"Ye are gods" saith scripture. Yet Jesus says "I make myself more by being as the lesser" [Archive]

Gatsby

July 26th 2009, 09:49 AM

Well if you find the time I think you'd find it an interesting read all the same. Again I don't necessary by into his interpretation however I find nothing heretical in what he's advocating as far as his interpretation. He does maintain that these elohims spoken of in Psalms 82 are created divine beings and are not of the same substance as Yahweh. He coins the term that they do not share the same "species unique " nature with Yahweh..but he does maintain that these beings are divine and ruling in heaven and God sits in council with them. But here is the link for what it's worth http://www.thedivinecouncil.com/ specifically http://www.thedivinecouncil.com/Introduction%20to%20the%20Divine%20Council%20MTIT.pdf

Again I only mention him because of a guy name kerry shirts aka the backyard professor whose been quoting him and taking him completely out of context in order to support Mormon claims to the existence of other gods in the connection to a heavenly family that exists in heaven. Of course Heiser as an evangelical doesn't beleive this....but FARMS is having a hay day..some of which Michael himself has refuted....

Well,It's wonderfull isn't it, the lengths you as orthodox Christians will go to berate and find fault with your fellow orthodox Christians. It wouldn't do for the Mormons to go pinching stuff from the Bible or plagarising someone else's writings. Who is this Michael Heiser, he certainly doesn't know what he's talking about because by saying that there are Divine beings but they are not of the same 'species unique' nature with God' his knowledge or lack of it causes him to fall flat on his face.

Number one. We are ALL Divine Beings, coming from the SAME substance of God. There is only one substance with which all things have been made. This substance is called Mind Stuff coming from the Spiritual Divine Mind. We are made in His Image and Likeness, so it says in the Bible and other spiritual books. This means that we have the same, not unique, creative ability as God because we are God's, all of us. God made us out of Himself to be Like to Himself. What we have forgotten in this world of shadows is our Divine Birth as Spiritual Beings beleiving instead that we are only mortal human beings, we are the lesser God's because we are not using our Divine capabilities. We are not using the spiritual creative laws therefore we are miscreating and not creating like God who creates perfectly and loves perfectly. Until we live as the God's we are meant to be, we will always be seeking God and never finding Him.

But to get upset because the Mormoms or any other off shoot of mainstream Christianity is really being so very base, petty and non spiritual. Not doubt in your eyes, they will go to hell for doing this. This to is a misnomer, but that is being discussed on another thread so I wont go over it here.

Regards
Gatsby

RBerman

July 26th 2009, 04:33 PM

Gatsby, thanks for reminding us why this forum is called "Unorthodox Theology!" I'm not sure why a pantheist considers himself qualified to referee between Mormons and Evangelicals, though.

Gatsby

July 27th 2009, 06:06 AM

Gatsby, thanks for reminding us why this forum is called "Unorthodox Theology!" I'm not sure why a pantheist considers himself qualified to referee between Mormons and Evangelicals, though.

Hi Again, firstly Iam not a Pantheist, whatever that is. Nor am I refereeing between different Christain sect.

What Iam pointing out or trying to at least is show how attatched you get as Christians to my 'book or scripture or your book or scripture'. This clinging to a text that is not all Truth I find amusing. You obviously cant agree because there are so many different off shoots of Christian fundementalism and you all fight and argue that you have the Truth.

Surely is the Bible were the authentic book of Truth you would all be as one and not divided into many other sects of Christanity. The Bible should meld you altogether instead it divides you which tells me you dont understand it in the first place.

Jesus taught in parables. Why did he do this? Because those, including the disciples at the time, didn't understand what he was talking about. Now knowing this the church still has gospels purporting to be from these very same disciples. How clever is that?

I have said before that we must respect each others views as they are all valid and that is true. You are where you need to be now, but there is much you have to learn as there is much I still have to learn. However if you saw a child putting their hand in a fire, you would stop them, so it is that I try to help you from getting your fingers burned, so to speak. I dont see anything wrong in that in fact it would be remiss of me if I didn't try to help.

Regards
Gatsby

Eeset-Shadowgrl

July 27th 2009, 11:23 AM

I have said before that we must respect each others views as they are all valid and that is true. You are where you need to be now, but there is much you have to learn as there is much I still have to learn. However if you saw a child putting their hand in a fire, you would stop them, so it is that I try to help you from getting your fingers burned, so to speak. I dont see anything wrong in that in fact it would be remiss of me if I didn't try to help.

Regards
Gatsby
Gatsby would you say then that the concept of gods is one of more than flesh and blood? Would it make sense to substitute "more than flesh and blood" for gods in those passages?

RBerman

July 27th 2009, 12:28 PM

Hi Again, firstly I am not a Pantheist, whatever that is.
How do you know you aren't one, if you don't know what one is?

Surely is the Bible were the authentic book of Truth you would all be as one and not divided into many other sects of Christanity. The Bible should meld you altogether instead it divides you which tells me you dont understand it in the first place.
Well, at least one of us (that is, of those who self-identify as Christians) doesn't understand it. It's a rather large book, so it wouldn't be surprising if each of us was correct on certain points and incorrect on certain points of what it teaches.

Gatsby

July 27th 2009, 02:01 PM

Gatsby would you say then that the concept of gods is one of more than flesh and blood? Would it make sense to substitute "more than flesh and blood" for gods in those passages?

Hi Esset, most certainly the concept of gods is more than one of just flesh and blood. It is a spirtual fact and not a concept at all.

I had a look at the link to Michael Heisser's book and he makes the very fundamental mistake of terming the Christ as the second person, the person who was with God before the world was made. Now as long as people of any denomination view Christ as a person then they have got their facts wrong right at the start of their thesis. None of us, nor Christ is a person as such, we are energy, Spirit Beings encased in matter. Yes, we call ourself a person of course we do, but what we cant do is call Christ a person as well because that is not true.

Therefore I dont really see how people can understand the spirit when it is termed as flesh and blood. I think it would be more sensible to bring this fact in to any work that is to be tied into the Bible, which is a spiritual book.

To say we are all Gods Iam not refering to archaic Indian Type Gods or Greek Gods, ie the Sun God, or the Moon Good or the God of Fertiltiy or someing of that kind, Iam saying that we are Like with God in our manner of creating our reality. We are One, as there is only One God, One Soul, One Spirit, and we are IT together in Oneness.

Regards
Gatsby

Gatsby

July 27th 2009, 02:04 PM

How do you know you aren't one, if you don't know what one is?

Well, at least one of us (that is, of those who self-identify as Christians) doesn't understand it. It's a rather large book, so it wouldn't be surprising if each of us was correct on certain points and incorrect on certain points of what it teaches.

Hi again, the word pantheism was mentioned to me a while ago but I have to say that I have forgotten what it is meant to be, I didn't take much notice at the time as Iam not one for labels therefore I have no real idea if I would be deemed a Pantheist or not and it doesn't really make much difference to me either way.

Yes, you got that right. The Bible IS a big book.

Regards
Gatsby:wink:

RBerman

July 27th 2009, 02:14 PM

Hi again, the word pantheism was mentioned to me a while ago but I have to say that I have forgotten what it is meant to be, I didn't take much notice at the time as Iam not one for labels therefore I have no real idea if I would be deemed a Pantheist or not and it doesn't really make much difference to me either way.

Ok. A Pantheist is someone who believes that everything has a divine spark: peoples, rain, nebulae, etc. You actually only said that you believe people are divine, so you may just be a Transcendentalist, unless you also believe in the divinity of the whole universe, in which case you are a pantheist.

Gatsby

July 27th 2009, 04:27 PM

Ok. A Pantheist is someone who believes that everything has a divine spark: peoples, rain, nebulae, etc. You actually only said that you believe people are divine, so you may just be a Transcendentalist, unless you also believe in the divinity of the whole universe, in which case you are a pantheist.

Hmmm, thanks Robert I had to think through this description for a moment. Well we all have within us the Divine Spark, that is true. I didn't relate this to rain, wind fire air etc however thinking about that I can only say that everything is Divine in it's essence, coming from the Divine Mind as it does. Generally speaking when I talk about Divinity Iam meaning our souls, our essence is of God and we come from God and go back to Him.

But when you know that God is omnipresent, which I would think you would agree with me here, we have to then realise that means that God is everywhere and there can be no place where he is Not. That also means that He is in us individually, he has to be as He is everywhere. God doesn't skirt around our bodies and miss us he is in us and in everything else.

We can only go back to god by transcending our consciousness, taking it to a higher level than what we have here, so does that make me a transcendalist too? See how confusing labels are, better off without them because they are devisive.

Regards
Gatsby

RBerman

July 27th 2009, 05:35 PM

Actually, you're giving a pretty good description of generic pantheism, so the label fits well. Now you know!

Sparko

July 27th 2009, 06:21 PM

Eeset-Shadowgrl

July 27th 2009, 07:44 PM

Hi Esset, most certainly the concept of gods is more than one of just flesh and blood. It is a spirtual fact and not a concept at all.

To say we are all Gods Iam not refering to archaic Indian Type Gods or Greek Gods, ie the Sun God, or the Moon Good or the God of Fertiltiy or someing of that kind, Iam saying that we are Like with God in our manner of creating our reality. We are One, as there is only One God, One Soul, One Spirit, and we are IT together in Oneness.

Regards
Gatsby
You are positing an understanding of the Law of One. Words tend to get in our way here. Labels, as you pointed out are almost worthless. I am sure you realize it is a tendency of the human mind to put things in nice neat little boxes so the lid can be closed and the box placed on an appropriate shelf. Fortunately infinite intelligence is vastly more capable than the human mind. It is unlimited.

You will find on this site and in other places many well intended scholarly dedicated sincere people who have difficulty communicating accurately. I admire your attempt to explore beyond the orthodox party line. Texts unfortunately are a poor tool for that task. Often textual discussions seem to foster a tighter grip on the security blankets of one's own culture and doctrine. Jesus knows this and though he could easily author texts he left that to others. He told people what they should do and it did not include reading texts. In fact he told the most knowledgeable people of his day that they did not understand Scripture. Were he to appear in human form standing with the Pope or any other religious leader of the present day do you think he would say "wow you've got it right!" Hardly. Ah but I digress.

I wish you all the best in your efforts.
:flowers:

scooner67

July 27th 2009, 09:08 PM

Hmmm, thanks Robert I had to think through this description for a moment. Well we all have within us the Divine Spark, that is true. I didn't relate this to rain, wind fire air etc however thinking about that I can only say that everything is Divine in it's essence, coming from the Divine Mind as it does. Generally speaking when I talk about Divinity Iam meaning our souls, our essence is of God and we come from God and go back to Him.

But when you know that God is omnipresent, which I would think you would agree with me here, we have to then realise that means that God is everywhere and there can be no place where he is Not. That also means that He is in us individually, he has to be as He is everywhere. God doesn't skirt around our bodies and miss us he is in us and in everything else.

We can only go back to god by transcending our consciousness, taking it to a higher level than what we have here, so does that make me a transcendalist too? See how confusing labels are, better off without them because they are devisive.

Regards
Gatsby

When I think of God, I tend to view the being of God as outside of creation. I view him as being who it complete in his own eternal self existence and non contingent in completeness viewing him as the onlly necessary being from which all contingent beings come into existence. Thomas Aquinas beleived this is self evidence. That we see things and other beings coming into and out of being thus their contingency. Logic would tell us since there cannot be a infinite regression of past events then there had to be (self evidently so) a necessary being who was non contingent. He describes this being as a necessary being from which all unnessary contingent beings came into existence. Indeed isn't this exactly what we see from modern cosmology. That things in the universe cannot be divine, but are rather created from a being who is divine and by definition eternal! This also squares well with biblical revelation. In the beginning God created......................!!!!

Gatsby

July 28th 2009, 10:52 AM

Actually, you're giving a pretty good description of generic pantheism, so the label fits well. Now you know!

:wink: I shall bow to your superior knowledge, now I know what Iam:blush:

Regards
Gatsby

Gatsby

July 28th 2009, 11:59 AM

we believe that God IS everywhere but not that God is EVERYTHING. God's creation is not HIM.

Pantheists think God is the universe. I would put Urban Monk in that camp too, since he thinks the universe is just a dream inside God's mind.

How do you KNOW what you believe is true? Where did you get this information that God is everything?

Hi Sparko, you contradict yourself here by saying that you believe God Is everywhere but God is not EVERYTHING. God's creation is not HIM.

But to believe that is faulty thinking is it not? God and His Creation are One, they must be, there cant be anything else. If what you said were true then God is seperate from his Creation and that then would invalidate that fact that God is not seperate from his creation, He sustains His Creation. There would have to be a 'outside' of God, something that is seperate from Him, but there cant be. For where would that be? The Creator is One with His Creation and Sustains that very Creation. How else would it be sustained. To think seperation is the stuff of the mortal mind. The believing that God is a seperate Being, sitting somewhere or living or existing somewhere seperate from His creation, But think for a moment, and you will discover that this cannot be the case, it doesn't make sense that this is the case when you think about it. Hence everything, from the least to the greatest IS the Creator AND the creation. They are ONE and the SAME. The Creator BECOMES THE THINGS HE MAKES!!

Jesus said He and the Creator WERE ONE. He didn't say he was seperate from the Creator but they were ONE

I have been at the point that you are now, so I understand how you can think as millions more think, the same way as you, that God is seperate from us, we would be lost souls, which of course with that thinking you are. But the more you go inwards, where knowledge is, really is I mean, then you will discover for yourself that you too are One with God the Creator and when that time comes as it surely must, you too will wonder how you could ever have thought that it could have been otherwise.

You ask how do I know? That is a valid question that deserves a answer!

The answer is I was guided to several teachers of spiritual teachings and through studying and going within, which is called meditation or prayer, and waiting for a answer to my questions I was given the answers which I KNEW TO BE TRUTH. I really cant describe it any better than that, yet that sounds simple but it is not so simple as it actually sounds.

The spirit is gives inuitively the answers and when that happenes the soul knows because Spirit knows all that there is to know. This enlightenment unfolds within you. It can happen all at once with some people but generally speaking it unfolds over time. The answers are given when the soul is ready to understand them and not before. This is a fact and is the same with everyone. When you have the question, the answer will come when you are ready to understand the answer and not before. This is why I say that we are all at the stages we need to be and should not be disheartened if some may know more than others regarding the ways of Spirit, you are given the 'milk' you can digest as Iam given the 'milk' that I can digest. That really is all that matters and that way we progress along the spiritual path.

The fact that you have questions tells me alone that you are on the right road.

Regards
Gatsby

Gatsby

July 28th 2009, 12:10 PM

You are positing an understanding of the Law of One. Words tend to get in our way here. Labels, as you pointed out are almost worthless. I am sure you realize it is a tendency of the human mind to put things in nice neat little boxes so the lid can be closed and the box placed on an appropriate shelf. Fortunately infinite intelligence is vastly more capable than the human mind. It is unlimited.

You will find on this site and in other places many well intended scholarly dedicated sincere people who have difficulty communicating accurately. I admire your attempt to explore beyond the orthodox party line. Texts unfortunately are a poor tool for that task. Often textual discussions seem to foster a tighter grip on the security blankets of one's own culture and doctrine. Jesus knows this and though he could easily author texts he left that to others. He told people what they should do and it did not include reading texts. In fact he told the most knowledgeable people of his day that they did not understand Scripture. Were he to appear in human form standing with the Pope or any other religious leader of the present day do you think he would say "wow you've got it right!" Hardly. Ah but I digress.

I wish you all the best in your efforts.
:flowers:

Thank you Eeset for the flowers, you are most kind.

I couldn't agree more with you, what you say is true, so very true.

Regards
Gatsby

Sparko

July 28th 2009, 12:40 PM

Hi Sparko, you contradict yourself here by saying that you believe God Is everywhere but God is not EVERYTHING. God's creation is not HIM.

[QUOTE]But to believe that is faulty thinking is it not? God and His Creation are One, they must be, there cant be anything else. If what you said were true then God is seperate from his Creation and that then would invalidate that fact that God is not seperate from his creation, He sustains His Creation. There would have to be a 'outside' of God, something that is seperate from Him, but there cant be. For where would that be?

I can build a house and be in the house. The house is not me. I can also be outside the house.

The universe is a creation of God's. He can be in it and out of it. since he is infinite, he can be both at the same time.

The Creator is One with His Creation and Sustains that very Creation. How else would it be sustained. To think seperation is the stuff of the mortal mind. The believing that God is a seperate Being, sitting somewhere or living or existing somewhere seperate from His creation, But think for a moment, and you will discover that this cannot be the case, it doesn't make sense that this is the case when you think about it. Hence everything, from the least to the greatest IS the Creator AND the creation. They are ONE and the SAME. The Creator BECOMES THE THINGS HE MAKES!!

that paragraph makes no semantic sense at all.

Jesus said He and the Creator WERE ONE. He didn't say he was seperate from the Creator but they were ONE

Jesus IS the creator. That doesn't mean what he creates is him.

