly, publicly

4. reason, mind

1. the power of understanding esp. moral and spiritual truth

 

I really have no idea where im going with this . It really doesnt answer my initial question of who was it really that Paul saw in his vision. It's just giving me weird random thoughts like:

-Satan and Jesus were the same entity

-It makes more sense to say the trinity is God, Jesus, and Satan

-The metaphor definition shows:

1)Satan is exactly what Satanist believe- truth, knowledge, and reason mind...

2)Satan isnt an evil entity, but corresponds to his portrayal in the OT

[Golden Meadows]

HanSolo, yes, Jesus was the Morning Star too! This is key, IMO, to understanding the core of the whole Bible!

 

*snip* and *edit*

 

Satan and Lucifer are NOT the same entity

I agree. Lucifer and Satan were not the same. Lucifer was actually a vulgate translation of an epithet of Venus. Most bibles dont even say Lucifer, but rather "star". But whether it's "Lucifer" or "star" listed, the context used is still in reference to the King of Babylon.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucifer#Biblical_origins

 

Rhemtron, my friend, yes, Satan, the lie appears as truth, the light? If it did not, we would not fall for it ... right? And tricks are also defined as trickery. Yes, we would NOT fall for the lie

 

*snip*

 

true definition, and tell me what you think. I've spent awhile figuring it out, and am curious to know if you come up with the same conclusion as I?

Amanda my buddy!! Didnt get to research it too much, but here's what i found....

 

The greek word used for light in the verses being attributed to both Satan and Jesus, is foß, or phao.

 

the methaphorical definition is as followed:

metaph.

 

1. God is light because light has the extremely delicate, subtle, pure, brilliant quality

2. of truth and its knowledge, together with the spiritual purity associated with it

3. that which is exposed to the view of all, openly, publicly

4. reason, mind

1. the power of understanding esp. moral and spiritual truth

 

I really have no idea where im going with this . It really doesnt answer my initial question of who was it really that Paul saw in his vision. It's just giving me weird random thoughts like:

-Satan and Jesus were the same entity

-It makes more sense to say the trinity is God, Jesus, and Satan

-The metaphor definition shows:

1)Satan is exactly what Satanist believe- truth, knowledge, and reason mind...

2)Satan isnt an evil entity, but corresponds to his portrayal in the OT

 

See http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?showtopic=9819

[Open_Minded]

My question to you is why hold on to the Bible if it is so opposed to much of what you believe? Why keep an identification when it scarcely applies? Another facet of this is that I am somewhat perplexed to see people hold on to a religion which has actively destroyed and raped countless belief systems and religions which are far more similar to those very people.

 

Julian - you really must read the Silly-Putty thread. Mr. Grinch (and company) gave me baptism by fire as I first entered this forum. And many of your questions are addressed in this thread. This link will jump you in where the conversation starts moving along.

 

http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?s=&a...st&p=108468

or

http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?s=&a...st&p=108991

 

Either post addresses your questions above.

 

Specifically as to your question, "Why keep an identification when it scarcely applies"?

 

4. Why you feel the need to call yourself a Christian instead of choosing the label of another group?

This is the most difficult question for me to answer BECAUSE it is not my intent to offend anyone, or to suggest that since I experience things the way I do – you should as well. So PLEASE remember that I recognize the subjectivity of my own experiences.

 

Here goes – the concept of trinity is very real to me, it presents itself in nature, in life in general. As I experience the trinity (not as the fundamentalists choose to literalize it) the trinity is within all of life, all of creation.

 

How to explain this. It might help you to put this all in context if you know that I practice contemplative Christianity (this is the meditative branch of Christianity). I have also explored the eastern mystic traditions. But they never fit. In a concrete way I suppose I could say I call myself a Christian because the contemplative path of Christianity just “fits” better. I was raised Christian, it is easier for me to get my head around the literature and writings.

 

But, there is more… as I’ve said the concept of the trinity is very real to me. For me – subjectively – I see the trinity metaphysically defined in the first verses of John’s gospel. I won’t quote them all here, but John 1:14 is immediately applicable, “And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us”.

 

The three words “Word became flesh” are a metaphysical way of looking at the Trinity. The “WORD” represents the “Father”, the original idea, the original mind, the first thought. “Became” metaphysically speaking is the first thought in action, energy (or the Sacred Spirit) proceeding out from the first thought. And “Flesh” metaphysically speaking is the manifested result of the first thought. “Flesh” could not happen if energy had not proceeded out from the first thought, the first Word.

 

Think about when an artist creates something. First – before anything – the artist has to have the idea. Or the first thought. Second – the idea must be acted upon – the artist takes a canvas and paint and expends energy (or the sacred spirit). Third – because the artist had the thought and because the artist expended energy from the thought – there is an end product, a painting (or the manifested result of the first thought). This whole process is trinitarian in the sense that the painting would never be without the original thought and the energy which proceeded out from that thought in order to produce a painting.

 

In short – when I look at creation – I see this dynamic in play. I can not work in my garden, walk in the woods, hold an infant and not see that first, before anything else there was an idea. (Not an idea in the limited sense that we humans think of) But a first intention, a first awareness that there could be something more. And then, there was spirit (energy) proceeding out from this first intention. Because that energy was expended we have life, glorious life. We have creation. I see this dynamic at play in science, and I accept that there are those who study science and do not see it. I see this dynamic at play in math, and I accept that there are those who study math and do not see it. I see this dynamic at play in the arts, and I accept that there are those who study the arts and do not see it.

 

Well, I hope I didn't forget the point I was setting up with those questions, but here goes anyway. First, I think that when you recognize the deeper existence of other entities, that is radically different from (and actually opposed to) anything you will find in the Bible. Next, the connection between all things is equal, no? So, we can write off the possibility of the Christian "god", now can't we?

 

We can write off the anthropomorphised understanding of God - certainly. I agree whole heartedly.

 

But.... to repeat why I connect with Christianity:

 

The three words “Word became flesh” are a metaphysical way of looking at the Trinity. The “WORD” represents the “Father”, the original idea, the original mind, the first thought. “Became” metaphysically speaking is the first thought in action, energy (or the Sacred Spirit) proceeding out from the first thought. And “Flesh” metaphysically speaking is the manifested result of the first thought. “Flesh” could not happen if energy had not proceeded out from the first thought, the first Word.

 

What part of creation is NOT included in this way of looking at ONENESS?

 

To say nothing of the actual word for God. The word Jesus used for God was "Alaha" - or sacred unity.

