Christo-Psyche ?

[headheart]

The following comment was made by urbanmonk. As most of his terminology seems to be a merger of Christianity and Psychology etc ???, I think that this would not be a bridge too far for those of you who are familiar with the psychological language. ie. ego, self, super-ego, id etc.
I have endeavoured for nearly about a year to understand his thinking and have often advised him to come here to discuss his thoughts, but it seems that I will have to do what I did not want to do and that it to bring Muhammed to the Mountain

Sincerely,
Eric J. Sawyer

Robert, I'm going to invest eight more minutes in an attempt to add to the perspective I gave back HERE.

Sin is a game we play with the power of a very powerful mind that was given us "before the foundation of the world" (before the appearance of time and mass). Part of the game is that sin is supposed to make us actually guilty. Without guilt, you can't play this kind of game. So, sin is all that can be imagined...for which we cannot be guilty...but for which we think we are...temporarily (while the game is played).

Sin makes our Self (Spirit) disappear, and makes self-concepts (material bodies) appear. They are never more than appearances, which decieve only our selves. They don't decieve our Self, which remains aware of it's Self. Sin uses mind-power to multitask. Our mind knows reality, but in sin, it also imagines all that is unreal and virtually impossible.

The important thing to understand about sin is that it is based on presuppositions which are false, and always will be false, such as, "we have changed our Self in to something else, and are therefore guilty". Guilt precedes all of time and material mass, and is responsible for all scenes and scenarios that time (history) seems to present to our senses. All of these scenes are false witnesses against our Self...which do not really make us guilty.

From: What is sin ? by robertb @ Apologetics 301

[Jedidiah]

Content free gibberish.

[UncoveringPatmo]

An excellent passage, with one exception. To sin is to partake in the illusion, yes, but to claim we bear no guilt in the act of participating in this illusion, is false.

Once steps are taken to remove oneself from the illusion by seeking to halt the growth of one's sins, only then does one begin to remove onesef from the illusion. This is a troubling path, many end up in hospitals, jails or endure material death while pursuing the ends of this path.

To stumble and fall while striving towards the ends of this path is not necessarily a bad thing, for it can eventually become a valued asset, enabling the "self" to learn from it and avoid future 'sins' of this particular kind.

It seems to me this "monk" is beginning to uncover the illusion of duality, which is to say that he is aligning his soul with the Essence of the Father. Once certain obstacles are hurdled, perhaps I will more fully comprehend the precise meaning of his statement, but for now, a rudimentary understanding will suffice. :)

[Jedidiah]

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...33&postcount=2

[UncoveringPatmo]

This is most definitely not content free gibberish, in my opinion. Furthermore, it is incoherent to suggest that there is such a thing as "content free" gibberish, for gibberish cannot lack content in the strict sense, but only in the sense that it is perceived as such by the perceiver. Usually, the "accused gibber-er" feels there is much content to what he/she is saying, even if it is perceived as gibberish by the perceiver, which makes it gibberish subjectively, not objectively.