I have been at the point that you are now, so I understand how you can think as millions more think, the same way as you, that God is seperate from us, we would be lost souls, which of course with that thinking you are. But the more you go inwards, where knowledge is, really is I mean, then you will discover for yourself that you too are One with God the Creator and when that time comes as it surely must, you too will wonder how you could ever have thought that it could have been otherwise.

ah, the old "I have been there but have moved past that idea" thing. right. I see it as "you once thought correctly, but have fallen into error"

If you are God, make a rock appear on my desk for me. Just a little one. make it red.

That should be easy.

You ask how do I know? That is a valid question that deserves a answer!

The answer is I was guided to several teachers of spiritual teachings and through studying and going within, which is called meditation or prayer, and waiting for a answer to my questions I was given the answers which I KNEW TO BE TRUTH. I really cant describe it any better than that, yet that sounds simple but it is not so simple as it actually sounds.

so you just KNOW that you are God?

Don't forget about that rock on my desk.

The spirit is gives inuitively the answers and when that happenes the soul knows because Spirit knows all that there is to know. This enlightenment unfolds within you. It can happen all at once with some people but generally speaking it unfolds over time. The answers are given when the soul is ready to understand them and not before. This is a fact and is the same with everyone. When you have the question, the answer will come when you are ready to understand the answer and not before. This is why I say that we are all at the stages we need to be and should not be disheartened if some may know more than others regarding the ways of Spirit, you are given the 'milk' you can digest as Iam given the 'milk' that I can digest. That really is all that matters and that way we progress along the spiritual path.

sounds spiritual all right. but it also sounds like something someone would make up to sound spiritual. All touchy-feely stuff with no real sense behind it. Mere mumbo jumbo, like "be one with the grass and let its essence flow through your mind and you will connect to the universe"

John Goddard

July 28th 2009, 03:34 PM

Jesus IS the creator. That doesn't mean what he creates is him.

Who made Jesus as a person of flesh if Jesus is the creator?

Romans 1:3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;

This is like the last thread a few weeks ago, a misinterpretation.

For example, if you swear by Jerusalem, Jerusalem is just a thought in your head, passive. If the Father God made everything by Jesus, it means Father God made everything according to a plan for it to be ruled by Jesus.

It doesn't mean Jesus created everything. He couldn't because the human part of Jesus as evidenced by Romans 1:3 and elsewhere, which makes up the total Jesus, didn't exist yet.

Gatsby

July 28th 2009, 05:18 PM

[quote=Gatsby;2735909]Hi Sparko, you contradict yourself here by saying that you believe God Is everywhere but God is not EVERYTHING. God's creation is not HIM.

Sparko, you asked me what I thought was a valid question and I did my best to answer it for you. It is not my fault if you dont like the answer, that is for you do deal with, not me.

I can build a house and be in the house. The house is not me. I can also be outside the house.

The universe is a creation of God's. He can be in it and out of it. since he is infinite, he can be both at the same time.

You are talking here Sparko about things, possesions and they can in no way be likened to God. So tell me, where exactly is the outside of God, seeing you are so sure that there has to be a outside. You must then know where it is. Is it a place that any can visit, like your house for example, or is it way way in outer space somewhere where in time we can have rockets take off and zoom straight to where God lives, because obviously he doesn't live here with us according to you, so where does he Live? Tell me!

that paragraph makes no semantic sense at all.

Because Sparko you are not really interested in trying to understand because you have aready closed your mind to new information even when the old infromation has become crystalised in your mind, if you dont open your mind up to new information then you will not progress. If your happy with that, then you will just stay as you are.

Jesus IS the creator. That doesn't mean what he creates is him.

No Sparko, wrong thinking again!. Jesus is NOT the Creator. If he were then it would mean that what he created he would become. But he is not. He is a co-creator with God as we all are when we realise we are ONE and not seperate beings as Jesus did. The Christ manifested Himself through Jesus the man and exalted Jesus the man to the status of Christhood which we call enlightenment or ascension. That is when I and the Father are One. That is enlightenment.

This you see is where the Bible has caused many people to not grow spiritually. It is because they have not taught the Truth. The preachers preach a seperate God and worship a seperate God all the while not realising that God is within each and everyone of us. It even tells you that in the Bible, so why is it not preached in all the churches in all the Chrstian churches. If it was then peoples spiritual progress would come on in leaps and bounds and the result would be that we, everyone would realise that they were actual Sons and Daughters of God, that each and everyone of us are in fact One with the Father, then peace would reign on Earth and Love would be in every heart.

ah, the old "I have been there but have moved past that idea" thing. right. I see it as "you once thought correctly, but have fallen into error"

I think it would be rather foolish to go from right thinking to wrong thinking, and I know I haven't.

If you are God, make a rock appear on my desk for me. Just a little one. make it red.

Did Jesus do miracles to show off? NO, he did not. Why, because that would be coming from the ego, the mortal mind and it would not be of God.

Once you know the spiritual laws, which you can do, then these 'miracles are no more than the outworking of the spiritual laws.

I know the spiritual laws, I know that we are all God's, but that does not mean that I snap my fingers and get what I want when I want, you abuse the spiritual laws by doing that and that I would never ever do. And if you knew anything true about spirit, you wouldn't ask such a question either. For all you do is pronounce you ignorance.

sounds spiritual all right. but it also sounds like something someone would make up to sound spiritual. All touchy-feely stuff with no real sense behind it. Mere mumbo jumbo, like "be one with the grass and let its essence flow through your mind and you will connect to the universe"

Really Sparko as I said previously when the time is right you will get your own spiritual food. I suggest you eat it. I pray that it is soon.

Regards
Gatsby

Sparko

July 28th 2009, 06:12 PM

Hi Sparko, you contradict yourself here by saying that you believe God Is everywhere but God is not EVERYTHING. God's creation is not HIM.

Sparko, you asked me what I thought was a valid question and I did my best to answer it for you. It is not my fault if you dont like the answer, that is for you do deal with, not me.

I can build a house and be in the house. The house is not me. I can also be outside the house.

The universe is a creation of God's. He can be in it and out of it. since he is infinite, he can be both at the same time.

You are talking here Sparko about things, possesions and they can in no way be likened to God.

The universe is a "thing" Gatsby. EveryTHING in it is a "thing" - a creation of God.

So tell me, where exactly is the outside of God, seeing you are so sure that there has to be a outside. You must then know where it is. Is it a place that any can visit, like your house for example, or is it way way in outer space somewhere where in time we can have rockets take off and zoom straight to where God lives, because obviously he doesn't live here with us according to you, so where does he Live? Tell me!

Well yeah, my house is not God. The earth is not God, the universe is not God. They are things God created. Heaven itself is a thing God created. God is both outside of his creation and inside it. He lives everywhere, but WHERE he lives is not him. It is what he created.

that paragraph makes no semantic sense at all.

Because Sparko you are not really interested in trying to understand because you have aready closed your mind to new information even when the old infromation has become crystalised in your mind, if you dont open your mind up to new information then you will not progress. If your happy with that, then you will just stay as you are.

uh, no. I just couldn't understand what you were saying. want to try again?

Jesus IS the creator. That doesn't mean what he creates is him.

No Sparko, wrong thinking again!. Jesus is NOT the Creator. If he were then it would mean that what he created he would become.

well actually Jesus (the Son) is the creator. John 1:3 says so, as does Col 1:15

Nothing that was made was made without him.

But he is not. He is a co-creator with God as we all are when we realise we are ONE and not seperate beings as Jesus did. The Christ manifested Himself through Jesus the man and exalted Jesus the man to the status of Christhood which we call enlightenment or ascension. That is when I and the Father are One. That is enlightenment.

that is hubris. You are not God. You are his creation. You are a "thing" he created. A wonderful thing, but a thing nonetheless. A creature, not the creator.

You didn't even exist when God created the earth. You didn't exist throughout most of history. You are a speck of dust in the timescale of the universe.

THAT is enlightenment.

This you see is where the Bible has caused many people to not grow spiritually. It is because they have not taught the Truth. The preachers preach a seperate God and worship a seperate God all the while not realising that God is within each and everyone of us. It even tells you that in the Bible, so why is it not preached in all the churches in all the Chrstian churches. If it was then peoples spiritual progress would come on in leaps and bounds and the result would be that we, everyone would realise that they were actual Sons and Daughters of God, that each and everyone of us are in fact One with the Father, then peace would reign on Earth and Love would be in every heart.

If you are God why don't you change people to believe as you do? snap your fingers and say the word and it will be done. Is there anything God can't do?

by the way, where is that rock? I looked on my desk and I see no red rock there. If you are God surely you can create a small pebble on my desk for me?

ah, the old "I have been there but have moved past that idea" thing. right. I see it as "you once thought correctly, but have fallen into error"

I think it would be rather foolish to go from right thinking to wrong thinking, and I know I haven't.

yes it is foolish. You have given up God to worship his creation.

Romans 1: 21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.

If you are God, make a rock appear on my desk for me. Just a little one. make it red.

Did Jesus do miracles to show off? NO, he did not. Why, because that would be coming from the ego, the mortal mind and it would not be of God.

No Jesus did miracles to show that he was God. So get to it. Prove that you are God and convince me of your divinity.

You know you can't even create a grain of sand. You are a pretty pathetic excuse for a God.

Once you know the spiritual laws, which you can do, then these 'miracles are no more than the outworking of the spiritual laws.

I know the spiritual laws, I know that we are all God's, but that does not mean that I snap my fingers and get what I want when I want, you abuse the spiritual laws by doing that and that I would never ever do. And if you knew anything true about spirit, you wouldn't ask such a question either. For all you do is pronounce you ignorance.

so is there a spiritual law that says you can't create a simple rock? God created a LOT of rocks. did he break the spiritual rules?

Jesus said if you have the faith of a mustard seed you can move mountains. I think creating a rock is a lot easier. So why can't you create a rock?

Why do you age, gatsby? why are you going to die one day? surely God can stop aging and death? Jesus raised himself from the dead and he raised others from the dead. Can you do that? I see a dead fly on the floor near me. I have picked it up and put it in a jar. How about raising the fly from the dead, Gatsby?

Sparko

July 28th 2009, 06:14 PM

Who made Jesus as a person of flesh if Jesus is the creator?

Romans 1:3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;

This is like the last thread a few weeks ago, a misinterpretation.

For example, if you swear by Jerusalem, Jerusalem is just a thought in your head, passive. If the Father God made everything by Jesus, it means Father God made everything according to a plan for it to be ruled by Jesus.

It doesn't mean Jesus created everything. He couldn't because the human part of Jesus as evidenced by Romans 1:3 and elsewhere, which makes up the total Jesus, didn't exist yet.

John when I said "Jesus" I was speaking of the Son. Not the human being that the Son was incarnated into.

Gatsby

July 29th 2009, 09:59 AM

The universe is a "thing" Gatsby. EveryTHING in it is a "thing" - a creation of God.

Well yeah, my house is not God. The earth is not God, the universe is not God. They are things God created. Heaven itself is a thing God created. God is both outside of his creation and inside it. He lives everywhere, but WHERE he lives is not him. It is what he created.

uh, no. I just couldn't understand what you were saying. want to try again?

well actually Jesus (the Son) is the creator. John 1:3 says so, as does Col 1:15

Nothing that was made was made without him.

that is hubris. You are not God. You are his creation. You are a "thing" he created. A wonderful thing, but a thing nonetheless. A creature, not the creator.

You didn't even exist when God created the earth. You didn't exist throughout most of history. You are a speck of dust in the timescale of the universe.

THAT is enlightenment.

If you are God why don't you change people to believe as you do? snap your fingers and say the word and it will be done. Is there anything God can't do?

by the way, where is that rock? I looked on my desk and I see no red rock there. If you are God surely you can create a small pebble on my desk for me?

yes it is foolish. You have given up God to worship his creation.

Romans 1: 21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.

No Jesus did miracles to show that he was God. So get to it. Prove that you are God and convince me of your divinity.

You know you can't even create a grain of sand. You are a pretty pathetic excuse for a God.

so is there a spiritual law that says you can't create a simple rock? God created a LOT of rocks. did he break the spiritual rules?

Jesus said if you have the faith of a mustard seed you can move mountains. I think creating a rock is a lot easier. So why can't you create a rock?

Why do you age, gatsby? why are you going to die one day? surely God can stop aging and death? Jesus raised himself from the dead and he raised others from the dead. Can you do that? I see a dead fly on the floor near me. I have picked it up and put it in a jar. How about raising the fly from the dead, Gatsby?

Sparko, you will not progress far along the spiritual path with your present attitude.

What Eest said was perfectly true!

I can build a house and be in the house. The house is not me. I can also be outside the house.

This statement Sparko, is, you will be surprised to know, quite accurate in the spiritual sense. If you view your body in the same way. As Spirit you inhabit the body and at night when you sleep you vacate the body and travel to the astral planes as we all do. Hence 'we die nightly' without realising it. So, what is there to be afraid of, nothing is there?

We age and we 'die' in a illusionary world. This plane of living is a material one and all in it is cause and effect. This is a spiritual law. Cause and Effect. We cause ourselves to age and to take on illness and disease through our own thoughts and in no other way. Hence you could say that we are creating incorrectly. This Spirit being Life within us is always perfect and cannot die, ever. It is eternal. Nothing outside ourselve can kill the Spirit, nothing!

The Creator IS LIFE in all it's forms. The Creator, that which we call God creates forms and lives within all forms. He BECOMES THE THINGS HE CREATES. This is a Truth Sparko.

Hence the Earth is a living spirit and not just a lump of rock. It is alive and living just as you are alive and living. So dont dismiss it as just a 'thing' for it is far from that I can assure you.

Objects outside yourself are what you perceive with your 2 physical eyes . Your 5 senses are the cause of percieving that which appears to be outside of you and me and all of us. But there are other senses, spiritual senses and when these are used in and through the third eye, which is the 'single eye' that Jesus taught about, then you see that this world is not stationary as we think, but instead everything is actually moving, vibrating and nothing actually stands still. I could also bring in here the energy system of chakra's but I wont, it would complicate things to much.

I know this is a lot for you to comprehend and I dont want to confuse you, but still better you know the truth or some of it than none at all.

Life is God Sparko and you have Divine Life within you, God within you in other words. Are you denying that God is in you? What do you think animates you, causes you to think, do you think that you do this all by yourself?

There are many people Sparko who heal the sick and dying and I have helped others who were sick, but it is not me myself that does this, it is God's power within me that does this, as it was God's power within Jesus that healed during his time in this realm. Jesus said, that He did not do these things himself, rather it was the Father within that did the work and you, you think that showing you a pepple or stone is a worthy thing to do. Sparko, I could not do that anymore than you can at this juncture of development, but I know the reason for this which is as follows.

We, all of us are conditioned from birth in the ways of the world. We are taught things and educated through our schooling, our parents, people we meet in our lives, people we work with, our family and all whom we meet daily. The things we learn we call conditioning. This is mortal mind conditioning., We have in other words, learnt to act and react to things 'outside' ourselves. Remember that you are encased in flesh and blood, so everything that you see is relative to you, that is how you perecieve things, that is how we all perceive things, through the 5 senses.

Once you have removed the conditioning, you can and are in complete control of your body, your environement, and you have complete command and control over the things that you see.

This is how Jesus stilled the storm, how he 'made' the loaves and fishes. These things, including us are energy, all is energy and mind stuff this is how miracles happen or appear to happen to those who are still ignorant of the spiritual laws. They are in fact all illusionary as this realm of living is.

Regards
Gatsby

John Goddard

July 29th 2009, 10:23 AM

John when I said "Jesus" I was speaking of the Son. Not the human being that the Son was incarnated into.

Ok.

I probably asked this before, but do you believe that along with the God spirit of the person of the Son, that Jesus also had a human spirit like ours?

Or do you believe that the God spirit just took on human flesh at the incarnation, but never really had a human spirit like ours? That he was only God spirit in the human flesh?

Sparko

July 29th 2009, 10:39 AM

Sparko, you will not progress far along the spiritual path with your present attitude.

What Eest said was perfectly true!

I can build a house and be in the house. The house is not me. I can also be outside the house.

This statement Sparko, is, you will be surprised to know, quite accurate in the spiritual sense. If you view your body in the same way. As Spirit you inhabit the body and at night when you sleep you vacate the body and travel to the astral planes as we all do. Hence 'we die nightly' without realising it. So, what is there to be afraid of, nothing is there?

We age and we 'die' in a illusionary world. This plane of living is a material one and all in it is cause and effect. This is a spiritual law. Cause and Effect. We cause ourselves to age and to take on illness and disease through our own thoughts and in no other way. Hence you could say that we are creating incorrectly. This Spirit being Life within us is always perfect and cannot die, ever. It is eternal. Nothing outside ourselve can kill the Spirit, nothing!

The Creator IS LIFE in all it's forms. The Creator, that which we call God creates forms and lives within all forms. He BECOMES THE THINGS HE CREATES. This is a Truth Sparko.

Hence the Earth is a living spirit and not just a lump of rock. It is alive and living just as you are alive and living. So dont dismiss it as just a 'thing' for it is far from that I can assure you.

Objects outside yourself are what you perceive with your 2 physical eyes . Your 5 senses are the cause of percieving that which appears to be outside of you and me and all of us. But there are other senses, spiritual senses and when these are used in and through the third eye, which is the 'single eye' that Jesus taught about, then you see that this world is not stationary as we think, but instead everything is actually moving, vibrating and nothing actually stands still. I could also bring in here the energy system of chakra's but I wont, it would complicate things to much.