 

From a Sermon: http://www.uucheyenne.org/pdfs/2004-December-12.pdf

A Different View of Jesus’ Teachings

A Sermon by the Rev. Robert L. Morriss

December 12, 2004

 

This Unitarian/Universalist Minister is talking about the work of Neil Douglas-Klotz. We are studying his work right now at my church.

 

Central to this way of understanding Jesus’ sayings is the understanding that “In Aramaic, the

Name ALAHA refers to the divine, and wherever you read the word ‘God’ in a Quote from Jesus, you

can insert this word. It means variously, Sacred Unity, Oneness, the All, the Ultimate

Power/Potential, or the One with no opposite. From my perspective, this is an understanding of the

sacred that more closely corresponds to the Buddhist concept of the One than how we typically think

about the word God in the English language. As Neil points out, “if only one Being exists, then every

other being must have a share in it. Individuality is only relative in this view of God.

 

John 8:58 only shows the idea that Jesus is somehow "the son" while also being "the father", which is nothing new. It really is just advancing the assumption that Jesus came from "the father", or was/is "the father" or the like. Does this include anything besides the Nazarene and the "god" he claims to be the son of? No. Does this include us? No. Does this include nature, the universe, existence itself? No. It only relates to him and his supposed "god" and nothing more, and that is a problem.

 

That's my (tired) take on it.

 

John 14:16-19 also says...

 

And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Advocate, to be with you forever. This is the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him. You know him, because he abides with you, and he will be in you.

 

"I will not leave you orphaned; I am coming to you. In a little while the world will no longer see me, but you will see me; because I live, you also will live. On that day you will know that

I am in my Father, and you in me, and I in you

.

 

In addition to a literal look at those words, keep the following in mind.

 

When Jesus spoke - he spoke in Aramaic. The word Jesus would have used in referring to "the Father" had no gender affiliation (as we do in English). The language he would have used would have meant something closer to "birther of the Universe","original intention of the universe"

 

And when Jesus spoke of "Spirit of truth" it would have been closer to "wisdom in movement","wisdom breathing through the universe". The aramaic word for "spirit" was closely related to "breath" and "energy movement" (as in wind).

 

The Aramaic word for "truth" was closely related to what you and I would call "wisdom", not wisdom people get through the process of living (although that is part of it) but "wisdom of the ages", "eternal inate wisdom".

 

If you are interested in learning more about the Aramaic language, the Aramaic Bible and the study of these things you may want to look up the work of Neil Douglas-Klotz.

 

Thanks for the response, I enjoy your thoughts and ideas and I appreciate you taking the time to share them with me. Basically, I've stated before that I have no problem with your ideas and your beliefs; I only object to the label and that is all. I hope you remember that we are in agreement on most things (and perhaps one of those things is that people can reach truth through many ways).

 

I hope we can continue this discussion, but it's OK if it's difficult.

 

It's not difficult Julian, just time consuming. So bear with me if my responses take awhile.

 

Like you I feel that people can reach truth in many ways.

[Ouroboros]

HanSolo, Satan and Lucifer are NOT the same entity. Yes, Lucifer and the morning star are the same. Yes, Lucifer was an 'angel', a 'cherubim'. Please show me where Satan and Lucifer are the same... I bet they are NOT.

I agree. They're not, if you look at it with reason and critical analysis. Most Christians connect Satan, Devil, Snake, Lucifer and the Dragon to one entity, but I know they have come into the religious text through different sources, and originally they were not meant to be the same. I was just talking from the Christian standpoint.

[NotBlinded]

Absolute moral or good, without the counterpart of evil, represents an infinite regression of inflation of good. "Good" can not exist anymore, or doesn't represent anything anymore. It's like storing sand in Fort Knox as the financial backing of the dollar instead of gold. If gold was as common as dust, then gold wouldn't be as valuable. Same thing with "good", it doesn't have a value if it existed only by itself.

I agree (I think!), to an extent, but I think of it more in line with the natural state of life. When a child is satisfied, what does it do? It smiles or coos and is perfectly content until something interups this state. This state of aggitation arrises from this state of contentment and then disappears. What we are left with when it is gone is our natural state once again...IMO, this is the God essence. But what the heck do I know?? It just makes sense to me. So, this "natural state" is always with us and is part of us, just as silence is always a part of sound. I don't think it would be the opposite because we would laugh and rejoice everytime we were hurting. Although, there are some that make me wonder!

 

This is how, in my semi-logical mind, I can totally understand the notion of 'oneness'.

Though I like your analogy with the contentment of a child being the God essence, doesn't the child exist in a world of duality, and its contentment is already influenced by its environment? The child enters the world in a blast of pain: noise, lights, air into lungs, squeezed through a tight canal, grabbed and lifted by hands around its feet, smacked on its ass, cold, frightened, separated, etc. That's moving into contrast, opposites, duality.

Yes, but I think I'm looking more at a natural state of being that other things arise out from. What you are showing me, I believe, is the world of duality existing as equal states of being, whereas I see a certain state of being (contentment, peace, etc.) as primary to the others. The opposites of the primary states of being arise out from it. It is something that we all stive for in this existence of duality. All this is just my opinion, of course, but it seems to me it's kind of like a default state that everything occurs in. All the things you mentioned, like getting smacked on the ass , are arising from the baby's natural state of being...contentment. And, the smack on the ass, passes away back into contentment eventually. The same with anger...it comes and it goes. Contentment doesn't come and go, IMO, even with those that seem angry all the time. I would bet that if they knew how and could do so, they would much rather be content instead of angry regardless if they seem like they are only content when they are angry. I don't believe that (but, that doesn't make it not true though).

 

Back to the sound analogy (because you make beautiful music!)...you go to your keyboard and strike a key. The sound that is emitted arises out of nothing, exists for a while, and then retreats back into nothing. Silence is the defalt state of being that sound exists in. I would think that if the God essence is not peace, then radio stations would be broadcasting silence when we wanted to shake our booty! Obviously this is not a good analogy because sometimes music (sound) is what we need to be content also...but I can't think of anything else to use. And it could be that I am just a little loony.

 

So then this begs the question, since contentment is an experience in the world of duality, then existence before duality is what? Is it peace? Is it love? Is it joy? Awareness? Is the God essence like life in the womb? Even in the womb, the child is influenced by the outside world. Stressed out mothers give birth to difficult children; drug abusers affect the bodies of their offspring; etc. Children hear the voice of their mothers, feel discomforts, kick mommy, etc. They are already in the world of duality.

I wish I could answer those very good questions, but I can't tell you what it's like after death and I can only speculate in a way that makes sense to me of what it is like by looking at the world of duality and what I would consider primary, or a default state within this world.