I know this is a lot for you to comprehend and I dont want to confuse you, but still better you know the truth or some of it than none at all.

Life is God Sparko and you have Divine Life within you, God within you in other words. Are you denying that God is in you? What do you think animates you, causes you to think, do you think that you do this all by yourself?

There are many people Sparko who heal the sick and dying and I have helped others who were sick, but it is not me myself that does this, it is God's power within me that does this, as it was God's power within Jesus that healed during his time in this realm. Jesus said, that He did not do these things himself, rather it was the Father within that did the work and you, you think that showing you a pepple or stone is a worthy thing to do. Sparko, I could not do that anymore than you can at this juncture of development, but I know the reason for this which is as follows.

We, all of us are conditioned from birth in the ways of the world. We are taught things and educated through our schooling, our parents, people we meet in our lives, people we work with, our family and all whom we meet daily. The things we learn we call conditioning. This is mortal mind conditioning., We have in other words, learnt to act and react to things 'outside' ourselves. Remember that you are encased in flesh and blood, so everything that you see is relative to you, that is how you perecieve things, that is how we all perceive things, through the 5 senses.

Once you have removed the conditioning, you can and are in complete control of your body, your environement, and you have complete command and control over the things that you see.

This is how Jesus stilled the storm, how he 'made' the loaves and fishes. These things, including us are energy, all is energy and mind stuff this is how miracles happen or appear to happen to those who are still ignorant of the spiritual laws. They are in fact all illusionary as this realm of living is.

Regards
Gatsby

yeah I notice how you just handwaved away all my arguments and started spewing spiritual new age nonsense.

Still waiting for a rock to appear on my desk, Gatsby. You sure make a lousy God. You can't convince anyone of your deity with words or deeds.

If this world is illusory, it should be simple to make an illusion of a rock appear on my desk.

Sparko

July 29th 2009, 10:40 AM

Ok.

I probably asked this before, but do you believe that along with the God spirit of the person of the Son, that Jesus also had a human spirit like ours?

Or do you believe that the God spirit just took on human flesh at the incarnation, but never really had a human spirit like ours? That he was only God spirit in the human flesh?

good question. I don't know.

John Goddard

July 29th 2009, 11:05 AM

good question. I don't know.

Ok, thanks for replying.

That's kind of what I meant by the "total Jesus" since if the God spirit united with a human flesh and spirit of Jesus, then this Jesus would seem to be another different person apart from the pre-existing God spirit of the Son.

That's why I still have a problem with calling the pre-existing God spirit "Jesus" since I believe he had a human spirit which made him who he was and able to be tempted as a man, which was not existing eternally beforehand, but created finitely like ours.

But after the God spirit became united with the human spirit in one flesh, I don't have a problem seeing Jesus being equal to God.

Eeset-Shadowgrl

July 29th 2009, 11:05 AM

If this world is illusory, it should be simple to make an illusion of a rock appear on my desk.
It's there Sparko. Let me know when you have eyes to see it. :smile:
:flowers:

Sparko

July 29th 2009, 12:21 PM

It's there Sparko. Let me know when you have eyes to see it. :smile:
:flowers:

ah so I have to have illusion eyes to see an illusion rock?

right.

:lmbo:

Gatsby

July 29th 2009, 03:13 PM

yeah I notice how you just handwaved away all my arguments and started spewing spiritual new age nonsense.

Still waiting for a rock to appear on my desk, Gatsby. You sure make a lousy God. You can't convince anyone of your deity with words or deeds.

If this world is illusory, it should be simple to make an illusion of a rock appear on my desk.

So Sparko, it seems that you even deny what is written in the Bible. The very thread that is being discussed. It went like this:

'YE ARE GOD'S' saith scripture.

Are you honestly saying this is a lie......a real lie and you profess to be a Christian and spout the Bible as Truth. Surely even you can see that we are being told that 'Ye are God's. Seems where your concerned Sparko, this too has fallen on deaf ears.

I did not handwave your arguments, instead I gave you my answer in my own words. Seems you dont understand it.

Sparko, I do not do magic tricks, that is for magicians.

Regards
Gatsby

Sparko

July 29th 2009, 03:24 PM

So Sparko, it seems that you even deny what is written in the Bible. The very thread that is being discussed. It went like this:

'YE ARE GOD'S' saith scripture.

Are you honestly saying this is a lie......a real lie and you profess to be a Christian and spout the Bible as Truth. Surely even you can see that we are being told that 'Ye are God's. Seems where your concerned Sparko, this too has fallen on deaf ears.

I did not handwave your arguments, instead I gave you my answer in my own words. Seems you dont understand it.

Sparko, I do not do magic tricks, that is for magicians.

Regards
Gatsby

If you read the passage in context, God is condemning the judges that he calls "gods" and is not saying they are literal gods. He is saying they have power over the people and they are misusing it.

"I said, 'You are "gods";
you are all sons of the Most High.' 7 But you will die like mere men;
you will fall like every other ruler."

Gatsby

July 29th 2009, 03:29 PM

Ok, thanks for replying.

That's kind of what I meant by the "total Jesus" since if the God spirit united with a human flesh and spirit of Jesus, then this Jesus would seem to be another different person apart from the pre-existing God spirit of the Son.

That's why I still have a problem with calling the pre-existing God spirit "Jesus" since I believe he had a human spirit which made him who he was and able to be tempted as a man, which was not existing eternally beforehand, but created finitely like ours.

But after the God spirit became united with the human spirit in one flesh, I don't have a problem seeing Jesus being equal to God.

John, what do you mean by saying God spirit and human spirit. Spirit is not categorised, it is not divided in any way. It is One Spirit, One Life One God. They are the same thing.

Regards
Gatsby

Gatsby

July 29th 2009, 03:42 PM

If you read the passage in context, God is condemning the judges that he calls "gods" and is not saying they are literal gods. He is saying they have power over the people and they are misusing it.

"I said, 'You are "gods";
you are all sons of the Most High.' 7 But you will die like mere men;
you will fall like every other ruler."

Sparko, Jesus is being called a blasphemer because he dared to say he was the Son of God.

Ye are God's son's of the Most High, but you will die like men.

This means that Jesus had told them they were Gods, sons' of God, yet they would die like men, that means die in their ignorance, ie denying that they were God's. Son's of God.

The ruler spoken about is the ego, the ruler of the mortal mind. It is this false ruler that keeps the Truth of reality away from men and women. It has usurped the power of God and taken a limited power unto itself. This is the false prophet and all who are ruled by the ego spout lies not truth. This is the Truth I tell you but you wont believe it, so in over 2000yrs nothing much has changed.

Sparko, we can only change ourselves first before we change others. In fact when we change ourselves we automatically change others, all benefit because we ARE all ONE.

Regards
Gatsby

Sparko

July 29th 2009, 04:02 PM

Sparko, Jesus is being called a blasphemer because he dared to say he was the Son of God.

Ye are God's son's of the Most High, but you will die like men.

This means that Jesus had told them they were Gods, sons' of God, yet they would die like men, that means die in their ignorance, ie denying that they were God's. Son's of God.

The ruler spoken about is the ego, the ruler of the mortal mind. It is this false ruler that keeps the Truth of reality away from men and women. It has usurped the power of God and taken a limited power unto itself. This is the false prophet and all who are ruled by the ego spout lies not truth. This is the Truth I tell you but you wont believe it, so in over 2000yrs nothing much has changed.

Sparko, we can only change ourselves first before we change others. In fact when we change ourselves we automatically change others, all benefit because we ARE all ONE.

Regards
Gatsby

So you are me? Well then you think you are a fruitcake.

Still waiting for that rock to appear on my desk.

Here let me give you God's challenge himself.

Isaiah 41

21 "Present your case," says the LORD.
"Set forth your arguments," says Jacob's King.

22 "Bring in your idols to tell us
what is going to happen.
Tell us what the former things were,
so that we may consider them
and know their final outcome.
Or declare to us the things to come,

23 tell us what the future holds,
so we may know that you are gods.
Do something, whether good or bad,
so that we will be dismayed and filled with fear.

24 But you are less than nothing
and your works are utterly worthless;

John Goddard

July 29th 2009, 04:09 PM

John, what do you mean by saying God spirit and human spirit. Spirit is not categorised, it is not divided in any way. It is One Spirit, One Life One God. They are the same thing.

Regards
Gatsby

Human spirit is not omnipotent, omniscient, etc. Human spirit is Creation, not the Creator spirit.

They aren't the same thing, as Sparko has said.

Vivian

July 29th 2009, 04:32 PM

Hi all -

There is a logical fallacy when we say that the Creator and creation are separate. That means that there is something greater than the Creator in which the Creator and his creation reside.

So what is this 'space' or place in which God resides? If God is infinite, there is nothing that is not God, there is no space, nothing that exists, that is not of the infiniteness of God.

But there is a 'separation' although it is more of an illusion. Infinite God did make a void in the vast infiniteness of his being and created within this void.

Everything created in the void suffers from the delusion of separation, the lie as scripture calls it, truly sensing and believing that they and God are separate.

This is why scripture talks of us as sleeping and needing to wake up. As sleeping beings, we are only aware of the void, of the delusion of separation that exists within creation itself and all around us - for God truly appears to be 'over there'. But he is not. Just as scripture declares he is nearer than our hands and feet. We just have to wake up and 'see' Him.

When we wake up and 'see' him, then we can become one - actually realizing that we have been one all along, just spiritually asleep. And it is sin, or our body of sin that keeps us asleep.

Waking up, or taking off the body of sin, is salvation. And those who are beginning to have a sense of their innate unity with God, are waking up, or shedding their body of sin. Which is indeed a process of Grace.

Shalom.

Viv

John Goddard

July 29th 2009, 04:51 PM

Hi all -

There is a logical fallacy when we say that the Creator and creation are separate. That means that there is something greater than the Creator in which the Creator and his creation reside.

So what is this 'space' or place in which God resides? If God is infinite, there is nothing that is not God, there is no space, nothing that exists, that is not of the infiniteness of God.

But there is a 'separation' although it is more of an illusion. Infinite God did make a void in the vast infiniteness of his being and created within this void.

Everything created in the void suffers from the delusion of separation, the lie as scripture calls it, truly sensing and believing that they and God are separate.

Along this line of your argument, man can be deluded, but God can't. So our spirits and God's spirit are still different.

Waking up, or taking off the body of sin, is salvation. And those who are beginning to have a sense of their innate unity with God, are waking up, or shedding their body of sin. Which is indeed a process of Grace.

...Grace given by God, not by us as the same spirit as God. Having our will aligned properly with God's will doesn't mean we have the same spirit and thus are God ourselves, that's pretty much a reworded polytheism same as Hinduism and Mormonism.

Rather, it means we have different subordinate spirits that agree with God's master spirit.

Vivian

July 29th 2009, 05:42 PM

Along this line of your argument, man can be deluded, but God can't. So our spirits and God's spirit are still different.

...Grace given by God, not by us as the same spirit as God. Having our will aligned properly with God's will doesn't mean we have the same spirit and thus are God ourselves, that's pretty much a reworded polytheism same as Hinduism and Mormonism.

Rather, it means we have different subordinate spirits that agree with God's master spirit.

Yes, indeed. God is not deluded. He knows that he and his creation are one. :smile:

We are the deluded ones.

And yes I agree that 'our spirits' are quite different, each spirit from each realm being of a different sort - Paul addresses this in 1 Corinthians 15.

However, in Genesis we are told that God breathed into Adam, making him a living being. And in the OT breath is Spirit, and so as recorded, God 'exhaled' some of his Spirit and placed it in man.

And nearer than hands and feet can only mean that God and his kingdom are within us.

It is best to not delude ourselves with ideas, but wait on the Grace of God's Spirit to reveal in us what we are ready and able to see.

But of course with our bodies of sin, we cannot see what has been breathed into us!

Shalom.

Viv

John Goddard

July 29th 2009, 05:58 PM

However, in Genesis we are told that God breathed into Adam, making him a living being. And in the OT breath is Spirit, and so as recorded, God 'exhaled' some of his Spirit and placed it in man.

That God spirit is the fruit of the Tree of Life, and was taken away to leave Adam with only a dying human spirit.

So it seems believers like Sparko and I are talking about eternal God's spirit holding the hand of our finite human spirit.

While believers like you and Gatsby are saying that God made humans to be little gods and they can walk on their own because they are the same as God. Which is closer to the message of Satan to Eve, men can be gods too.

If you aren't saying that, then you should consider that it's confusing for you to imply that our spirits are the same as God's spirit because it implies that we are little gods able to exist apart from the initial God.

Vivian

July 29th 2009, 06:25 PM

RBerman

July 30th 2009, 12:56 AM

There is a logical fallacy when we say that the Creator and creation are separate. That means that there is something greater than the Creator in which the Creator and his creation reside.
Non sequitur. Who said God resides anywhere? And if He did, why would that somewhere be greater than God?

Vivian

July 30th 2009, 01:20 AM

Non sequitur. Who said God resides anywhere? And if He did, why would that somewhere be greater than God?

Hi RBerman -

He did! In many beautiful ways. Here is one of my favorites: Jesus answered and said to him, “If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him.

For God to be separate from anything, he has to be finite - have a beginning and an end.

If God is limited, then what limits God, what contains God, what begins where God ends?

What fills the void between us and God?

Let's look at Santa Claus. When children are small they can believe in a finite being that can know and fulfill their desires - and the desires of all the children across the world in a 24 hour period! But as the children age they begin to realize that their belief in Santa does not make sense.

It is the same with God. When we are young spiritually, we will believe anything about God that we are told. But as we mature, we start to question things, like how can the infinite have a beginning and an end? How can the infinite fit into a finite being?

What could possible contain the infinite! Or is God not infinite? Then what is the space that God exists in? Is the space that God exists in infinite? But God is finite? How can the finite create the infinite?

How can a finite being create the infinite?

If we are going to use human words and ideas to describe God, they have to make sense!

And before anyone says, if God is going to come and make his home with us, then he must be separate! Jesus is actually speaking a mystery here. Teaching us how to connect with God, who is nearer than our hands and feet. He is already with us, even in us, we just are not connected to him. We do not have a conscious awareness of God. But if we love Christ and walk in obedience, our eyes will be opened and we will see and we will make that connection, which has been there all along.

Shalom.

Viv

John Goddard

July 30th 2009, 08:17 AM

I am saying that we are asleep spirits, completely and totally unaware of God - who is in all things. So what you and Sparko are saying is true presently of humanity. What Gatsby and I are saying is the state of fully awakened sons of God, caring the Name or the Power and Authority of YHWH.

That would be true of Jesus, who has all the Name, Power, and Authority of God.

John 5:22 For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son:

1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

Other men can also have it to some lesser extent as subordinate to Jesus.

1 Corinthians 11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

So there is hierarchy and structure to this authority.

But if you say any other man can have it fully as Jesus or God does, then that departs from the NT and Christianity, and sounds more like Reform Jews who say they are all Messiahs.

Gatsby

July 30th 2009, 09:19 AM

That God spirit is the fruit of the Tree of Life, and was taken away to leave Adam with only a dying human spirit.

So it seems believers like Sparko and I are talking about eternal God's spirit holding the hand of our finite human spirit.

While believers like you and Gatsby are saying that God made humans to be little gods and they can walk on their own because they are the same as God. Which is closer to the message of Satan to Eve, men can be gods too.

If you aren't saying that, then you should consider that it's confusing for you to imply that our spirits are the same as God's spirit because it implies that we are little gods able to exist apart from the initial God.

John, we are not finite human spirit. There is only one Spirit, One Life. Our spirit is eternal, our material body is finite and dies, not our spirit. Satan IS the 5 sense of humankind, that is what Satan means. It doens't mean some evil person.

In your last paragraph you say that Viv and I are implying that our spirit is the same as God's spirit because it implies we are little gods able to exist apart from the initial God. Now that thinking is of Satan. Niether Viv nor I have ever stated that we are able to exist apart from the initial God Spirit. We couldn't say that because it wouldn't be true. None of us could live at all if it were not for the fact that God's Spirit alone lives within us. We are One with God not seperate from God. He Is nearer than hands and feet.

To believe that you or I or anyone is seperate from God is of Satan, known as the liar because Satan only allows us to perceive things outside ourselves when we reside within the material body. Satan is not a power on its own but it has been made that by Christain orthodoxy.

Regards
Gatsby

Gatsby

July 30th 2009, 09:22 AM

So you are me? Well then you think you are a fruitcake.

Still waiting for that rock to appear on my desk.

Here let me give you God's challenge himself.

Isaiah 41

21 "Present your case," says the LORD.
"Set forth your arguments," says Jacob's King.

22 "Bring in your idols to tell us
what is going to happen.
Tell us what the former things were,
so that we may consider them
and know their final outcome.
Or declare to us the things to come,

23 tell us what the future holds,
so we may know that you are gods.
Do something, whether good or bad,
so that we will be dismayed and filled with fear.

24 But you are less than nothing
and your works are utterly worthless;

Hmmmm why, Do you think your a fruitcake? LOL:lol:

just having fun
Gatsby

John Goddard

July 30th 2009, 09:41 AM

John, we are not finite human spirit. There is only one Spirit, One Life. Our spirit is eternal, our material body is finite and dies, not our spirit.