 

You know, this may not be true at all, but maybe it is something along these lines that the bible and other religions are trying to express regardless of the truth of it.

 

So we have nothing in the world that we can reference as a state of non-duality.

 

Even though I appreciate the sentiment of "God is Love", it can only be known or called that in a dualistic existence.

I agree and only through subjective eyes because there is no way to prove that.

 

So if all things are "reconciled" in Christ, that we return to a pre-fall state on ONENESS, that "death is swallowed up and is no more", what is the experience of that? Those who experience "transcendence" here, such as communion with God or ONENESS, are doing so in a body tied to earth, tied to duality.

Yes, but I think they are seeking a default state of being that we all desire in hopes of feeling what it's like not to be tied to the world of duality. I like what dibby said, "it's an experince, not a concept."

 

Is it wrong to suggest that the state of existence outside temporal life would be known as we knew it prior to conception? Prior to my physical body in my mother's womb, I knew no dualities. I knew NOTHINGNESS, rather experienced nothingness, or better stated, did not experience anything; or one step further, for all intents and purposes - did not exist. It is impossible to define, as we are tied to this world. So why do we say ONENESS is Love, peace, and contentment?

I agree with you. I say it because it is something that I feel everyone seeks and I see all trials and tribulations arising from this state. If I'm sitting at home, all peaceful and content and the phone rings with bad news, this interrupts my natural state of being. Yes, there are times when a good phone call is received and can brighten my day because I was feeling down, but to me, that call just returned me to my natural state of being quicker than I normally would have to begin with. It just hastened the diminishing of the mood.

 

Just rambling here.... any thoughts?

Well...I gave some thoughts, but you might need to stand on your head and turn your head 32 degrees to the right and wink before you can make any sense out of them!

[NotBlinded]

NBBTB, you are so ahead of me... I am always in awe of everything you write!

 

I always attribute it to your Buddhist background, so humor me on this one, okay?

Awe, shucks Amanda. Thanks. I'm not either ahead of you. I see how hard you work with the meanings of the words.

 

I really don't have a Buddhist background, mine was Christian. I think I accidentally gave you that impression because of my facination with what they say and what Jesus said being so compatable. Sorry if I misled you! I'm just a ExChristian that has discovered that there was more to the bible than I thought by looking at other religions. (I'm not very studied at all) Imagine that...other religions giving insight into the bible. Who would have thought it!

[Amanda]

HanSolo, yes, Jesus was the Morning Star too! This is key, IMO, to understanding the core of the whole Bible!

 

*snip* and *edit*

 

Satan and Lucifer are NOT the same entity

I agree. Lucifer and Satan were not the same. Lucifer was actually a vulgate translation of an epithet of Venus. Most bibles dont even say Lucifer, but rather "star". But whether it's "Lucifer" or "star" listed, the context used is still in reference to the King of Babylon.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucifer#Biblical_origins

 

Rhemtron, my friend, yes, Satan, the lie appears as truth, the light? If it did not, we would not fall for it ... right? And tricks are also defined as trickery. Yes, we would NOT fall for the lie

 

*snip*

 

true definition, and tell me what you think. I've spent awhile figuring it out, and am curious to know if you come up with the same conclusion as I?

Amanda my buddy!! Didnt get to research it too much, but here's what i found....

 

The greek word used for light in the verses being attributed to both Satan and Jesus, is foß, or phao.

 

the methaphorical definition is as followed:

metaph.

 

1. God is light because light has the extremely delicate, subtle, pure, brilliant quality

2. of truth and its knowledge, together with the spiritual purity associated with it

3. that which is exposed to the view of all, openly, publicly

4. reason, mind

1. the power of understanding esp. moral and spiritual truth

 

I really have no idea where im going with this . It really doesnt answer my initial question of who was it really that Paul saw in his vision. It's just giving me weird random thoughts like:

-Satan and Jesus were the same entity

-It makes more sense to say the trinity is God, Jesus, and Satan

-The metaphor definition shows:

1)Satan is exactly what Satanist believe- truth, knowledge, and reason mind...

2)Satan isnt an evil entity, but corresponds to his portrayal in the OT

 

Rhemtron, I'm impressed! You're much more astute than I! However, you have come close to what it took me weeks to figure out at an interntly focused pace! Although, the trinity does not exactly include Satan, IMO, but that is what I thought at first too.

 

It is thought by many that the morning star was cast down soon after the world was made, that caused a void and darkness covered the face of the earth. It laid low the many nations. I thought that this could be likened to the the Chixlub incidence, but that was probably my imagination running wild in those days.

 

.... but then again, it was the dawn of man.

 

IMO, it is about a Cheribim that esteemed to be higher than God. It was in the 'beginning' he was cast down to earth, where he deteriorated into dust. Then A&E were made from the dust, therfore 'contaminated' by this dust, therefore everyone else. (Satan is to eat the dust, leaving only spirit.)

 

IMO, all of us are part of God, therefore condemnation of each other is also thought to esteem to be higher than God. It is the morning star nature working through us to overcome this trait of esteeming to be better than someone else. Condemnation brought death. He who overcomes (condemnation) will be given the tree of life, judgement unto victory, solutions.

 

The book of Revelations, when Jesus, in spirit, comes back, in the end, in his corporate body, ALL of us knowing we are one body, we then claim we are the bright and Morning Star... Overcomers of condemnation! Jesus, this morining star, is the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end, and everyone in between!

 

Romans 8:20

For the creature (Lucifer, IMO) was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope, 8:21 Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.

 

Sounds like a good myth to me. Who knows, metaphorically it might happen.

[Amanda]

HanSolo, Satan and Lucifer are NOT the same entity. Yes, Lucifer and the morning star are the same. Yes, Lucifer was an 'angel', a 'cherubim'. Please show me where Satan and Lucifer are the same... I bet they are NOT.

I agree. They're not, if you look at it with reason and critical analysis. Most Christians connect Satan, Devil, Snake, Lucifer and the Dragon to one entity, but I know they have come into the religious text through different sources, and originally they were not meant to be the same. I was just talking from the Christian standpoint.

HanSolo, I know you know everything... or it seems that way... yet, did you know this, found here?

 

Chaos and Order in Combat: Tiamat and Marduk

 

The Enuma Elish, the Babylonian creation epic tells how Marduk, the god of Babylon, was chosen king of the gods to defeat Tiamat, the personified sea representing chaotic evil. After killing her, Marduk split her in two, created the world from her corpse, and stationed the various gods in their appropriate spheres. Then he created the human race from the blood of the rebel god Kingu to be the slaves of the gods. Many of the mythological motifs in the story appear to source from earlier Canaanite myths about Ba'al, who is likewise a conquering hero who defeats the older pantheon of El and Athirat and her offspring.

 

Zoroastrian Combat of Dark and Light

 

In the Zoroastrian myth of cosmic eschatology we find two agents which are now both male entering into competition and combat in classic male warrior competition. However these have now become warring abstract principles of darkness and light, not mere agents of civil order and the supremacy of the urban state.

 

Moreover, these principles are now part of a culminating sense of history of heaven and Earth in which the future life of everyone, instead of merely being a bleak and shadowy existence under the earth, became a moral testing in the afterlife in which the righteous went to heaven and the wicked, or more particularly the ignorant or confused agents of the dark were subject to trial by fire as disembodied spirits.

 

 

Imagine that...other religions giving insight into the bible. Who would have thought it!

 

Maybe because it was copying everybody else?

 

[Skankboy]

Did you know Marduk was Tiamat's son?

[Ouroboros]

HanSolo, I know you know everything... or it seems that way... yet, did you know this, found here?

I didn't know that I know everything... so then your statement isn't true.

[Open_Minded]

So we have nothing in the world that we can reference as a state of non-duality.

 

Well.. actually Antlerman... we do. I don't have time to do the research. But in my years of reading about mystical traditions (both east and west) there are many many documented cases of people experiencing varying degrees of Non-duality (from very brief to very pro-longed periods). Some individuals have even reached abiding/continuous states of non-duality. Just type "state of Non-duality" into Google and see what you come up with. Yes - there will be many new-age stuff. But you will also find legitimate documented experiences (mostly from the east - but they are also starting to document western experiences as well).

 

Even though I appreciate the sentiment of "God is Love", it can only be known or called that in a dualistic existence.

 

Again - no time to do the research here - but in every cultural manifestation of a non-dualistic experience I've ever read about it is intimately connected with both WISDOM and LOVE.

 

Yes... there are human experiences of WISDOM and LOVE that are finite and therefore part of dual experience of the world. However - universally - nondual experiences are interwoven with WISDOM and LOVE in an infinite sense. Now that does not mean that those having the experience believe they are experiencing God. The language they use to describe the experience is language of culture and world view. But - the experience of ONENESS itself is also an EXPERIENCE OF INFINITE LOVE AND WISDOM.

 

So if all things are "reconciled" in Christ, that we return to a pre-fall state on ONENESS, that "death is swallowed up and is no more", what is the experience of that? Those who experience "transcendence" here, such as communion with God or ONENESS, are doing so in a body tied to earth, tied to duality.

Maybe so, but the experience is well documented. And it is possible that these individuals may be experiencing a very real and valid dimension of ONENESS.

 

How many dimensions do scientists feel that there are beyond time and space? Why do we assume that there is such a thing as evolution? And then assume that humans cannot evolve to experience more dimensions than they have historically been able to experience?

 

And if a person enters this state of Non-duality (ONENESS) - who's to say they cannot experience this ONENESS within and of itself - in a non-relative way? It is possible to have "timeless" moments. Why should it not be possible to have "non-dual" or "non-relative" moments?

 

Is it wrong to suggest that the state of existence outside temporal life would be known as we knew it prior to conception? Prior to my physical body in my mother's womb, I knew no dualities. I knew NOTHINGNESS, rather experienced nothingness, or better stated, did not experience anything; or one step further, for all intents and purposes - did not exist. It is impossible to define, as we are tied to this world. So why do we say ONENESS is Love, peace, and contentment?

 

We say Oneness is these things because these are the attributes routinely reported across cultural boundries by people who have reached a state of ONENESS. We don't invent these things. As humans we experience and report these things. Whether one calls it an experience of God (or not) it is the experience itself that can be found in all cultures and throughout history.

 

Just rambling here.... any thoughts?

Ask and YE SHALL RECEIVE

[julian]

Open Minded, I'll try to read those links, thank you. By the way, I apologize but I couldn't get the quotes to work, so I just bolded your words instead.

 

Julian - you really must read the Silly-Putty thread. Mr. Grinch (and company) gave me baptism by fire as I first entered this forum. And many of your questions are addressed in this thread. This link will jump you in where the conversation starts moving along.

 

http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?s=&a...st&p=108468

or

http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?s=&a...st&p=108991

 

Either post addresses your questions above.

 

Specifically as to your question, "Why keep an identification when it scarcely applies"?

 

4. Why you feel the need to call yourself a Christian instead of choosing the label of another group?

This is the most difficult question for me to answer BECAUSE it is not my intent to offend anyone, or to suggest that since I experience things the way I do – you should as well. So PLEASE remember that I recognize the subjectivity of my own experiences.

 

Here goes – the concept of trinity is very real to me, it presents itself in nature, in life in general. As I experience the trinity (not as the fundamentalists choose to literalize it) the trinity is within all of life, all of creation.

 

How so? Nature proves the concept of the trinity wrong, without a shadow of a shred of a doubt. To say that the universe is of one deity, one offspring and one spirit when you can clearly see the source of divinity at the heart of existence and NOT above it is to be blind of reality.

 

How to explain this. It might help you to put this all in context if you know that I practice contemplative Christianity (this is the meditative branch of Christianity). I have also explored the eastern mystic traditions. But they never fit. In a concrete way I suppose I could say I call myself a Christian because the contemplative path of Christianity just “fits” better. I was raised Christian, it is easier for me to get my head around the literature and writings.

 

Again, I find it frustrating that one would opt to cling to something simply because of where one was brought up. If you are unwilling to let go of a dogma because you find it most accessible, that is like someone being unwilling to try new foods, especially when their own cooking is so similar to others’. Also, excuse me for saying so, but the "contemplative Christianity" sorts of things are, in a way, trying to hide from the very dogma they adhere to. That's just my take on it, however.

 

But, there is more… as I’ve said the concept of the trinity is very real to me. For me – subjectively – I see the trinity metaphysically defined in the first verses of John’s gospel. I won’t quote them all here, but John 1:14 is immediately applicable, “And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us”.

 

The three words “Word became flesh” are a metaphysical way of looking at the Trinity. The “WORD” represents the “Father”, the original idea, the original mind, the first thought. “Became” metaphysically speaking is the first thought in action, energy (or the Sacred Spirit) proceeding out from the first thought. And “Flesh” metaphysically speaking is the manifested result of the first thought. “Flesh” could not happen if energy had not proceeded out from the first thought, the first Word.