The Bible doesn't indicate that human spirits are eternal.

Job 38:4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.
...
Job 38:21 Knowest thou it, because thou wast then born? or because the number of thy days is great?

Doesn't seem our spirits were always around, or that they are indestructible.

Matthew 10:28 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

Satan IS the 5 sense of humankind, that is what Satan means. It doens't mean some evil person.

In your last paragraph you say that Viv and I are implying that our spirit is the same as God's spirit because it implies we are little gods able to exist apart from the initial God. Now that thinking is of Satan. Niether Viv nor I have ever stated that we are able to exist apart from the initial God Spirit. We couldn't say that because it wouldn't be true. None of us could live at all if it were not for the fact that God's Spirit alone lives within us. We are One with God not seperate from God. He Is nearer than hands and feet.

To believe that you or I or anyone is seperate from God is of Satan, known as the liar because Satan only allows us to perceive things outside ourselves when we reside within the material body. Satan is not a power on its own but it has been made that by Christain orthodoxy.

Regards
Gatsby

Satan is what keeps us being in agreement with God, our own human will. So we are born inherently separate from God, and must seek God to overcome the Satan that is us.

If we were inherently God spirits, then you would have to say that Satan is a power on its own coming from the outside to corrupt our God spirits, so your explanation seems contradictory.

Gatsby

July 30th 2009, 12:11 PM

The Bible doesn't indicate that human spirits are eternal.

Job 38:4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.
...
Job 38:21 Knowest thou it, because thou wast then born? or because the number of thy days is great?

Doesn't seem our spirits were always around, or that they are indestructible.

Matthew 10:28 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

Satan is what keeps us being in agreement with God, our own human will. So we are born inherently separate from God, and must seek God to overcome the Satan that is us.

If we were inherently God spirits, then you would have to say that Satan is a power on its own coming from the outside to corrupt our God spirits, so your explanation seems contradictory.

John, lol now your getting me confused, lol. Yes, you could say that allowing Satan to rule our lives as it does, because we forget that the senses are only a tool for this earthly realm we live individually and forget about God within. When this happens and it happens to us all, we are souls that are sleeping as it is called, what Viv said in a earlier post. But this Satan has no power over us and certainly no power over God. It only has the power we give it, which generally speaking is a lot because we are unaware that God lives in us. We live and move and have our Being in Him and He in us. Remember nothing outside ourself has power over us unless we let it have.

This is not contradictory at least I hope it is not. If it is I haven't written this correctly.

Regards
Gatsby

John Goddard

July 30th 2009, 12:35 PM

John, lol now your getting me confused, lol. Yes, you could say that allowing Satan to rule our lives as it does, because we forget that the senses are only a tool for this earthly realm we live individually and forget about God within.

Let's address just this one point to avoid more confusion.

If you say Satan is the 5 senses, then it seems you are saying Jesus would have had to accept Satan (in your understanding of the term) in order to use his physical senses while he lived as a man on earth.

So I still see contradiction and disagree with that definition, proper use of the senses wouldn't be Satan. Misuse of them, evil, sure, but not evil simply in and of themselves.

Just to start.

Vivian

July 30th 2009, 12:36 PM

That would be true of Jesus, who has all the Name, Power, and Authority of God.

John 5:22 For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son:

1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

Other men can also have it to some lesser extent as subordinate to Jesus.

1 Corinthians 11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

So there is hierarchy and structure to this authority.

But if you say any other man can have it fully as Jesus or God does, then that departs from the NT and Christianity, and sounds more like Reform Jews who say they are all Messiahs.

Hey John!

I totally agree that there is a hierarchy and structure to this authority! And I understand that some of the things being shared are not obvious in scripture - especially not after Constantine's church destroyed any higher understanding that would have taken power away from him/them!

This, though, is the meat that Paul hungered to teach - the mysteries of God, which are revealed as we love, as our capacity and ability to love increases.

As love is awakened in us, we suddenly find that we love all - we love outwardly, others, just as we love inwardly, God. And in loving we begin to see with more clarity, we begin to see that God, that which we love with all our heart, mind, soul, and body, is found everywhere. It is found within us, it is found within everyone and everything. This is the mystery behind the commandment - love God with all your heart, soul, body, and mind, and love others as your self. The mystery is that that God is also in others and self. And suddenly when this mystery is revealed, we simply Love as Jesus Loved.

[And in this revealing we do find the hierarchy - this hierarchy existing within all. Again another mystery.]

Here are a few of the scriptures that have spoken to me regarding this treasure...

Ecclesiastes 12:

6 Remember your Creator before the silver cord is loosed,
Or the golden bowl is broken,
Or the pitcher shattered at the fountain,
Or the wheel broken at the well.
7 Then the dust will return to the earth as it was,
And the spirit will return to God who gave it.

The whole process of waking up, waking up to love, is also called Remembering. We are called to wakefulness, to remembering, and in this remembering we love fully, before physical death and our cord is loosed, the body returns to dust and the spirit to God.

I know this does not say that this Spirit that returns to God is eternal, but if we say that God is eternal, then all that returns to him must enter, or always was in, eternity.

John 17

Holy Father, keep through Your name those whom You have given Me, that they may be one as we are.

Jesus is definitely praying that we have the same relationship with the Father that he has. That we may be one as he is one. And so however a person uses being 'one' to explain the relationship between Jesus and the Father, they must also apply the same to us.

And then throughout the New Testament, it is said that we will take on the glory, and the Name of of God or of Christ. That we will carry or be covered by his Name.

This is anointing - being covered by the Spirit of God, and this is what the term Christ means - the Anointed. He is the Anointed, but Jesus talks of our anointing as well. It is said that we will sit on the right side of the throne as Jesus does, that we will do greater works than Jesus did, etc, talks about us taking on the Name.

Certainly when we look around us we do not see anyone operating with the Name (or Power and Authority) of Christ, so it is easy to believe that since we have arrived (are saved) and have not received the Power and Authority that Jesus carried in this world, that the saved are not meant to! But this is not what scripture says...

And I offer that there are those in the world, right now, who do carry the Name of Christ, but a person will not be able to find them until his or her soul is ready, prepared. And while many in any generation are called, few will be chosen to find and receive.

edited to add: And Satan is something that is both within us and external to us. It is within us, as we see with Jesus calling Peter 'Satan' when we do not see and function according to the things, or will, of God. And since Satan can be within any creature of Creation when they do not see and function according to the things, or will, of God, Satan is also external, in these other beings. Satan is not inherent to any level of existence, including the mundane senses, but is present, taking over that level of existence when we/it think/s and move/s contrary to God.

Shalom.

Viv

Eeset-Shadowgrl

July 30th 2009, 12:56 PM

John, lol now your getting me confused, lol. Yes, you could say that allowing Satan to rule our lives as it does, because we forget that the senses are only a tool for this earthly realm we live individually and forget about God within. When this happens and it happens to us all, we are souls that are sleeping as it is called, what Viv said in a earlier post. But this Satan has no power over us and certainly no power over God. It only has the power we give it, which generally speaking is a lot because we are unaware that God lives in us. We live and move and have our Being in Him and He in us. Remember nothing outside ourself has power over us unless we let it have.

This is not contradictory at least I hope it is not. If it is I haven't written this correctly.

Regards
Gatsby
If anyone misses the message that is in the Tower of Babel narrative then reading this thread ought to be enlightening. I am not being critical of anyone but rather just making an observation. :doh:

Blessings to all :flowers:

Gatsby

July 30th 2009, 01:41 PM

Let's address just this one point to avoid more confusion.

If you say Satan is the 5 senses, then it seems you are saying Jesus would have had to accept Satan (in your understanding of the term) in order to use his physical senses while he lived as a man on earth.

So I still see contradiction and disagree with that definition, proper use of the senses wouldn't be Satan. Misuse of them, evil, sure, but not evil simply in and of themselves.

Just to start.

Yes Jesus would John. The senses are a necessary part of our tools to live in this world.

When the senses rule, as they do with most people, then the mind is governed by the senses and the ego which is the mortal mind. You then have greed, lust, envy and all the other negative emotions which cause mankind to live in a hell of his own making. Proper use of the senses are fine of course. But we have inner senses which are left untouched by most people. These senses are inherent in us and they are spiritual senses. The pyschic sense is the first of these, yet this sense when used by mediums or others like them are denounced as wicked and evil by the church..

Now do you understand?

Regards
Gatsby

Jesus triumphed over the mortal senses and the ego, the false ruler, and said that what He did, greater things would we do.

John Goddard

July 30th 2009, 01:57 PM

If anyone misses the message that is in the Tower of Babel narrative then reading this thread ought to be enlightening. I am not being critical of anyone but rather just making an observation. :doh:

Blessings to all :flowers:

Tower of Babel is "we are one, we are little gods" mentality as Jews have today. They don't ask God or wait for Him, they just do what they think is right. Jesus is irrelevant.

Which is simply Legion talking, Luke 8:30.

John Goddard

July 30th 2009, 01:59 PM

Yes Jesus would John. The senses are a necessary part of our tools to live in this world.

When the senses rule, as they do with most people, then the mind is governed by the senses and the ego which is the mortal mind. You then have greed, lust, envy and all the other negative emotions which cause mankind to live in a hell of his own making. Proper use of the senses are fine of course. But we have inner senses which are left untouched by most people. These senses are inherent in us and they are spiritual senses. The pyschic sense is the first of these, yet this sense when used by mediums or others like them are denounced as wicked and evil by the church..

Now do you understand?

Regards
Gatsby

Jesus triumphed over the mortal senses and the ego, the false ruler, and said that what He did, greater things would we do.

We are still talking about proper alignment of the mortal senses with God's will, not that they are bad altogether, but only bad without God consciousness.

Sparko

July 30th 2009, 03:47 PM

Hi all -

There is a logical fallacy when we say that the Creator and creation are separate. That means that there is something greater than the Creator in which the Creator and his creation reside.

viv, you have shown over and over you wouldn't know a logical fallacy if it bit you on your rear end.

God doesn't need to "reside" in his creation. He is infinite so he is everywhere by nature. Think of a big circle. Call that God. Put a little square inside that circle. That is creation. The square is NOT the circle, but the circle encompasses the square. but it also extends beyond the square.

Vivian

July 30th 2009, 04:04 PM

viv, you have shown over and over you wouldn't know a logical fallacy if it bit you on your rear end.

God doesn't need to "reside" in his creation. He is infinite so he is everywhere by nature. Think of a big circle. Call that God. Put a little square inside that circle. That is creation. The square is NOT the circle, but the circle encompasses the square. but it also extends beyond the square.

Thank you, Sparko. You have offered an excellent example.

Say we were to calculate the area of this circle in your example - the area, or that part that is the circle, includes both the area that is the square and the area that is not the square.

Square plus not square equal circle.

Creation plus not creation equal God.

When we are talking about the circle, and all that is the circle, we would include all that is the square. Just as when we are talking about God, and all that is God, we would include Creation.

Just as part of the circle is the square, part of God is creation.

For this analogy to be more fitting though, we could replace the circle with Infinity, and then we would see that there is no place that Infinity is not. We can place circles and squares and triangles within Infinity, but they are still part of Infinity..

And applying the womb image offered previously, the square can be likened to the void or womb that God made within himself, in which to place his creation.

Shalom.

Viv

Sparko

July 30th 2009, 04:12 PM

Thank you, Sparko. You have offered an excellent example.

Say we were to calculate the area of this circle in your example - the area, or that part that is the circle, includes both the area that is the square and the area that is not the square.

Square plus not square equal circle.

Creation plus not creation equal God.

When we are talking about the circle, and all that is the circle, we would include all that is the square. Just as when we are talking about God, and all that is God, we would include Creation.

Just as part of the circle is the square, part of God is creation.

For this analogy to be more fitting though, we could replace the circle with Infinity, and then we would see that there is no place that Infinity is not. We can place circles and squares and triangles within Infinity, but they are still part of Infinity..

And applying the womb image offered previously, the square can be likened to the void or womb that God made within himself, in which to place his creation.

Shalom.

Viv

yeah I figured you would distort my analogy to make it fit your own ideas, just like you do everything else.

sure you could include the square as part of the circle. But the square doesn't have to be part of the circle. It could be separate. That is how creation is. it is created by God and God is everywhere inside it and outside it, but it is not part of God. My analogy was just to the point of you complaining there was some logical fallacy involved in God "residing" in his creation.

If I live in a house I built, does that make the house greater than I am?

Vivian

July 30th 2009, 05:15 PM

yeah I figured you would distort my analogy to make it fit your own ideas, just like you do everything else.

sure you could include the square as part of the circle. But the square doesn't have to be part of the circle. It could be separate. That is how creation is. it is created by God and God is everywhere inside it and outside it, but it is not part of God. My analogy was just to the point of you complaining there was some logical fallacy involved in God "residing" in his creation.

If I live in a house I built, does that make the house greater than I am?

In 2 dimensionality, Sparko, a square inside a circle is part of the circle. All that is the square is also the circle. It does not take any distortion to see this.

However, I took your analogy to my son, and asa Math major I expected him to see the simplicity in this - I have helped him with problems in calculus where this truth is essential in deriving the solution.

His immediate response, though, I think is what you are alluding to, perhaps having a sense of it even though you did not expound upon it in your post. The square has different properties than the circle, different 'formulas' to describe its nature, and so while the square is included in the circle, in understanding squares and circles, we use different descriptions, theorems, properties.

So in pure science they are the same, but in application there are differences.

Creation is part of God, but Creation is also separate because it has different properties, a different nature, at least in its outer most forms.

This is why we can say that creation is both separate from God, yet the same, just as we say that a child in the womb is separate from a woman, yet the same. [And there are a lot of analogies we can use between mother and womb and child and God and womb and creation. We see many of these analogies as metaphors in Revelation and elsewhere.]

This touches on the hierarchy that John mentioned. This spiritual hierarchy exists within us as it does without. This hierarchy that exists both within and without is what Jesus is alluding to when he speaks of John the Baptist:

Assuredly, I say to you, among those born of women there has not risen one greater than John the Baptist; but he who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.

Peace, Sparko. It is not my wish to distort, only to expand perspective.

Shalom,

Viv

Sparko

July 30th 2009, 06:36 PM

In 2 dimensionality, Sparko, a square inside a circle is part of the circle. All that is the square is also the circle. It does not take any distortion to see this.

However, I took your analogy to my son, and asa Math major I expected him to see the simplicity in this - I have helped him with problems in calculus where this truth is essential in deriving the solution.

His immediate response, though, I think is what you are alluding to, perhaps having a sense of it even though you did not expound upon it in your post. The square has different properties than the circle, different 'formulas' to describe its nature, and so while the square is included in the circle, in understanding squares and circles, we use different descriptions, theorems, properties.

So in pure science they are the same, but in application there are differences.

Creation is part of God, but Creation is also separate because it has different properties, a different nature, at least in its outer most forms.

This is why we can say that creation is both separate from God, yet the same, just as we say that a child in the womb is separate from a woman, yet the same. [And there are a lot of analogies we can use between mother and womb and child and God and womb and creation. We see many of these analogies as metaphors in Revelation and elsewhere.]

This touches on the hierarchy that John mentioned. This spiritual hierarchy exists within us as it does without. This hierarchy that exists both within and without is what Jesus is alluding to when he speaks of John the Baptist:

Assuredly, I say to you, among those born of women there has not risen one greater than John the Baptist; but he who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.

Peace, Sparko. It is not my wish to distort, only to expand perspective.

Shalom,

Viv

I hate it when someone tries to take an analogy past its purpose and try to distort it to mean something it was not meant to be. An analogy is not a 1 to 1 correspondence to every bit of the example. It is used to make a specific point. I told you what the point was and yet you insist on taking the analogy to other levels where it doesn't belong.

I might as well tear it down now. Obviously God is not a circle because he is not a two dimensional object. And creation doesn't have corners so it isn't a square.

sheesh.

Eeset-Shadowgrl

July 31st 2009, 12:31 AM

Tower of Babel is "we are one, we are little gods" mentality as Jews have today. They don't ask God or wait for Him, they just do what they think is right. Jesus is irrelevant.

Which is simply Legion talking, Luke 8:30.
You just did an excellent job of proving my point John.
Thanks,
:flowers:

Vivian

July 31st 2009, 01:20 PM

You just did an excellent job of proving my point John.
Thanks,
:flowers:
Ha!

When I read of this analogy with the Tower of Babel, the discussions on speaking in tongues came to mind! Yeah, we do sometimes speak past one another - even ourselves, although what we are 'gibberishing' about makes perfect sense to our soul!

Shalom.

Viv

Gatsby

August 1st 2009, 10:52 AM

I hate it when someone tries to take an analogy past its purpose and try to distort it to mean something it was not meant to be. An analogy is not a 1 to 1 correspondence to every bit of the example. It is used to make a specific point. I told you what the point was and yet you insist on taking the analogy to other levels where it doesn't belong.

I might as well tear it down now. Obviously God is not a circle because he is not a two dimensional object. And creation doesn't have corners so it isn't a square.

sheesh.