 

John 1:14 is referring to Christ, no? Since it is being applied to Jesus and not the rest of existence, it simply means that Jesus is the same as “God”, and nothing more. To me, you are injecting meaning which does not exist into the writing.

 

Think about when an artist creates something. First – before anything – the artist has to have the idea. Or the first thought. Second – the idea must be acted upon – the artist takes a canvas and paint and expends energy (or the sacred spirit). Third – because the artist had the thought and because the artist expended energy from the thought – there is an end product, a painting (or the manifested result of the first thought). This whole process is trinitarian in the sense that the painting would never be without the original thought and the energy which proceeded out from that thought in order to produce a painting.

 

The most important thing is that you miss the part about the idea being independent, pervasive, eternal. The idea, my friend, is put into form, it is a self onto its own. An idea can be put into one form by one individual, and then put into another form by another individual without direct influence or exchange of information. The idea, however, remains constant and unchanged.

 

In short – when I look at creation – I see this dynamic in play. I can not work in my garden, walk in the woods, hold an infant and not see that first, before anything else there was an idea. (Not an idea in the limited sense that we humans think of) But a first intention, a first awareness that there could be something more. And then, there was spirit (energy) proceeding out from this first intention. Because that energy was expended we have life, glorious life. We have creation. I see this dynamic at play in science, and I accept that there are those who study science and do not see it. I see this dynamic at play in math, and I accept that there are those who study math and do not see it. I see this dynamic at play in the arts, and I accept that there are those who study the arts and do not see it.

 

No, it was not ONE thing’s “idea”, all those things were themselves before they were put into that form. There was not a time when they did not exist and there will never be a time when they do not exist. That baby was an individual before its life, it lived before it was born, this life is simply its present form. You see, your concept violates the laws of the world. The Law of Conservation of Energy/Matter states (basically) that nothing can be truly created or destroyed, but that they can continue in another form. So the idea that things originated somewhere and got applied by an omnipotent being (which is illogical in itself no less) is contrary to the truths of the universe.

 

--------------------------------------------

 

We can write off the anthropomorphised understanding of God - certainly. I agree whole heartedly.

 

Did I imply that? Why can gods not be like us? It seems to make more sense, for divine beings could easily mirror us. They are divine, but does that make them above displaying such characteristics? On the contrary, it would lead one to think that they would surely be able to do so.

 

But.... to repeat why I connect with Christianity:

 

The three words “Word became flesh” are a metaphysical way of looking at the Trinity. The “WORD” represents the “Father”, the original idea, the original mind, the first thought. “Became” metaphysically speaking is the first thought in action, energy (or the Sacred Spirit) proceeding out from the first thought. And “Flesh” metaphysically speaking is the manifested result of the first thought. “Flesh” could not happen if energy had not proceeded out from the first thought, the first Word.

 

As I’ve said, this ignores basic truths of the world, and is in defiance of the idea that all things are equal. That is why this is flawed, in my view.

 

----------------------------------------------

 

To say nothing of the actual word for God. The word Jesus used for God was "Alaha" - or sacred unity.

 

From a Sermon: http://www.uucheyenne.org/pdfs/2004-December-12.pdf

A Different View of Jesus’ Teachings

A Sermon by the Rev. Robert L. Morriss

December 12, 2004

 

This Unitarian/Universalist Minister is talking about the work of Neil Douglas-Klotz. We are studying his work right now at my church.

 

Central to this way of understanding Jesus’ sayings is the understanding that “In Aramaic, the

Name ALAHA refers to the divine, and wherever you read the word ‘God’ in a Quote from Jesus, you

can insert this word. It means variously, Sacred Unity, Oneness, the All, the Ultimate

Power/Potential, or the One with no opposite. From my perspective, this is an understanding of the

sacred that more closely corresponds to the Buddhist concept of the One than how we typically think

about the word God in the English language. As Neil points out, “if only one Being exists, then every

other being must have a share in it. Individuality is only relative in this view of God.

 

First off, the Bible was written in Greek, no (surely you would not be so naïve as to think the Bible was an accurate representation of what the Nazarene actually did)? Secondly, the assertion that “ALAHA” actually corroborates with the Judeo-Christian mindset is mistaken and misled. Hell, Satan and “evil” are very important to Christianity, so “the One with no opposite” is quite inaccurate in relation to Christianity. Next, the idea that “true” Christianity is close to Buddhism is laughable, and smacks of cheap revisionism (see the reasons I have listed). Again, not every other being can have a share in that “one Being” because the Bible time and again states that there are places without the presence of “god”. Furthermore, Christianity is not compatible with such a concept because it CLEARLY stresses the point that there is ONE being that is, in essence, apart from all else.

 

---------------------------------------------------

 

John 14:16-19 also says...

 

And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Advocate, to be with you forever. This is the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him. You know him, because he abides with you, and he will be in you.

 

"I will not leave you orphaned; I am coming to you. In a little while the world will no longer see me, but you will see me; because I live, you also will live. On that day you will know that

I am in my Father, and you in me, and I in you

.

 

Again, all this says is that the “Spirit” is “with you” and “in you”. Again, this is just repeating the notion of the trinity. The next part is simply presenting the trinity yet again. Furthermore, he is saying that people who accept him will “see” him and “live” (what’s the other part of that, as in people who don’t accept him?). “On that day” alludes to, in my mind, either the last judgment or the time of someone’s death, and that is when they get to be “in the Father”. That is still exclusive, not to mention illogical (based off of illogical concepts).

 

In addition to a literal look at those words, keep the following in mind.

 

When Jesus spoke - he spoke in Aramaic. The word Jesus would have used in referring to "the Father" had no gender affiliation (as we do in English). The language he would have used would have meant something closer to "birther of the Universe","original intention of the universe"

 

Again, keep in mind that the Bible was not written in Aramaic, and there is nothing to think that the Bible portrays Jesus in any accurate or valid fashion. Secondly, saying that the universe had an ultimate beginning (“birther of the Universe”) is in opposition to the fact that there is clearly continuity in the world. Next, it matter little if he called it “the Father”, “the Birther of the Universe”, “the Man”, “the Dude” or anything else, the basic things are not really changed.

 

And when Jesus spoke of "Spirit of truth" it would have been closer to "wisdom in movement","wisdom breathing through the universe". The aramaic word for "spirit" was closely related to "breath" and "energy movement" (as in wind).

 

That doesn’t change the present understanding of it significantly.

 

The Aramaic word for "truth" was closely related to what you and I would call "wisdom", not wisdom people get through the process of living (although that is part of it) but "wisdom of the ages", "eternal inate wisdom".

 

And the Spanish word for “wife” is closely related to what you and I would call “handcuffs”. What’s your point? The fact that Aramaic sometimes does not translate literally into English, while fascinating, is of little consequence.

 

If you are interested in learning more about the Aramaic language, the Aramaic Bible and the study of these things you may want to look up the work of Neil Douglas-Klotz.

 

Again, I do believe that the New Testament was written in Greek.

 

--------------------------------------------------------

 

It's not difficult Julian, just time consuming. So bear with me if my responses take awhile.

 

Like you I feel that people can reach truth in many ways.

Yes, that we agree on.

[Open_Minded]

Well.. actually Antlerman... we do. I don't have time to do the research. But in my years of reading about mystical traditions (both east and west) there are many many documented cases of people experiencing varying degrees of Non-duality (from very brief to very pro-longed periods). Some individuals have even reached abiding/continuous states of non-duality. Just type "state of Non-duality" into Google and see what you come up with. Yes - there will be many new-age stuff. But you will also find legitimate documented experiences (mostly from the east - but they are also starting to document western experiences as well).

 

Just did the research - check out the following:

 

THE NON-DUAL EXPERIENCE: A PHENOMENOLOGICAL

HERMENEUTIC INVESTIGATION OF THE SEEKER’S

JOURNEY TOWARDS WHOLENESS

BRIAN THERIAULT

B.H.Sc., University of Lethbridge, 2001

 

http://www.uleth.ca/edu/grad/pdf/thesis_theriault.pdf

 

Osho regularly encouraged seekers to investigate Truth for themselves rather

than rely on dogmatic belief and hearsay. With a series of meditations designed by Osho, many seekers experientially transcended the limitations of the mind and turned further inward, emptying themselves of personal identity (Osho, 2000). To be free of personal identity is to experience the ultimate freedom: the freedom from oneself. He points out:

 

As you go deeper in your interiority you suddenly find yourself disappearing into the oceanic consciousness. There is no self as such. You are no more, only existence is…. You have heard about other freedoms, but freedom from oneself is the ultimate freedom---not to be, and allow the existence to express itself in all its spontaneity and grandeur. But it is existence, not you, not me. It is life itself dancing, not you, not me (Osho, n.d., pp. 8-9).

 

This is the moment when one takes the leap into their own interiority and 43 dissolves the layers of mind before disappearing into the fathomless nothingness of existence. Osho embraced the wisdom found in paradox: in which being and non-being met, in which every contradiction became transparent, and when one is fully present that they appear almost absent or where they are so absent that they are intensely present. To understand that life itself is nothing more than a grand display of paradoxes is to enter the stream of non-dual wisdom

 

I printed off the whole paper - it was chuck full of references to "non-dual" when I did a find. Now I have to read the whole thing. Thanks Antlerman, one more thing to read.

[NotBlinded]

How so? Nature proves the concept of the trinity wrong, without a shadow of a shred of a doubt. To say that the universe is of one deity, one offspring and one spirit when you can clearly see the source of divinity at the heart of existence and NOT above it is to be blind of reality.

I would have to say that nature does prove the 'trinity' right. The trinity is just one of the ways this can be explained.

 

This if from The Science of Mind by Ernest Holmes.

 

THREEFOLD NATURE OF GOD

 

If we study the true nature of man, then, we shall have delved into the real nature of God, or First Cause, from which man springs; and as we have found that man is threefold in his nature, so we must also deduce that God is threefold in His

 

p. 43

 

[paragraph continues] Nature; that is, God is Spirit, or Self-Knowingness; God is Law and action; and God is Result or Body. This is the inner meaning of the teaching of "the Trinity." But let us elaborate: God, as Self-Knowing Spirit, means the Divine Being Whom we have always thought of and believed in; the Being to Whom we have prayed and Whom we have adored. God, as Law, means the way in which the Spirit works; and Law in this sense, would be the servant of the Spirit. God, as Body, means the manifestation of the Spirit. We might put it in another form and say, there is the Thing, the way that It works and the result of Its work. Still another form would be to say, Cause, Medium and Effect.

 

TRINITY OF BEING

 

A trinity of being appears to run through all Nature and all Life; for instance, there is electricity, the way it works and its result, which is light or motive power. There is the seed, the creative medium of the soil and the plant. Turn it as we may, we are confronted with the necessity of a trinity of being. There must always be the thing, what it does and the way that it operates. Always a trinity runs through life and through everything in it. But through the Trinity of God and man there runs a Self-Conscious Spirit, and this is what distinguishes man from the brute, or from a purely mechanical creation; and is the only thing that could make God a Self-Knowing Power.

 

Here is the link: The Science of Mind

 

I can't deny this is how nature operates.

[Amanda]

Did you know Marduk was Tiamat's son?

Skankboy, I got the idea that Murdock was like her great grandson... because that site says this:

 

Ea then builds a dwelling over the place of Apsu's grave and lives with his wife, Damkina; their first son is Marduk

 

It does say that Murdock is one of the deities, and the God that did this:

 

Marduk slays Tiamat, cuts up her body into two pieces, making heaven out one part and earth out of the other.

 

The site also says this:

 

Marduk is very much the God of civic order of one particular civilization. The battleground is very much that of Babylon against other states and the ancient mother-chaos of the Seas is adapted to represent the other in cultural terms as a military threat rather than an actual cosmic force.

 

I'm sure you know more than me. I just found this interesting, because I did know there was a sea serpent in mythology, and was curious if it was the idea that got incorporated into the OT as the serpent/satan. I don't think there is any connection there though.

 

However, it may be in the book of Genesis, where it says that God created the heavens and the earth. I am going to look this up via the concordances. Maybe in the Jewish story, El didn't lose after all?

 

[Antlerman]

I printed off the whole paper - it was chuck full of references to "non-dual" when I did a find. Now I have to read the whole thing. Thanks Antlerman, one more thing to read.

No problem BTW, where did Amy go? We sort of lept off the precipice a little in conversation it seems. Well notheless, it is on topic "what constitutes being a true Christian". Goes to show you God is understood many ways...

[Open_Minded]

No problem BTW, where did Amy go?

 

Amy?????? OH.... you hadn't noticed???????

 

She's in the Resurrecting The Problems Of The Resurrection Of Jesus, another challenge to Paul_S and other Christians Thread.

http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?s=&a...st&p=194203

 

 

(shaking head)

 

That girl is a glutton for punishment.