New information is vital to the growth of the soul. Out of this comes new experiences Sparko.

The thing to do is to make use of new information but at the same time do not become attatched to it or anything else.

You are by sticking to dogma and allowing the ego part of you to fight off anything new, even though it may be helpfull to you. By doing this and beleiving you have found the Truth alone via preachers and the Bible means you will not allow the Light in to take away the darkness within you.

We all have darkness within us, every one of us does, but the Light chases away the darkeness and illuminates us and we become One with God and with All. Love which is Light is unconditional, if conditions are attatched, it is not love.

I include a quote below for you and it is true. Note Iam not saying this is Truth, but Iam saying this is a truism

The true teacher maintains his intellectual integrity by ever remaining a learner. [The Urantia Book, p. 1433, par. 2]

Regards
Gatsby

Vivian

August 1st 2009, 01:37 PM

16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. 17 For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.
18 “He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. 19 And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. 20 For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed. 21 But he who does the truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be clearly seen, that they have been done in God.”

We might say that we believe, but if we do not come to the Light so that our darkness is clearly seen, clearly seen (Romans 7), we are walking in condemnation.

The darkness in us is deceptive, and will convince us that we are right and others wrong. The Light will shine on the darkness, revealing the self-deceptions in us that work hatred and separation, so that we might love as commanded.

Shalom.

Viv

UrbanMonk

August 1st 2009, 08:39 PM

are you saying that we are Gods?

I thought there was only ONE God.

There is only ONE God. There isn't anything else. So, there are no "gods" in a plural sense. The idea that one God can be "as gods" (plural) is what has gotten us into a "lost" state of mind, fallen down to the earth, descending into "flesh". "Ye are gods" is a reference to the fact that we still have our inheritance even though we "gods" are expressing our godhood as many men (ie. "the son of man"). "Ye are gods" is an affirmation of lordship, despite appearances. And with the power we've inherited, we are either rejecting the idea of One God, or accepting it. As we reject it, we express ourselves as "gods"...as a plurality...each separate and different from one another. This is "wicked", because oneness is the truth, and a plurality is a lie.

Gatsby

August 2nd 2009, 06:32 AM

There is only ONE God. There isn't anything else. So, there are no "gods" in a plural sense. The idea that one God can be "as gods" (plural) is what has gotten us into a "lost" state of mind, fallen down to the earth, descending into "flesh". "Ye are gods" is a reference to the fact that we still have our inheritance even though we "gods" are expressing our godhood as many men (ie. "the son of man"). "Ye are gods" is an affirmation of lordship, despite appearances. And with the power we've inherited, we are either rejecting the idea of One God, or accepting it. As we reject it, we express ourselves as "gods"...as a plurality...each separate and different from one another. This is "wicked", because oneness is the truth, and a plurality is a lie.

Hi Sparko, if you can look at it from the point of view that God IS ONE. However God becomes the 'things he makes' and God has individualised his very Essence (Life) and we are that individualised essence in human form. ie we are God individualised.

I dont see it as wicked as U.M. does, all is in God's plan.

One thing I dont subscribe to is that many people say that God made us (souls) so that he could get to know HImself better. That is what I describe as a load of tosh.

Regards
Gatsby

Gatsby

August 2nd 2009, 04:25 PM

UrbanMonk

August 2nd 2009, 04:40 PM

Hi Sparko, if you can look at it from the point of view that God IS ONE. However God becomes the 'things he makes' and God has individualised his very Essence (Life) and we are that individualised essence in human form. ie we are God individualised.

I dont see it as wicked as U.M. does, all is in God's plan.

One thing I dont subscribe to is that many people say that God made us (souls) so that he could get to know HImself better. That is what I describe as a load of tosh.

Regards
Gatsby

Hi Gatsby,

We are close to an agreement. But there are yet some important distinctions to make before we are "one" enough to be teaching the same thing. I note to self that you are teaching a duality whereby both oneness and individuation (separation) are true (natural, normal). I am teaching a non-duality where individuation is seen as an antithetical expression of oneness, which is fine (perfect, natural) the way it is...needing nothing more to complete it.

I use the term "wicked" to mean that individuation is a crooked kind of oneness, inherently disfunctional because it is opposite, backwards, upside down and inside out...compared to the perfection of true oneness.

"Ye are gods" is a statement (judgement) the prodigal Son makes about himself. It is not a judgement of "Our Father", Whose unchanging knowledge only knows us as "my beloved Son". Individuated gods are not an expression of "Our Father", but rather the "prodigal Son". The world begins with just such a judgement (ye are gods), and transforms the "prodigal Son" into man, beast, "and every creeping thing". This is the dirty little secret about how the Son of God "became flesh". To be "many", the Son of God must descend along a heirarchy of being, robbing each being of more and more glory in order to be different (special) in one way or another....different from every other being. In this way, even a "worm" can be "special" in some way.

Individuation offers the prodigal Son a condition heaven could never offer...the opportunity to be special. For to be special...one must first be separate and different. In order to be separate and different, the neo-many must all be limited in some way or another. They cannot all be unlimited (like the Son of God) because then they would all be the same (equal, not special). Hence, inequality is what individuation is really all about...which leads to the experience of "iniquity" by which the Son of God is self-crucified by the imposition of a heirarchy (slavery, subjectivity) upon his reality (lordship, objectivity). Thus, we are betrayed by the apparent "opportunity" to express ourselves differently than from the way "our Father" created us. It was not Judas, but specialness which betrayed the Son of God.

Regards,
Urban Monk

Gatsby

August 3rd 2009, 06:41 AM

Hi Gatsby,

We are close to an agreement. But there are yet some important distinctions to make before we are "one" enough to be teaching the same thing. I note to self that you are teaching a duality whereby both oneness and individuation (separation) are true (natural, normal). I am teaching a non-duality where individuation is seen as an antithetical expression of oneness, which is fine (perfect, natural) the way it is...needing nothing more to complete it.

I use the term "wicked" to mean that individuation is a crooked kind of oneness, inherently disfunctional because it is opposite, backwards, upside down and inside out...compared to the perfection of true oneness.

"Ye are gods" is a statement (judgement) the prodigal Son makes about himself. It is not a judgement of "Our Father", Whose unchanging knowledge only knows us as "my beloved Son". Individuated gods are not an expression of "Our Father", but rather the "prodigal Son". The world begins with just such a judgement (ye are gods), and transforms the "prodigal Son" into man, beast, "and every creeping thing". This is the dirty little secret about how the Son of God "became flesh". To be "many", the Son of God must descend along a heirarchy of being, robbing each being of more and more glory in order to be different (special) in one way or another....different from every other being. In this way, even a "worm" can be "special" in some way.

Individuation offers the prodigal Son a condition heaven could never offer...the opportunity to be special. For to be special...one must first be separate and different. In order to be separate and different, the neo-many must all be limited in some way or another. They cannot all be unlimited (like the Son of God) because then they would all be the same (equal, not special). Hence, inequality is what individuation is really all about...which leads to the experience of "iniquity" by which the Son of God is self-crucified by the imposition of a heirarchy (slavery, subjectivity) upon his reality (lordship, objectivity). Thus, we are betrayed by the apparent "opportunity" to express ourselves differently than from the way "our Father" created us. It was not Judas, but specialness which betrayed the Son of God.

Regards,
Urban Monk

Hi Urban Monk, I have to say that yes, there are some points that Iam in agreement with you and there are others Iam not.

God is individualised in each and everyone of us. We couldn't be here if that were not the case.

Now, we embody the whole of God, not just a part, so Iam not saying the God has divided Himself if that is what your thinking. If you think that then I could see where you are coming from but that is not the case.

The prodigal son as you state it to be I dont recognise. We are all prodigal sons and that is not denoting specialness at all. It is the case that the parable of the Prodigal Son is showing God's forgivness, always willing to welcome us back no matter what we have done or not done because God knows no imperfection and knows we are his perfect creation, each and every one of us. This does not denote specialness at all.

I can understand as I say some of what your saying and Iam in agreement but basically you are saying that everything is a dream of God's and not real. This I understand and can accept but it is still Real because we are living it. This realm is but a school for souls, whether it is in a dream or not. We are Eternal and have been given immortality by the Immortal One Himself.

We dont need to do anything to acheive that because we already have that, do you understand what Iam saying here.

Regards
Gatsby

Vivian

August 3rd 2009, 03:03 PM

Hi Urban Monk, I have to say that yes, there are some points that Iam in agreement with you and there are others Iam not.

God is individualised in each and everyone of us. We couldn't be here if that were not the case.

Now, we embody the whole of God, not just a part, so Iam not saying the God has divided Himself if that is what your thinking. If you think that then I could see where you are coming from but that is not the case.

The prodigal son as you state it to be I dont recognise. We are all prodigal sons and that is not denoting specialness at all. It is the case that the parable of the Prodigal Son is showing God's forgivness, always willing to welcome us back no matter what we have done or not done because God knows no imperfection and knows we are his perfect creation, each and every one of us. This does not denote specialness at all.

I can understand as I say some of what your saying and Iam in agreement but basically you are saying that everything is a dream of God's and not real. This I understand and can accept but it is still Real because we are living it. This realm is but a school for souls, whether it is in a dream or not. We are Eternal and have been given immortality by the Immortal One Himself.

We dont need to do anything to acheive that because we already have that, do you understand what Iam saying here.

Regards
Gatsby

Hi Gatsby!

We have before shared this with UrbanMonk but I will reiterate that what he says is true, for in Unity there is no diversity or individualization. But the purpose of creation is to create individualized consciousnesses that are realized meaning they can move in and out of the Unity without falling asleep.

And this idea of specialness is a true desire of the individualized consciousness - a distorted desire of a consciousness that is cut off or veiled from the Unity of all. Part of working out one's salvation is the untwisting of this distortion to reveal the true soul desire underneath.

Desire is an important part of Unity, for it creates the connection between the individualizations allowing them to be drawn into, come into and dissolve into Unity.

ACM presents only a single piece of the whole picture, and in the journey sometimes a soul can only work on one piece of the journey at a time - even through the culmination of the journey, or full realization is possible in any life.

Shalom.

Viv

UrbanMonk

August 4th 2009, 03:18 PM

God is individualised in each and everyone of us. We couldn't be here if that were not the case.

Now, we embody the whole of God, not just a part, so Iam not saying the God has divided Himself if that is what your thinking. If you think that then I could see where you are coming from but that is not the case.

Hi Gatsby,

Your doctrine is showing you to be what I'd call a semi-dualist. No matter how attractive is the concept individuality, it is always an expression of separation. And it doesn't fly well in light of reason. As individuals, we all have different fingerprints. This alone makes each of us "special". Specialness is not only about winning a superbowl, and/or having our 15 minutes of fame. It is inherent in the concept of separation, differences, and individuality. Specialness is what separation is for. That is, the purpose of separation is to be unique. One cannot be unique and whole at the same time, unless uniqueness is passing dreamstate which ends when the dreamer wakes up. In such a dream-state it is impossible to be an expression of the whole of God. And not being a whole, individuation is inherently "unholy". So, I find your comments a bit disengenuous, or else confused/confusing.

Dualism insists that A.) the unholy (unwhole, separated, individuated) is true. B.) both holy (whole) and unholy (unwhole, fragmented) are true. Your semi-dualistic doctrine says that we achieve salvation when we are able to go back and forth easily between the whole and the unholy. That's not what salvation is all about...according to the Jesus I am most familiar with. The holy is the truth, the unholy is the lie. Why would we want to go back and forth between truth and lies...real and unreal...whole and unwhole?

There are many ways to be special. If we were the poorest person in the world...we would be special. If we were the fattest, the shortest or the sickest person in the world...we would be special. The concept that "no two snowflakes are the same" is inherently "unholy". And what is unholy must pass away like the snow must melt before the spring sun. The passing of the unholy is the dawn of the resurrection. And the resurrection is the end of time. The end of time is the end of mass. The end of mass is the end of form. The end of form is the end of all that is unwhole (unholy). It is the concept of unwhole which gives us the strange oddities that make up a world of diversity. The unwhole is inherently disfunctional. There isn't any way that individuals can associate (collaberate, have relationships) that would "fix" the world.

Gatsby

August 5th 2009, 06:19 AM

Hi Gatsby,

Your doctrine is showing you to be what I'd call a semi-dualist. No matter how attractive is the concept individuality, it is always an expression of separation. And it doesn't fly well in light of reason. As individuals, we all have different fingerprints. This alone makes each of us "special". Specialness is not only about winning a superbowl, and/or having our 15 minutes of fame. It is inherent in the concept of separation, differences, and individuality. Specialness is what separation is for. That is, the purpose of separation is to be unique. One cannot be unique and whole at the same time, unless uniqueness is passing dreamstate which ends when the dreamer wakes up. In such a dream-state it is impossible to be an expression of the whole of God. And not being a whole, individuation is inherently "unholy". So, I find your comments a bit disengenuous, or else confused/confusing.

Dualism insists that A.) the unholy (unwhole, separated, individuated) is true. B.) both holy (whole) and unholy (unwhole, fragmented) are true. Your semi-dualistic doctrine says that we achieve salvation when we are able to go back and forth easily between the whole and the unholy. That's not what salvation is all about...according to the Jesus I am most familiar with. The holy is the truth, the unholy is the lie. Why would we want to go back and forth between truth and lies...real and unreal...whole and unwhole?

There are many ways to be special. If we were the poorest person in the world...we would be special. If we were the fattest, the shortest or the sickest person in the world...we would be special. The concept that "no two snowflakes are the same" is inherently "unholy". And what is unholy must pass away like the snow must melt before the spring sun. The passing of the unholy is the dawn of the resurrection. And the resurrection is the end of time. The end of time is the end of mass. The end of mass is the end of form. The end of form is the end of all that is unwhole (unholy). It is the concept of unwhole which gives us the strange oddities that make up a world of diversity. The unwhole is inherently disfunctional. There isn't any way that individuals can associate (collaberate, have relationships) that would "fix" the world.

Hi Urban Monk, I have no idea where you are getting this from. For it is not what I have said.

God creates form and becomes the things he Makes. Iam not in anyway holding onto a doctrine of duality I dont see where you have got that from. Nor do I talk about the idea of specialness or anthing that you deem unholy.

You say the end times will be the end of form, no that is not true. That is what you belive may be but it is not true. Why, because God creates and God creates forms and becomes the things He makes. ie the creation and the creator are One. This is not dulaity.

I have to say that your agruments at best are the result of beleiving in books like Miracles, they are full of half truths at best, regardless of how long it took to write them. It is a pompous mock pious book and regarding Truth is attracts only those who are at that stage of development.

Regards
Gatsby

Gatsby

August 5th 2009, 09:09 AM

Vivian

August 5th 2009, 11:22 AM

Urban Monk, I feel that I have to apologise to you for the 'tone' of my post. Iam finding it frustrating that you dont seem to be understanding what Iam saying. The fault lies with me and not with you.

Regards
Gatsby

Hi Gatsby and UrbanMonk -

I understand the frustration in communicating with someone whose understanding is purely intellectual - which is often the case with those who adhere to ACIM!

For example, let's take the intellectual idea that individualization is unholy and unity is holy. That begs lots of questions, such as what is individualization, what is unity, what is holiness?

Certainly the mind can conclude that whatever holy is, is good, therefore whatever individualization is, is bad, without every knowing or experiencing fully what these things are.

Those who have fully experienced such things though will tell you that there are different levels of individualization and unity. And like UM offers, what we think of as individualization is like a husk or shell that must be shed, or cast aside. But there is a level of individualization that is holy, sacred.

And likewise there are different levels of unity. There are levels where one perceives unity and individualization as different, and there unity certainly can be seen as higher or better. But at the highest level of consciousness, at what is called non-dual, there is no difference perceived between unity and individualization. There are the same. Both are holy and sacred.

This level though cannot be explained with words, only pointed at, for words and the world of words, the mind, are dual in nature and cannot describe or comprehend non-duality.

Shalom.

Viv

UrbanMonk

August 8th 2009, 03:37 AM

Hi Urban Monk, I have no idea where you are getting this from. For it is not what I have said.

Possibly you don't know what you are saying having yet to connect the dots.

God creates form and becomes the things he Makes.

In his dreams.

Iam not in anyway holding onto a doctrine of duality I dont see where you have got that from.

Yes you are.

Nor do I talk about the idea of specialness or anthing that you deem unholy.

Yes you do. You just don't know that you are talking about specialness, and don't know how or why it is unholy. What is special can never be a WHOLE (holy). Specialness requires that the magnitude of the whole be cut down to size, that each of the special may be different. One cannot be different without being separate. Separation, therefore, is merely a prerequisite to the objective of being special. You are simply denying that specialness is your objective when you advocate the limitation of separation and then argue that it is all glued together behind the scenes. Of course its all glued together...because it is impossible to separate what is WHOLE. There is no purpose in appearing to be separate...except to appear to be special!

You say the end times will be the end of form, no that is not true.

Yes it's true. Time and mass are correlated with each other...and with the "vibration" of guilt to borrow from your vocabulary. There are no "vibrations" in the Kingdom of God. The concept of vibrations arises out of a mind that goes back and forth between truth and illusion. It is not sure where it wants to place its allegience. This is a mind in doubt about itself, producing a "vibration" of "fear".