[RHEMtron]

Rhemtron, I'm impressed! You're much more astute than I! However, you have come close to what it took me weeks to figure out at an interntly focused pace!

Thanks!! I give credit to the logic and reasoning that God gave me

[Antlerman]

No problem BTW, where did Amy go?

 

Amy?????? OH.... you hadn't noticed???????

 

She's in the Resurrecting The Problems Of The Resurrection Of Jesus, another challenge to Paul_S and other Christians Thread.

http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?s=&a...st&p=194203

 

 

(shaking head)

 

That girl is a glutton for punishment.

Oh... I see... I guess this is where she is stuck at... Oh well, like I said we took off the edge of the precipice and are flying around in the air exploring possibilities, and she appears ground-bound, and so she turns around to go back to pounding the same old nail into that same old cross. I mean for goodness sake, how many times do you have to crucify him before you can be born again?? Oh well, maybe someday....

[Amanda]

No problem BTW, where did Amy go?

 

Amy?????? OH.... you hadn't noticed???????

 

She's in the Resurrecting The Problems Of The Resurrection Of Jesus, another challenge to Paul_S and other Christians Thread.

http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?s=&a...st&p=194203

 

 

(shaking head)

 

That girl is a glutton for punishment.

Oh... I see... I guess this is where she is stuck at... Oh well, like I said we took off the edge of the precipice and are flying around in the air exploring possibilities, and she appears ground-bound, and so she turns around to go back to pounding the same old nail into that same old cross. I mean for goodness sake, how many times do you have to crucify him before you can be born again?? Oh well, maybe someday....

 

Hey, I think it is good that she is still on this site! Heck, give her a few nights to sleep on this, and I bet it will start to sink in. It takes longer for some of us than others. *sigh*

 

[Open_Minded]

Here goes – the concept of trinity is very real to me, it presents itself in nature, in life in general. As I experience the trinity (not as the fundamentalists choose to literalize it) the trinity is within all of life, all of creation.

How so? Nature proves the concept of the trinity wrong, without a shadow of a shred of a doubt. To say that the universe is of one deity, one offspring and one spirit when you can clearly see the source of divinity at the heart of existence and NOT above it is to be blind of reality.

I agree completely – and still – within all through all – and beyond all I experience:

• First intent/mind as a precipitator of all that is (and every will be and ever was)
  
• Action/energy moving out from the first intent/awareness that something could be – could take form and function
  
• And finally actual physical manifestation of the first intent which precipitated it all.
  

Again, I find it frustrating that one would opt to cling to something simply because of where one was brought up. If you are unwilling to let go of a dogma because you find it most accessible, that is like someone being unwilling to try new foods, especially when their own cooking is so similar to others’. Also, excuse me for saying so, but the "contemplative Christianity" sorts of things are, in a way, trying to hide from the very dogma they adhere to. That's just my take on it, however.

Your “take on it” is forgetting to take into account the years I did not call myself Christian. The years I spent studying (and applying) other – (new age and eastern) forms of spirituality. Your “take on it” is forgetting to take into account that I’ve already tried the “foods” of different cultures, and although I found the experience useful and would not change it – had I to do it over again – I did CHOOSE to come back to Christianity.

 

Although the experience that precipitated my return to Christianity was a surprise – and not my choice. Ultimately reclaiming Christianity was my choice. It was not an easy choice to make, either Julian. It required hard work. Contemplative Christianity is where I feel at home, it took me years to discover it – after moving back into the Christian circle. You may see in it what you want to see, that is your choice. But given the simple fact that I have had my own experiences outside Christianity, given the simple fact that my mother is Deist, my father spent many years as agnostic/atheist and that I’ve siblings who are something other than Christian – you are diminishing my own path by stating that the accessibility of Contemplative Christianity is “like someone being unwilling to try new foods”. I tried them, I even liked some of them, I still cook them occasionally, my preference is for the path of Contemplative Christianity. It’s not important that you comprehend the path I’ve chosen – I can accept that. But, to simply write off another person’s path as “trying to hide from the very dogma they adhere to” is a disservice to the effort of learning about another’s path.

 

John 1:14 is referring to Christ, no? Since it is being applied to Jesus and not the rest of existence, it simply means that Jesus is the same as “God”, and nothing more. To me, you are injecting meaning which does not exist into the writing.

Maybe so, that is your right. But, in reading any great piece of literature we “inject meaning” from our own experience. That is what makes a piece of work literature rather than just a book. The ability of literature to transcend time and culture and world-view. I refer you to another post – by Alice this time.

 

http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?s=&a...st&p=140393

When my deconversion was first begining to surface I had a conversation with a friend who was on the 'fringes' of my fundamentalist literalist church, it had occurred to me that a belief in a literal Adam and Eve was rather foolish - but I struggled to accept this ... I saw ahead of me everything I held to be true crumbling away if I acknowledged that the creation story wasn't 'literally true'.

 

That's coz I had a mindset that was completely caught up in a belief in the Bible as the word of God - a black/white view of the world that said you are all in or all out.

 

I remember my friend saying to me ...'just because it never happened don't mean it ain't the truth'. It took me ages to get my head around that!

 

It's the fundamentalist kind of thinking that leads people to think they have to 'throw everything out' and to those we've left behind assuming we have ... the number of friends who half expect me to become an agent of the 'dark side' is quite unnerving at times, like I'm going to nick their TV on the way out or something.

 

I thought of this today ~ In defence of Cherry Pickers ...

 

Fundamentalist christians have all kinds of cherries in the pie of life they bake and feast on. They don't examine the cherries - they all go in ... the bitter ones, the stones, the diseased and wormy ones, it ruins their pie but as long as they believe hard enough that it tastes good (and the occasional mouthful truly is) they can convince themselves it is - however bad it tastes.

 

The Bible is a bowl of cherries and I am resolved to cherry pick for my pie. I'll season it with a little Taoist cinnamon and sprinkle of some buddhist sugar if I fancy it - sometimes I'll add a little celtic christianity custard. I'll put in whatever I want and leave out whatever I want, and I'll eat it with whatever I want as well.

 

Because when it comes to it ... it makes sense to cherry pick, its only a fundamentalist mindset that says - its all or nothing. its only if someone is claiming that the bible is a magical written by god book that this applies - as soon as one accepts that it is a compilation of ideas about man's search to understand spirituality - it becomes clear that the way to use it is to cherry pick and it's as helpful to know what and why we discard some parts and why we keep other parts.

 

My name is Alice ... and I am a cherry picker ....

 

Hello Julian, My name is Open_Minded and I’m a cherry picker.

 

The most important thing is that you miss the part about the idea being independent, pervasive, eternal. The idea, my friend, is put into form, it is a self onto its own. An idea can be put into one form by one individual, and then put into another form by another individual without direct influence or exchange of information. The idea, however, remains constant and unchanged.

Ahhhh .... Julian..... I hadn’t missed it at all. I agree completely. In fact – that is the beauty of it – don’t you feel?

 

In short – when I look at creation – I see this dynamic in play. I can not work in my garden, walk in the woods, hold an infant and not see that first, before anything else there was an idea. (Not an idea in the limited sense that we humans think of) But a first intention, a first awareness that there could be something more. And then, there was spirit (energy) proceeding out from this first intention. Because that energy was expended we have life, glorious life. We have creation. I see this dynamic at play in science, and I accept that there are those who study science and do not see it. I see this dynamic at play in math, and I accept that there are those who study math and do not see it. I see this dynamic at play in the arts, and I accept that there are those who study the arts and do not see it.

No, it was not ONE thing’s “idea”, all those things were themselves before they were put into that form. There was not a time when they did not exist and there will never be a time when they do not exist. That baby was an individual before its life, it lived before it was born, this life is simply its present form. You see, your concept violates the laws of the world. The Law of Conservation of Energy/Matter states (basically) that nothing can be truly created or destroyed, but that they can continue in another form. So the idea that things originated somewhere and got applied by an omnipotent being (which is illogical in itself no less) is contrary to the truths of the universe.

You and I don’t disagree all that much, Julian. We are just expressing different dimensions of our own beliefs. The simple reality is that humanity does experience duality. That humanity does see “creation” for lack of a better term. I’m not arguing science here – I’m talking about what I see and experience. And what I see and experience is a process of becoming – call it creation if you will. But, when I talk of the Trinity – to me it is a process of becoming – a process of UNITY or ONENESS in the becoming – a process of pure potential moving into concrete reality. And I see it everywhere, in everything – and it is beautiful – it is a dance a celebration.

 

As to your side comment: “.... got applied by an omnipotent being (which is illogical in itself no less)” escapes what I’ve been trying to convey. At any point did you see me refer to an omnipotent sky daddy out in the far reaches of the universe “creating”? No, my understanding of God is not about a “being” of any sort.

 

We can write off the anthropomorphized understanding of God - certainly. I agree whole heartedly.

Did I imply that? Why can gods not be like us? It seems to make more sense, for divine beings could easily mirror us. They are divine, but does that make them above displaying such characteristics? On the contrary, it would lead one to think that they would surely be able to do so.

Well, gods are like us. That is the problem. As Antlerman has said, “we create god in our image”.

 

As a result we have wars – “my god is better than your god”. We have literalists willing to kill each other, willing to commit all sorts of horrid acts in “defense” of their god. No, I can do without anthropomorphized understandings of God. I also accept, that at this point in the history of humanity, they are still part of the overall picture. They are still part of the ONENESS, the UNITY.

_____________________________

 

First off, the Bible was written in Greek, no (surely you would not be so naïve as to think the Bible was an accurate representation of what the Nazarene actually did)?

I’m well aware of that, thank you very much. I would assume that in the time I’ve been on this board and the number of posts I’ve logged going after the literalist mindset that it would pretty common knowledge that I know my way around Biblical scholarship. Does that mean we should make no attempt to understand the language Jesus spoke in and its impact on the words that have been attributed to Jesus?

 

(Too many quotes - moving to blue text to signify your statements) Next, the idea that “true” Christianity is close to Buddhism is laughable, and smacks of cheap revisionism (see the reasons I have listed). Again, not every other being can have a share in that “one Being” because the Bible time and again states that there are places without the presence of “god”. Furthermore, Christianity is not compatible with such a concept because it CLEARLY stresses the point that there is ONE being that is, in essence, apart from all else.

 

Let me address a few things:

1st... “the idea that ‘true’ Christianity is close to Buddhism is laughable”. Julian – at any point – did you see me refer to my beliefs, my way of looking at and experiencing Christianity is “true”?

 

I started this thread – True Follower's Of Christ and this whole concept of “TRUE” anything drives me nuts. For the record – I don’t believe there is a TRUE Christianity. I don’t believe there are TRUE followers of Christ. I don’t believe there is a TRUE Buddhism, and I would be wary of any Buddhist that claimed there was. I don’t believe there is a TRUE Islam, a TRUE Hinduism, a TRUE any thing.

 

I do believe there are ONLY true humans. And as true humans we are all capable of truly bringing hell and high water upon ourselves. As true humans we are all truly capable of experiencing the very heights and joys of heaven itself. We are truly capable of grasping the deepest insights that wisdom can give us and we are truly capable of being so caught up in ego that wisdom escapes us. As true humans we are all truly capable of knowing the infinite expressions of love and truly capable of immersing ourselves in so much anger and resentment that all we know is pain and hatred.

 

You see what you see in the Bible and I see what I see. I refuse to get into a never-ending discussion as to who sees the TRUE picture. There is no TRUE understanding of the Bible. There is the Bible and there is personal perception of the Bible. I accept that, I’ve always accepted that. I am thankful that my parents taught me that – instead of giving me their anger and resentment about Christianity (when they left the church) they taught me objectivity. Because they let go of their own bitterness and frustrations around leaving the church, we children were able to move on with our lives without the burdens attached to anger and bitterness.

 

Julian – you have said many times in this dialog – that you understand people can search for truth on different paths. In this we agree.

 

It is obvious that the way I experience Christianity, the way I read the Bible is befuddling to you (to say the least). So – let’s leave it be where it is – and just accept each other.

 

In the end – we both have our paths and as you’ve said before – we agree on many things. What we know of each other’s paths is what we see in each other. And if we end up agreeing about so many things – things like ONENESS, non-duality, etc... then our choice of paths must be giving us something that we should both end up in a spot of agreement on the bigger issues, no?

[Antlerman]

Hey, I think it is good that she is still on this site! Heck, give her a few nights to sleep on this, and I bet it will start to sink in. It takes longer for some of us than others. *sigh*

 

Yes you are right, but I think it may be more than a few nights. I don't buy the whole coming here to share the gospel thing. There's lots of places to go on this planet to do that. To me everything always comes back to what the individual is getting out of it. Someone claiming to be led by the Lord, is really feeling drawn by something in themselves for themselves. They can symbolize that impluse by putting the face of a god to it if it serves them, but in the end it is about them personally. It is interesting to consider, but we may never know.