That is what you belive may be but it is not true.

You believe that time and form are not correlated. But time is opposed to eternity, and form is opposed to Spirit.

Why, because God creates and God creates forms and becomes the things He makes. ie the creation and the creator are One. This is not dulaity.

What you are describing is an expression of duality. You are just justifying it with word-magic.

I have to say that your agruments at best are the result of beleiving in books like Miracles, they are full of half truths at best, regardless of how long it took to write them.

This statement is from your "mirror". Your half-truths are in opposition to the Whole Truth. Jesus understood that the truth comes from a WHOLE. What is whole offers "light" (clarity). What is not whole offers darkness (confusion).

WHOLE and HOLY are the SAME. There are no levels in the WHOLE. There is not even the appearance of separation in the WHOLE. There is not a WHOLE and levels of a whole. This is simply another attempt to combine opposites into one "thing".

It is a pompous mock pious book and regarding Truth is attracts only those who are at that stage of development.

The denial of WHOLENESS (holiness) is where "arrogance" takes on a life of its own. Humility would accept the WHOLE of GOD...and not presume to make fragments...in the name of God.

Gatsby

August 9th 2009, 06:11 AM

Possibly you don't know what you are saying having yet to connect the dots.

In his dreams.

Yes you are.

Yes you do. You just don't know that you are talking about specialness, and don't know how or why it is unholy. What is special can never be a WHOLE (holy). Specialness requires that the magnitude of the whole be cut down to size, that each of the special may be different. One cannot be different without being separate. Separation, therefore, is merely a prerequisite to the objective of being special. You are simply denying that specialness is your objective when you advocate the limitation of separation and then argue that it is all glued together behind the scenes. Of course its all glued together...because it is impossible to separate what is WHOLE. There is no purpose in appearing to be separate...except to appear to be special!

Yes it's true. Time and mass are correlated with each other...and with the "vibration" of guilt to borrow from your vocabulary. There are no "vibrations" in the Kingdom of God. The concept of vibrations arises out of a mind that goes back and forth between truth and illusion. It is not sure where it wants to place its allegience. This is a mind in doubt about itself, producing a "vibration" of "fear".

You believe that time and form are not correlated. But time is opposed to eternity, and form is opposed to Spirit.

What you are describing is an expression of duality. You are just justifying it with word-magic.

This statement is from your "mirror". Your half-truths are in opposition to the Whole Truth. Jesus understood that the truth comes from a WHOLE. What is whole offers "light" (clarity). What is not whole offers darkness (confusion).

WHOLE and HOLY are the SAME. There are no levels in the WHOLE. There is not even the appearance of separation in the WHOLE. There is not a WHOLE and levels of a whole. This is simply another attempt to combine opposites into one "thing".

The denial of WHOLENESS (holiness) is where "arrogance" takes on a life of its own. Humility would accept the WHOLE of GOD...and not presume to make fragments...in the name of God.

Urban Monk, you are talking nonsense. As far as Iam concerned you have followed Miracles and beleived the lie. Your posts show this.

I have said and I shall say once again that Iam aware that the WHOLE lives within us. We are not seperate from the Whole, we cant be and if you dont accept that God becomes the things he makes, then you are far away from Truth and all that you appear to know is coming from the word of 2 people who have got things incredibly wrong.

We each are unique and have our own personalities, this does not mean that we are seperate from God or each other as we embody the Whole, you fail to understand this and that is why your reasoning is off par. We are energy Beings, all of us, having the same source.

Tell me what will happen to you when you pass over? Tell me what the book says about that please. Are you going to go straight back to God and merge with Him forever or do you think there will be more you need to learn. For you speak as if there is nothing more to learn and I differ on that a lot.

Regards
Gatsby

Gatsby

August 9th 2009, 01:29 PM

ps Urban Monk.

Urban Monk, I take it that the Course in Miracles denounces vibrations of any sort. Vibrations or frequencies are proved, but you say obviously that there are no vibrations in God, none at all. Are you sure about that? Would you care to expand on that point via the course or via your own thoughts for a change.

You fail utterly to understand that individualism is not specialness nor is it seperation from the whole as I explained in my previous post. God has individualised HIMSELF in US. Jesus was a individual was he not?

One point I want to make clear to you and so far you fail to understand this point is that matter IS mind materialised.

All that we see is but the effect and not the cause. The causes are secondary causes that we see with our eyes and that which is external to us, ie the trees the grass the table etc are but effects of these causes. This IS the illusion because they seem so real. Touch them and they are durable and look stationary, but they are not stationary, the are vibrating atoms and molecules vibrating at the same frequency as ourselves or else we would be easily able to walk through them as is the case with the so called 'ghosts' that people have seen which appear to walk through walls, doors or other objects that appear, that being the operative word, 'appear' to be solid.

So, Urban Monk if you still say that there are no vibrations, here or anywhere else in God then I have to say your ar mistaken.

God of course is the First Cause and all else is secondary cause. You will know that of course, Iam just reminding you of that fact.

I feel oblidged to tell you these things and if you already know them then fine because there are things you have stated before that I agree with you completely.

I just want to clear this point up.

Regards
Gatsby

Gatsby

August 10th 2009, 04:41 PM

Urban Monk, reading through your post again to see if I was indeed wrong in what I said and I see that I wasn't. I did say it correctly, what I wanted to say. It is your lack of understanding that see's so many apparent obstacles in what I wrote.

You wrote:

The denial of WHOLENESS (holiness) is where "arrogance" takes on a life of its own. Humility would accept the WHOLE of GOD...and not presume to make fragments...in the name of God.

Hmm excuse me but where have I ever written that we are fragments of the whole, I have not, unless you are mixing up my posts with someone elses. I have repeatedly said that we are Whole, we embody the whole of God/Creator and not parts of Him.

Again, vibrations, you say there are no vibrations with the whole or in the whole, but vibration there are indeed filtering down from the Highest Realm and this causes different realms and levels of what we call realms of living. To negate this is to negate Truth. I checked on the web for the Course of Miracles online to see what the book actually said about vibrations and after typing in the word vibration it came up with 'not found' which seems to mean it is not mentioned, if it is, then please tell me where so I can look it up myself.

Regards
Gatsby

UrbanMonk

August 10th 2009, 08:49 PM

I checked on the web for the Course of Miracles online to see what the book actually said about vibrations and after typing in the word vibration it came up with 'not found' which seems to mean it is not mentioned, if it is, then please tell me where so I can look it up myself.

Regards
Gatsby

As indicated, the word "vibration" is not in it. Rather, there is a mind going back and forth between truth and illusion...in conflict with itself. While it VACILLATES, its allegiences are yet to be decided. While it DOUBTS, it rejects the wholeness of the truth. The whole truth does not include an exclusive experience such as what the world offers through our imagination. The world is within one mind, one that is undecided about what is true. Are low vibrations true? Are high vibrations true? These are merely preferences...a matter of valuation...wishes made manifest...wishes waffling between true will and false will.

There are no levels in reality. There is nothing to go back and forth between. There are no combinations of opposite attributes. There are no higher or "highest" realms.

UrbanMonk

August 10th 2009, 09:05 PM

Hmm excuse me but where have I ever written that we are fragments of the whole, I have not, unless you are mixing up my posts with someone elses. I have repeatedly said that we are Whole, we embody the whole of God/Creator and not parts of Him.

Regards
Gatsby

Let me explain how it is that you are speaking out of both sides of your mouth. Each human being is different from another. For example, I have assets and J-Lo has assets. I have some things that she doesn't have and she has some things that I (as a human) don't have. Obviously, she is incomplete and I am incomplete (as humans). If she had everything I had and I had everything she had, we might be made more complete. But we are not truly a complete whole unless we share all things in common with every other living thing. In such a state, we cannot be human. A human, by default - by design - is inherently incomplete...NOT A WHOLE. It is the lack of completion (unwholeness, unholiness) which allows J-Lo to be unique and special...because she is different from me! ( as a human).

So, to sit there and state that humans and/or us "gods" are a whole is rather audaciously disengenous and willfully ignorant of the obvious. There are no appearances of incompleteness in the Whole because incompleteness symbolizes a sacrifice of the whole glory...and sacrifice is insane to the Whole...not to mention meaningless. Why should the Whole sacrifice anything? To be special? That would be insane, and the Truth is not insane.

God's creation is a Whole, like God...without appearances of fragmentation. The Whole is inclusive...but does not include the exclusive. The world is all about exclusivity. The exclusivity, therefore, is false...a lie...a deception...an illusion...something we made up in our imagination. It is unnecessary, meaningless, and inevitably unwanted. Exclusivity adds nothing to the Whole.

To make of ourselves less than a whole through sacrifice is what i'm calling "arrogant" . Humility is to accept ourselves as we were created...a WHOLE having everything, sharing everything in common with our Creator.

Gatsby

August 12th 2009, 06:52 AM

Let me explain how it is that you are speaking out of both sides of your mouth. Each human being is different from another. For example, I have assets and J-Lo has assets. I have some things that she doesn't have and she has some things that I (as a human) don't have. Obviously, she is incomplete and I am incomplete (as humans). If she had everything I had and I had everything she had, we might be made more complete. But we are not truly a complete whole unless we share all things in common with every other living thing. In such a state, we cannot be human. A human, by default - by design - is inherently incomplete...NOT A WHOLE. It is the lack of completion (unwholeness, unholiness) which allows J-Lo to be unique and special...because she is different from me! ( as a human).

So, to sit there and state that humans and/or us "gods" are a whole is rather audaciously disengenous and willfully ignorant of the obvious. There are no appearances of incompleteness in the Whole because incompleteness symbolizes a sacrifice of the whole glory...and sacrifice is insane to the Whole...not to mention meaningless. Why should the Whole sacrifice anything? To be special? That would be insane, and the Truth is not insane.

God's creation is a Whole, like God...without appearances of fragmentation. The Whole is inclusive...but does not include the exclusive. The world is all about exclusivity. The exclusivity, therefore, is false...a lie...a deception...an illusion...something we made up in our imagination. It is unnecessary, meaningless, and inevitably unwanted. Exclusivity adds nothing to the Whole.

To make of ourselves less than a whole through sacrifice is what i'm calling "arrogant" . Humility is to accept ourselves as we were created...a WHOLE having everything, sharing everything in common with our Creator.

Urban Monk, you say God's creation is a Whole, like God...without appearances of fragmentation.

I dont disagree with that. But I feel you have jumped the gun so to speak with your beliefs, beleiving as you do that you will jump straight to God when you pass over. That of course would mean that duality is still there because God is within you and there is no need to jump anywhere at all, either for you or me. The whole IS within you. Appearances of fragmentation are not what I am talking about. Appearances come about soley through the senses of mankind. I explained that before to you. Vibrations are a fact regardless whether you deny them or not. I understand that the mind vacilitates between the duality we are encased in, this realm I mean, our mortal minds, but the object of all seeking that experience of Oneness, learn to still the mind and stop this vacilitating process and expereince the ONE. This you dont seem to undertstand or if you do you deny it.

You will have of course be aware of the story of the sea. Take a spoonfull of water from the sea and you have there the sea in it's fullness, not a part of the sea but the whole of the sea. The two appear seperate but are actually still one, one sea, not 2. Put the spoonfull back into the sea and it is absorbed by it's own kind which is the sea it was removed from. The fact it was removed didn't change it in any way, it remained whole regardless. We are the same. We are the Whole individualised, that is a fact whether you wish to deny that or not. We are still whole, that wholenss is within us, not external to us. All that is external to us is but appearances.

It says in the Bible I beleive, that God said 'All that is mine is thine' meaning all that God Has, you Have too. You are not cut off from God in any way except in your mind.

I still think your book is not the new Bible by any means. I dont know what you read before you read that book, but I dont agree with what your saying just now yet I can agree with some of the things you have said before, as I said to you.

Why did you incarnate in the first place. We are here for soul development, did you come for something else because again you never mention the soul, why is that?

Regards
Gatsby

UrbanMonk

August 12th 2009, 03:33 PM

It says in the Bible I beleive, that God said 'All that is mine is thine' meaning all that God Has, you Have too. You are not cut off from God in any way except in your mind.

Yes, all that God has God has given to "me" in my "creation", that is, in my eternal spiritual birth, for lack of better words. And what I have I also AM, for having and being are the same with God. What I AM is a WHOLE, lacking nothing. What I have made myself out to be - a human (son of man) - is not what my Father gave me...but what I gave myself. Therefore, what I gave myself (manhood) is what I think I AM. Yes, this is psychological. The appearance of skin is the evidence of "sin"...the idea that I can be separate from God...that I can "be my own man" so-to-speak. While skin appears, the state of mind you speak of persists. When my state of mind embraces WHOLENESS once again, skin will no longer appear to "be". It will disappear.

What you are atttempting to do through word-magic is to deny that the appearance of skin is evidence of a separatist state of mind. This is double-speak at it's best...forked-tongued at it's worst.

Why did you incarnate in the first place. We are here for soul development, did you come for something else because again you never mention the soul, why is that?

I almost always mention the soul. The soul is the WHOLE...is "Christ"...is the "Kingdom of God"...is the "Son of God"...is Our Father's only creation ...is not gender oriented.

I incarnated because I thought I could be separate from God. Separation is impossible. However, incarnation is the only way that separation can APPEAR to be possible. Separation, however, is not the end, but a means to an end. Through separation, I thought I could gain (get) something I did not already have. I thought I could "develop" the SOUL I had already been given...denying that my SOUL is already PERFECT and COMPLETE and WHOLE.

Vivian

August 20th 2009, 05:36 PM

Yes, all that God has God has given to "me" in my "creation", that is, in my eternal spiritual birth, for lack of better words. And what I have I also AM, for having and being are the same with God. What I AM is a WHOLE, lacking nothing. What I have made myself out to be - a human (son of man) - is not what my Father gave me...but what I gave myself. Therefore, what I gave myself (manhood) is what I think I AM. Yes, this is psychological. The appearance of skin is the evidence of "sin"...the idea that I can be separate from God...that I can "be my own man" so-to-speak. While skin appears, the state of mind you speak of persists. When my state of mind embraces WHOLENESS once again, skin will no longer appear to "be". It will disappear.

What you are atttempting to do through word-magic is to deny that the appearance of skin is evidence of a separatist state of mind. This is double-speak at it's best...forked-tongued at it's worst.

I almost always mention the soul. The soul is the WHOLE...is "Christ"...is the "Kingdom of God"...is the "Son of God"...is Our Father's only creation ...is not gender oriented.

I incarnated because I thought I could be separate from God. Separation is impossible. However, incarnation is the only way that separation can APPEAR to be possible. Separation, however, is not the end, but a means to an end. Through separation, I thought I could gain (get) something I did not already have. I thought I could "develop" the SOUL I had already been given...denying that my SOUL is already PERFECT and COMPLETE and WHOLE.

Hello Gatsby and UrbanMonk -

I have been away on vacation, but in reading this exchange I find that words are being spoken as though without real experiencing.

A true experience of the Whole, at its highest, will reveal that there is no difference between the whole or any part of the whole.

As One Master said - the whole ocean is contained in one drop, so that when we as drops of the ocean join with the ocean, we become the whole ocean manifested as one drop.

This is where individuality melts into wholeness - where they are the same.

Shalom.

Viv

John Goddard

August 20th 2009, 06:06 PM

Hello Gatsby and UrbanMonk -

I have been away on vacation, but in reading this exchange I find that words are being spoken as though without real experiencing.

A true experience of the Whole, at its highest, will reveal that there is no difference between the whole or any part of the whole.

As One Master said - the whole ocean is contained in one drop, so that when we as drops of the ocean join with the ocean, we become the whole ocean manifested as one drop.

This is where individuality melts into wholeness - where they are the same.

Unlike maybe some others, I really have experienced the shaman's abyss, after being spiritually beaten into it. I could not sin nor even utter a cuss word if I wanted to.

But to remain that way would entail forgetting about taking care of my kids and remaining a homeless nomad living off the land, giving up everything and appearing to be a nut to most people.

So I had to weigh the options: should I be wise as a serpent, or harmless as a dove?

Jesus said, try to do both with the hand you are dealt.

Vivian

August 21st 2009, 02:46 AM

Unlike maybe some others, I really have experienced the shaman's abyss, after being spiritually beaten into it. I could not sin nor even utter a cuss word if I wanted to.

But to remain that way would entail forgetting about taking care of my kids and remaining a homeless nomad living off the land, giving up everything and appearing to be a nut to most people.

So I had to weigh the options: should I be wise as a serpent, or harmless as a dove?

Jesus said, try to do both with the hand you are dealt.

Hi John!

I empathize with you!

Such mountain high experiences bring in Light which, even if only temporarily, transforms us into righteousness, protecting us from the temptations of sin. The Light actually acts as a barrier, preventing the archonic and demonic energies from making their way into us.

But, alas, we are called to walk in the world, except for a very few, and must come down the mountain and engage in physical living, which is meant to, for one, integrate our mountain high experiencing, making us anew - transforming us into the image of Christ, and two, bring the Light into the valley of the shadow of death, to aid all of humanity in awakening and healing.

When I first began having such experiences, I grasped at them, clung to them, at no one's benefit. Which is not uncommon for a beginner! And such experiencing will come to an end, allowing us time to integrate and heal through living life in this world before we are able to advance a bit higher up the mountain.

I do not though think we have to make a choice of either being wise as a serpent or harmless as a dove. The process calls us to be both, increasingly.

Being wise and harmless requires us to integrate our higher experiences.

If I might share a secret...whenever a psalm says 'Of David. A psalm.' it was written by David while in mountain high experiencing. And when it says 'A psalm of David.' it was written while David was 'down the mountain' living mundane life.

Knowing this, Psalm 23, as with all the Psalms, came alive, for I could then identify with David while also walking in the valley of the shadow of death after having been up on the mountain with God.

Shalom and blessings abundant.

Viv

UrbanMonk

August 23rd 2009, 04:21 PM

Hello Gatsby and UrbanMonk -

I have been away on vacation, but in reading this exchange I find that words are being spoken as though without real experiencing.

A true experience of the Whole, at its highest, will reveal that there is no difference between the whole or any part of the whole.

As One Master said - the whole ocean is contained in one drop, so that when we as drops of the ocean join with the ocean, we become the whole ocean manifested as one drop.

This is where individuality melts into wholeness - where they are the same.

Shalom.

Viv

Hi Vivian,

I offer this axiom:

What is the same is not different, and what is one (whole) does not have parts.

Where individuality melts into wholeness is when we defer to masters of word-magic to obscure the obvious. Individuality is not the same as the whole, which is the same as every other whole. The whole is given to what thinks individuality is necessary to complete the whole, not to maintain the thinkers beliefs, but to guide the believer back to the truth of the whole, which is complete and perfect as it is, needing nothing from differences or unique individuals to complete it. They, on the other hand, need the whole to complete themselves. At first, they will attempt to bring the whole to themselves through word-magic. As wisdom prevails, they will attempt to bring themselves to the whole, where they will pass away as they melt back into the whole.

Vivian

August 23rd 2009, 06:00 PM

Hi Vivian,

I offer this axiom:

What is the same is not different, and what is one (whole) does not have parts.

Where individuality melts into wholeness is when we defer to masters of word-magic to obscure the obvious. Individuality is not the same as the whole, which is the same as every other whole. The whole is given to what thinks individuality is necessary to complete the whole, not to maintain the thinkers beliefs, but to guide the believer back to the truth of the whole, which is complete and perfect as it is, needing nothing from differences or unique individuals to complete it. They, on the other hand, need the whole to complete themselves. At first, they will attempt to bring the whole to themselves through word-magic. As wisdom prevails, they will attempt to bring themselves to the whole, where they will pass away as they melt back into the whole.

Hello UrbanMonk -

Might I ask if you are describing your own experiencing of the Whole, or repeating, in your own words, something you have read or heard?

I ask because experiencing will give our words a different feel, experiencing will give our words authority. And those who speak with such authority describe the experience differently than you.

Your words, if you will excuse the bluntness, sound like a bunch of hogwash gibberish.

In Unity, there is no duality, there is no not this but that. There is no the same versus what is different. There is no indiviudality nor is there not individuality. Do you understand what I am trying to say? There is no completion nor imcompletion. As Rumi says, there is no you and me, or not you and not me. All is One. Not the same, or not different. All is the ocean contained within one drop. So the ocean may be expressing itself in many drops, but each drop is the Ocean in its entirety. So that within what we thought once as 'me', is all that exists. The Whole. The One. Contained within each single speck.

In other words as long as you, UM, are arguing Unity or Oneness as this and not that, you are far from Unity or Oneness. And from that position it is best to simply speak of loving God and loving others - instead of what is or isn't.

Shalom.

Viv

Vivian

August 23rd 2009, 07:16 PM

Hello UrbanMonk-

It is not my intent to sound harsh, and so let's look at what you said...

Hi Vivian,

I offer this axiom:

What is the same is not different, and what is one (whole) does not have parts.

Let's ignore axioms.

Does it make sense to you that a drop can contain the whole? That whatever is the Whole can be contained in its entirety in a part, or drop, so that each part is identical, because each part is the whole in its entirety?

We sort of have this picture in this world, where each cell of a being contains the whole DNA for the whole being. Of course this picture is only a semblance.

Where individuality melts into wholeness is when we defer to masters of word-magic to obscure the obvious.

No one said anything about individuality melting into wholeness!

Is this something that the course says in describing what others' might think?

From what I have seen, the biggest error with the Course is its assumptions regarding the teachings and understandings of other traditions. As I said before, do not fall into the the trap of accepting the Course's description of what other traditions say. Find out first hand! This will open the lid on the limitations of the Course!

Individuality is not the same as the whole, which is the same as every other whole.

The first part of this statement is from duality - from a perception that is outside of Wholeness looking in. The second part of the statement is exactly what I said - contained within each drop is the Whole in its entirety. From this perspective using words like same and different is meaningless.

The whole is given to what thinks individuality is necessary to complete the whole, not to maintain the thinkers beliefs, but to guide the believer back to the truth of the whole, which is complete and perfect as it is, needing nothing from differences or unique individuals to complete it.

Repeating from the Course?

The whole is given...

The Course says the whole is given to guide the believer back to the truth of the whole? A taste of the whole is given? The concept of the whole is given?

And who said anything about the Whole not being complete or needing anything? I stated that the Whole is contained in its entirety in the drop. Nothing about incompleteness or needing anything.

They, on the other hand, need the whole to complete themselves. At first, they will attempt to bring the whole to themselves through word-magic. As wisdom prevails, they will attempt to bring themselves to the whole, where they will pass away as they melt back into the whole.

More from the Course?

Who is they? And who said anything about being completed? Neither Gatsby or I said any such thing. This feels very much to be what the Course is telling you we are saying. Lies to invalidate anything that is not the Course.

Lies. Do not believe the lies. We are not saying what the Course claims we are saying. Find out for yourself.

You never answered many of my questions about what the Course says, UM.

For example. In Wholeness is there only one being? One consciousness? So when you wake up you will not exist?

In my tradition, we teach that within each of us is the Whole. And our journey is to find the Whole, to bind to the whole, or associate self as the whole - having a conscious awareness of self as the Whole. Self=Whole. So when we wakeup, it is a drop of the ocean awakening, realizing that it is the Whole.

We realize, become Self-Realized, that we are the Whole. There is no us, or you or me, just the Whole, just the infinite drops which in and of themselves are the Whole in entirety.

What happens according to the Course when you wake up? Do you still have a consciousness, or do you simply disappear?

Shalom.

Viv

UrbanMonk

August 24th 2009, 12:31 AM

Let's ignore axioms.

Let's not.

Does it make sense to you that a drop can contain the whole?

No.

That whatever is the Whole can be contained in its entirety in a part, or drop, so that each part is identical, because each part is the whole in its entirety?

This is just word-magic...forcing a square peg into a round hole. The proposed parts are not identical, not even identical twins. I speak from experience.

No one said anything about individuality melting into wholeness!

You are trying to use word-magic to make individuality and wholeness the "same". "Same" is your choice of words.

From what I have seen, the biggest error with the Course is its assumptions regarding the teachings and understandings of other traditions.

It doesn't mention other traditions. It speaks in generalities about how the ego thinks compared to how the Whole thinks.

As I said before, do not fall into the the trap of accepting the Course's description of what other traditions say.

The ego is the only other tradition described therein because there are really only two kinds of thought systems. And if it does not come from the Whole, it comes from the ego in support of its purposes.

Find out first hand!

How about if I just read what you say.

From this perspective using words like same and different is meaningless.

When the Whole has forgotten about what thought it could differentiate and fragment and specialize, then yes, same and different have no meaning. They have meaning, however, while what thinks it can differentiate and fragment and specialize thinks it can be a part of the whole, or complete the whole, or add to the whole, or bring the whole to it...to support it's endeavors. And while you try to turn the tables on reality, one is obliged to be vigilant relative to what is the same, and what is different. What is the same is not different...not even in appearances. Appearances of differentiation are meaningless to what is the same and whole.

Repeating from the Course?

Are you repeating Rumi?

The Course says the whole is given to guide the believer back to the truth of the whole? A taste of the whole is given? The concept of the whole is given?

Yes.

And who said anything about the Whole not being complete or needing anything?

You are saying that the whole + parts and differences = complete.
You may even be saying parts + differences = complete.
Without parts and differences, you are saying the whole is not complete.
To you, the whole is like DNA to run the parts and differences, or glue to hold them together.
It's all about oiling the parts and differences, and keeping them running.
Yes?

I'm saying that the whole = complete.

I stated that the Whole is contained in its entirety in the drop.

Good luck with that. It may yield an experience. The mind that makes the drops does reward its devotees with occasional trips to Disneyland.

Nothing about incompleteness or needing anything.

I'm saying as far as the Whole is concerned, there are no drops. Doesn't need them. Doesn't want them. What thinks it wants to be a drop, or needs to be a drop...needs to know the Whole to be complete. Drops can't be known because they don't make sense. At best, they can only be believed in. And what believes in them needs salvation.

Who is they?

What/whomever believes it can bring the Whole to the parts and differences to make them run right, rather than bringing the parts and differences to the whole so that they can be dispelled as identity is shifted back to the Whole.

Lies to invalidate anything that is not the Course.

How about a course on how to tell the difference between truth and lies.

Lies. Do not believe the lies. We are not saying what the Course claims we are saying.

Again, no specific traditions are mentioned except the way the ego (the mind that makes beliefs, perception, time, mass, and form) traditionally thinks. The reader must take general information, and apply it to specific situations, whatever situations come up in the course of reeducation.

Find out for yourself.

I'm finding that what my favored text describes as the ego and its ways also describes what you are intent upon making "true" for you in terms of parts and differences.

You never answered many of my questions about what the Course says, UM.

Keep in mind, that since our last conversation, I am no longer allowed to mention certain books, or even make anyone curious enough to ask about my favored text(s). I am also not allowed to use other words that substitute for the name of my favored text. But I am allowed to make mention in my signature. So I have been teaching more directly from the Keeper of the Whole within me, bypassing textual reference, composing scripture in a language that serves the special needs of those who are perplexed, but can still reason.

For example. In Wholeness is there only one being? One consciousness? So when you wake up you will not exist?

I think I'm allowed to say that in Wholeness there is only one kind of Being. And whether there may be three or three billion and growing constantly...they are all the same. Each has the same name, same purpose, same will, same attributes, same power, same awareness, same experience, same perfection. So is this many, or is this One? This is God. And this is all that is. Whatever else is nothing but a concept imagined to be true temporarily out of curiosity.

In my tradition, we teach that within each of us is the Whole.

In my tradition, we teach that each of us contains the whole, and is contained by the whole. This is echoed in the late chapters of John for the biblically curious. What each of us has is what each of us are. Each is given the Whole, and so, is the Whole. The Whole would not be complete thereafter, without each of us. What imagines it can differentiate from the Whole is considered as important as the Whole. It's important that what it imagines is abandoned in favor of the TRUTH. So, the Memory of the Whole is given to each aspect that thinks it can be different. This serves to bring the mind back to it's attention on what's real...so that it can experience what's real. What is imagined does not have a dual experience. It experiences itself as less than a Whole, or as the Whole. What imagines comes up with all kinds of compromises backed by word-magic to justify the sacrifice of the Whole for another experience. The Whole serves to heal a psychological abberation.

And our journey is to find the Whole, to bind to the whole, or associate self as the whole - having a conscious awareness of self as the Whole.

This would be classified as a compromise...one of a thousand compromises the imaginative mind makes up to justify a sacrifice and accomplish the impossible by combining opposite attributes into one thing. This can only be accomplished by magic.

Self=Whole.

Your definition of "Self" is not the same "Self" my tradition speaks of. One of them is an imposter, and must be layed aside in order to resume the whole experience of the true Self.

So when we wakeup, it is a drop of the ocean awakening, realizing that it is the Whole.

When we wake up, there is no more drop. There is only the Whole forgetting about what it thought about itself as drops.

We realize, become Self-Realized, that we are the Whole.

The ego wants to replace our Self. Although this is a concept, even a game (masquerade) the ego is programmed to play for keeps. What you are doing is robbing our Self of its attributes and applying them to the ego, and identifying with it, and/or it's parts. This is just for an experience. So you can't use experience to justify your position.

There is no us, or you or me, just the Whole, just the infinite drops which in and of themselves are the Whole in entirety.

Again, in thinking with traditional egoic self-concepts, you've got it exactly backwards in accordance with the "great reversal" which initiates a world of self-concepts instead of Self. The self that binds all self-concepts together is itself a self-concept, namely, the ego. You have yet to reach beyond the ego in your way of thinking to get help from the Keeper of the Whole who will not begin his lessons until you are "ready".

What happens according to the Course when you wake up?

It depends on "who" you think you are. If you think you are a drop, you will be anihilated, fade away, disappear, go back to nothingness, and be forgotten. But of you are the Whole, then you will wake up to find you did not go anywhere, and have not changed...alive eternally...joyful, blissful, creative...sharing all the attributes of the whole.

Do you still have a consciousness, or do you simply disappear?

Again, it depends on "who" you think "you" are. The Keeper of the Whole is for teaching you who you are, so that you will be willing to let the other "you" go and fade away and disappear and be forgotten.

Gatsby

August 24th 2009, 10:23 AM

Urban Monk,

"Nothing is, unless our thinking makes it so." - William Shakespeare

Just wanted you to ponder on this for a few minutes. I will rejoin in your conversation with Vivian soon.

Regards
Gatsby

UrbanMonk

August 24th 2009, 09:57 PM

Urban Monk,

"Nothing is, unless our thinking makes it so." - William Shakespeare

Just wanted you to ponder on this for a few minutes.

Let's ignore axioms. :smile:

"All the world's a stage..."

Vivian

August 24th 2009, 11:25 PM

When the Whole has forgotten about what thought it could differentiate and fragment and specialize, then yes, same and different have no meaning. They have meaning, however, while what thinks it can differentiate and fragment and specialize thinks it can be a part of the whole, or complete the whole, or add to the whole, or bring the whole to it...to support it's endeavors. And while you try to turn the tables on reality, one is obliged to be vigilant relative to what is the same, and what is different. What is the same is not different...not even in appearances. Appearances of differentiation are meaningless to what is the same and whole.

Hello UranMonk!

Are you saying that the Whole somehow forgot or made a mistake or did something wrong?

I offer that the Whole did not forget. What we call remembering is our connecting with that part of our Self that never forgot.

I am though very interested in your experiences of the Whole. It is from sharing of our experiences that we learn and grow from one another.

saying that the whole + parts and differences = complete.

No. That is not what I am saying at all!

I am saying that the Whole always was and is complete. And I am also saying that the Whole never forgot.

even be saying parts + differences = complete.

No. I am saying that contained at any place within the Whole is the Whole in entirety. The Whole is infinite, but any finite part or place of the Whole contains the Whole in entirety.

Without parts and differences, you are saying the whole is not complete.

No. I am saying that any finite 'part' of the Whole is just as complete as the Infinite Whole.

To you, the whole is like DNA to run the parts and differences, or glue to hold them together.
It's all about oiling the parts and differences, and keeping them running.

No. This is not what I am saying. This is what I think the Course tells you I must be saying because I am not the Course. The Course teaches that anything that is not the Course is of the ego, yes? I am telling you this is untrue.

I'm saying that the whole = complete. So am I. I am also saying that any speck or drop or being of the Whole is complete in and of itself. Any speck of the Whole contains the infinite Whole.

I'm saying as far as the Whole is concerned, there are no drops.

You are saying the same as I. See below.

Doesn't need them. Doesn't want them. What thinks it wants to be a drop, or needs to be a drop...needs to know the Whole to be complete. Drops can't be known because they don't make sense. At best, they can only be believed in. And what believes in them needs salvation.

Drops is merely one way to describe the beings of the Whole - if we use the analogy of the Whole being like an ocean.

We are saying the same thing. The question I have is why do you assume we are not?

What/whomever believes it can bring the Whole to the parts and differences to make them run right, rather than bringing the parts and differences to the whole so that they can be dispelled as identity is shifted back to the Whole.

How about a course on how to tell the difference between truth and lies.

Again, no specific traditions are mentioned except the way the ego (the mind that makes beliefs, perception, time, mass, and form) traditionally thinks. The reader must take general information, and apply it to specific situations, whatever situations come up in the course of reeducation.

I'm finding that what my favored text describes as the ego and its ways also describes what you are intent upon making "true" for you in terms of parts and differences.

Keep in mind, that since our last conversation, I am no longer allowed to mention certain books, or even make anyone curious enough to ask about my favored text(s). I am also not allowed to use other words that substitute for the name of my favored text. But I am allowed to make mention in my signature. So I have been teaching more directly from the Keeper of the Whole within me, bypassing textual reference, composing scripture in a language that serves the special needs of those who are perplexed, but can still reason.

We are saying the same thing. See below.

I think I'm allowed to say that in Wholeness there is only one kind of Being. And whether there may be three or three billion and growing constantly...they are all the same.

So you are saying that within the Whole there are drops! Billions of beings that are the same!

That is exactly what I am saying. Billions of beings to the Whole is like drops to an ocean. I was using an analogy.

Why do you see something else in other's words, and set out arguing with them. If we are not the Course, then we have to be wrong, even if we agree!

Each has the same name, same purpose, same will, same attributes, same power, same awareness, same experience, same perfection. So is this many, or is this One? This is God. And this is all that is. Whatever else is nothing but a concept imagined to be true temporarily out of curiosity.

That, my friend, is exactly what I have been saying. The Whole in multiplicity.

Why are you arguing with me?

In my tradition, we teach that each of us contains the whole, and is contained by the whole. This is echoed in the late chapters of John for the biblically curious. What each of us has is what each of us are. Each is given the Whole, and so, is the Whole. The Whole would not be complete thereafter, without each of us. What imagines it can differentiate from the Whole is considered as important as the Whole. It's important that what it imagines is abandoned in favor of the TRUTH. So, the Memory of the Whole is given to each aspect that thinks it can be different. This serves to bring the mind back to it's attention on what's real...so that it can experience what's real. What is imagined does not have a dual experience. It experiences itself as less than a Whole, or as the Whole. What imagines comes up with all kinds of compromises backed by word-magic to justify the sacrifice of the Whole for another experience. The Whole serves to heal a psychological abberation.

This is exactly as I stated, yes? Except that I called each of us 'drops' - saying that the drop contains the Whole and the Whole the drop.

I wonder why you are arguing with me?

This would be classified as a compromise...one of a thousand compromises the imaginative mind makes up to justify a sacrifice and accomplish the impossible by combining opposite attributes into one thing. This can only be accomplished by magic.

Your definition of "Self" is not the same "Self" my tradition speaks of. One of them is an imposter, and must be layed aside in order to resume the whole experience of the true Self.

When we wake up, there is no more drop. There is only the Whole forgetting about what it thought about itself as drops.

The ego wants to replace our Self. Although this is a concept, even a game (masquerade) the ego is programmed to play for keeps. What you are doing is robbing our Self of its attributes and applying them to the ego, and identifying with it, and/or it's parts. This is just for an experience. So you can't use experience to justify your position.

Again, in thinking with traditional egoic self-concepts, you've got it exactly backwards in accordance with the "great reversal" which initiates a world of self-concepts instead of Self. The self that binds all self-concepts together is itself a self-concept, namely, the ego. You have yet to reach beyond the ego in your way of thinking to get help from the Keeper of the Whole who will not begin his lessons until you are "ready".

It depends on "who" you think you are. If you think you are a drop, you will be anihilated, fade away, disappear, go back to nothingness, and be forgotten. But of you are the Whole, then you will wake up to find you did not go anywhere, and have not changed...alive eternally...joyful, blissful, creative...sharing all the attributes of the whole.

Again, it depends on "who" you think "you" are. The Keeper of the Whole is for teaching you who you are, so that you will be willing to let the other "you" go and fade away and disappear and be forgotten.

Methinks you are set to argue no matter what is said. In this case, I presented the exact same 'image' as you, yet you felt to argue with me. Is this what the Course teaches? That everything that is not the Course, even though it states the same, is of the ego?

I will pray for you, UrbanMonk, and I would still like to hear of your experiencing.

Shalom.

Viv

UrbanMonk

August 25th 2009, 12:02 AM

Urban Monk wrote:

I think I'm allowed to say that in Wholeness there is only one kind of Being. And whether there may be three or three billion and growing constantly...they are all the same.

Vivian wrote:
So you are saying that within the Whole there are drops! Billions of beings that are the same!

No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that within the Whole there are only Whole Beings...not drops. A drop is different from the Whole...but there isn't anything different from the Whole Truth. The drops you have proposed have been put forth heretofore as different and unique. Now you call them the "same". Only by word-magic are them made the same.

Urban Monk wrote:

Each has the same name, same purpose, same will, same attributes, same power, same awareness, same experience, same perfection. So is this many, or is this One? This is God. And this is all that is. Whatever else is nothing but a concept imagined to be true temporarily out of curiosity.

Vivian wrote:
That, my friend, is exactly what I have been saying. The Whole in multiplicity. Why are you arguing with me?

What I'm saying is not exactly what you are saying. You are arguing for what is exactly opposite what I'm teaching here through the Spirit of Truth. Now you are appearing to be facetious about it, less than honest about what it is I'm saying, as if it were the same as what you are saying. This is very much in line with how you call what is different the "same".

When I say "each" Whole, I'm not talking about your many pet drops, each of which is different from one another. I'm talking about each Whole, each of which is the same as any other. And, because they are the same, they are One, and not really many.

Urban Monk wrote:
In my tradition, we teach that each of us contains the whole, and is contained by the whole.

Vivian wrote:
This is exactly as I stated, yes? Except that I called each of us 'drops' - saying that the drop contains the Whole and the Whole the drop.

Then if that's what you are saying, then what you are saying is exactly opposite what I am teaching here through the Spirit of Truth which represents the Whole. Once again, "each" Whole is NOT A DROP....NOR IS ANY WHOLE DIFFERENT FROM ANY OTHER WHOLE.

Conversely, each of your drops is less than the Whole because each of your drops is different and unique...and yet you call them the "same". In order to be different, your drops must sacrifice the Whole. Then, you use word-magic to combine what cannot coexist.

Vivian wrote:

I wonder why you are arguing with me?

From my perspective it's called thought management. It's about telling the difference between what is not the same...even though word-magicians would mix them up into a thick concoction.

Gatsby

August 25th 2009, 08:22 AM

Let's not.

No.

This is just word-magic...forcing a square peg into a round hole. The proposed parts are not identical, not even identical twins. I speak from experience.

You are trying to use word-magic to make individuality and wholeness the "same". "Same" is your choice of words.

It doesn't mention other traditions. It speaks in generalities about how the ego thinks compared to how the Whole thinks.

The ego is the only other tradition described therein because there are really only two kinds of thought systems. And if it does not come from the Whole, it comes from the ego in support of its purposes.

How about if I just read what you say.

When the Whole has forgotten about what thought it could differentiate and fragment and specialize, then yes, same and different have no meaning. They have meaning, however, while what thinks it can differentiate and fragment and specialize thinks it can be a part of the whole, or complete the whole, or add to the whole, or bring the whole to it...to support it's endeavors. And while you try to turn the tables on reality, one is obliged to be vigilant relative to what is the same, and what is different. What is the same is not different...not even in appearances. Appearances of differentiation are meaningless to what is the same and whole.

Are you repeating Rumi?

Yes.

You are saying that the whole + parts and differences = complete.
You may even be saying parts + differences = complete.
Without parts and differences, you are saying the whole is not complete.
To you, the whole is like DNA to run the parts and differences, or glue to hold them together.
It's all about oiling the parts and differences, and keeping them running.
Yes?

I'm saying that the whole = complete.

Good luck with that. It may yield an experience. The mind that makes the drops does reward its devotees with occasional trips to Disneyland.

I'm saying as far as the Whole is concerned, there are no drops. Doesn't need them. Doesn't want them. What thinks it wants to be a drop, or needs to be a drop...needs to know the Whole to be complete. Drops can't be known because they don't make sense. At best, they can only be believed in. And what believes in them needs salvation.

What/whomever believes it can bring the Whole to the parts and differences to make them run right, rather than bringing the parts and differences to the whole so that they can be dispelled as identity is shifted back to the Whole.

How about a course on how to tell the difference between truth and lies.

Again, no specific traditions are mentioned except the way the ego (the mind that makes beliefs, perception, time, mass, and form) traditionally thinks. The reader must take general information, and apply it to specific situations, whatever situations come up in the course of reeducation.

I'm finding that what my favored text describes as the ego and its ways also describes what you are intent upon making "true" for you in terms of parts and differences.

Keep in mind, that since our last conversation, I am no longer allowed to mention certain books, or even make anyone curious enough to ask about my favored text(s). I am also not allowed to use other words that substitute for the name of my favored text. But I am allowed to make mention in my signature. So I have been teaching more directly from the Keeper of the Whole within me, bypassing textual reference, composing scripture in a language that serves the special needs of those who are perplexed, but can still reason.

I think I'm allowed to say that in Wholeness there is only one kind of Being. And whether there may be three or three billion and growing constantly...they are all the same. Each has the same name, same purpose, same will, same attributes, same power, same awareness, same experience, same perfection. So is this many, or is this One? This is God. And this is all that is. Whatever else is nothing but a concept imagined to be true temporarily out of curiosity.

In my tradition, we teach that each of us contains the whole, and is contained by the whole. This is echoed in the late chapters of John for the biblically curious. What each of us has is what each of us are. Each is given the Whole, and so, is the Whole. The Whole would not be complete thereafter, without each of us. What imagines it can differentiate from the Whole is considered as important as the Whole. It's important that what it imagines is abandoned in favor of the TRUTH. So, the Memory of the Whole is given to each aspect that thinks it can be different. This serves to bring the mind back to it's attention on what's real...so that it can experience what's real. What is imagined does not have a dual experience. It experiences itself as less than a Whole, or as the Whole. What imagines comes up with all kinds of compromises backed by word-magic to justify the sacrifice of the Whole for another experience. The Whole serves to heal a psychological abberation.

This would be classified as a compromise...one of a thousand compromises the imaginative mind makes up to justify a sacrifice and accomplish the impossible by combining opposite attributes into one thing. This can only be accomplished by magic.

Your definition of "Self" is not the same "Self" my tradition speaks of. One of them is an imposter, and must be layed aside in order to resume the whole experience of the true Self.

When we wake up, there is no more drop. There is only the Whole forgetting about what it thought about itself as drops.

The ego wants to replace our Self. Although this is a concept, even a game (masquerade) the ego is programmed to play for keeps. What you are doing is robbing our Self of its attributes and applying them to the ego, and identifying with it, and/or it's parts. This is just for an experience. So you can't use experience to justify your position.

Again, in thinking with traditional egoic self-concepts, you've got it exactly backwards in accordance with the "great reversal" which initiates a world of self-concepts instead of Self. The self that binds all self-concepts together is itself a self-concept, namely, the ego. You have yet to reach beyond the ego in your way of thinking to get help from the Keeper of the Whole who will not begin his lessons until you are "ready".

It depends on "who" you think you are. If you think you are a drop, you will be anihilated, fade away, disappear, go back to nothingness, and be forgotten. But of you are the Whole, then you will wake up to find you did not go anywhere, and have not changed...alive eternally...joyful, blissful, creative...sharing all the attributes of the whole.

Again, it depends on "who" you think "you" are. The Keeper of the Whole is for teaching you who you are, so that you will be willing to let the other "you" go and fade away and disappear and be forgotten.

Urban Monk, I would say that 'The Keeper of the Whole is word magic, is it not? I take it word magic to you is any explanation that doesn't fit in with your concept of God. For the Course has given you that concept, or am I wrong in that?

You say that God has forgotten 'its part's. God forgets nothing at all. All is God, in fact there is nothing but God anywhere, there cant be can there. Even your logical mind surely tells you that.

We live and move and have our Being in Him and He in us. Plain enough to me I think.

Regards
Gatsby

Vivian

August 25th 2009, 12:55 PM

Hello UrbanMonk-

I think Gatsby is correct...it is the Course that uses word magic! And then points fingers at every one else!

Just think about it.

You even stated this once - that the Course uses words and definitions of those words in a way to 'wake up' the false self. Word magic to work magic in the dream!

None of our words are the real thing - not the Course, not mine, not yours. We simply use words to try to explain what we have experienced within.

No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that within the Whole there are only Whole Beings...not drops. A drop is different from the Whole...but there isn't anything different from the Whole Truth. The drops you have proposed have been put forth heretofore as different and unique. Now you call them the "same". Only by word-magic are them made the same.

Eghads!

The word drops is used by Masters who experience the Whole, to explain or give an analogy in human words that explains what we think we are, or what we experience - UNTIL WE WAKE UP OR REMEMBER! When we wake up, we realize that what we mistakenly thought were drops are actually WHOLE! Why in the world are you arguing?

We are saying the same thing. But I notice that you still did not share of your experiencing of the Whole. Many Masters who have experienced the Whole use the analogy of drops of the ocean, as well as others, but I particularly like that analogy.

Again, the truth is not in words or analogies. Words and analogies at best can only point to the truth.

To be clear, I am using this definition: drop = a Whole, who once mistakenly thought itself only a part of the Whole.

What I'm saying is not exactly what you are saying. You are arguing for what is exactly opposite what I'm teaching here through the Spirit of Truth. Now you are appearing to be facetious about it, less than honest about what it is I'm saying, as if it were the same as what you are saying. This is very much in line with how you call what is different the "same".

No. I take it that you assume that everyone else is wrong, and only the words of the Course are right. You will find and experience truth quicker (not just think truth, because truth cannot be thought, but again only pointed at with our thoughts) if you realize that everything in this world points to the truth. But some thoughts and ideas miss the mark (miss the mark = sin) meaning they do not point directly to the truth, that point to a round about way to the truth.

When I say "each" Whole, I'm not talking about your many pet drops, each of which is different from one another. I'm talking about each Whole, each of which is the same as any other. And, because they are the same, they are One, and not really many.

Niether am I. I am saying in Unity they are all the same, each drop identical. I have said that out of each drop, creation flows in an array of rays. And yes this is where we differ. You do not believe that what flows out of the drop or Whole beings is creation. You believe that the 'dream' that flows from the drops is false.

I agree that on this point we disagree. I believe that creation is the dream. But I also believe that Unity is just as you discribed - a multiplicity of beings that are all the same. Identical traits.

Here is an 'analogy'.

When we look at the astrological charts, where see a variety of beings that flow forth into creation each with differing personalities based on the movement of the stars and planets - millions and millions of differing variations of personalities. The Human One though, the 'drop' or being in Unity is all of these millions and millions of variations of personalities, at once - a United Personality that contains in itself all of the variant personalities we see in this world.

This Human One that is all possible personalities, all possible combinations, all possible anything, exists within each of us. And the task of remembering is finding and binding ourself to this Self that is all personalities, all possibilities of creation, all in One. A Whole.

Here in this world though, we experience the Whole splintered in various combinations of aspects of the Whole.

The Whole though, that is inside of each of us, is all possible combinations of creation, all in one, all in one harmonious Whole.

Then if that's what you are saying, then what you are saying is exactly opposite what I am teaching here through the Spirit of Truth which represents the Whole. Once again, "each" Whole is NOT A DROP....NOR IS ANY WHOLE DIFFERENT FROM ANY OTHER WHOLE.

No.

I am saying that the Whole that is inside of each of us is Whole. And this Whole is the same in each of us. We though are lost, asleep, thinking that we are only one aspect or a combination of aspects of the Whole.

Conversely, each of your drops is less than the Whole because each of your drops is different and unique...and yet you call them the "same". In order to be different, your drops must sacrifice the Whole. Then, you use word-magic to combine what cannot coexist.

No.

Each drop is Whole, and each drop exists within each of us. This drop is our True Self. It is Christ.

From my perspective it's called thought management. It's about telling the difference between what is not the same...even though word-magicians would mix them up into a thick concoction.

I find it quite funny that the Course is accused of this same thing! Keeping its followers in the realm of thoughts! These thoughts than, it is accused, act as a barrier to knowing the True Self, the Whole that is within each of us.

Shalom.

Viv

UrbanMonk

August 25th 2009, 01:22 PM

Urban Monk, I would say that 'The Keeper of the Whole is word magic, is it not?

More like a word-miracle. A miracle undoes what magic does. You could/should call your guide the keeper of muliplicity.

I take it word magic to you is any explanation that doesn't fit in with your concept of God.

Word-magic are words used to justify the magic that makes the world by casting a spell over the mind of the Son of God. Word-magic would maintain what mountains that spell has put in the way of the escape of the Son of God from his own illusions.

Magic is fundamentally an attempt to accomplish the impossible by imagination. Only in our imagination can we possibly reconcile (mix, combine) opposites (opposing concepts) and hope to make it all seem real. In this way, magic makes the world, and miracles unmake it. Spell and dispel. It’s gnospel versus gospel.

For the Course has given you that concept, or am I wrong in that?

The gospel is a concept that exposes gnospel concepts as inconceivable…unbelievable. The gospel gives us perspective, a whole new way of looking at what conceives of the inconceivable. The gospel tells us the difference between what is immaculately (perfectly) conceived (ie. the Son of God, Christ), and what is immaculately (imperfectly) conceived (the son of man(y), “the world”, world of multiplicity).

You say that God has forgotten 'its part's.

What I’m saying is that God has never known of parts, let alone “it’s parts”. It is the “gnospel” which says that God has/is a multiplicity of parts, each one different from another. This kind of “gnosis” can’t be known, because it is not understandable, not real, and not true. A combination of opposites cannot be “known”. They can only be believed. The “tree of the knowledge of good and evil” should be renamed: “The tree of the belief in good and evil”.

God forgets nothing at all.

Your arguments are tempting. But memory is a function that does not apply to what is immaculately conceived, but only to what is immaculately conceived of. There is no “past” in God, nor is there a “future”. The are immaculate concepts that emasculate what is already perfect. When what is imperfect is abandoned, memory itself will be forgotten. Till then, memory is functionally converted to a skill in which we selectively remember the present…what is now…what is always…what is present…what is true…what is perfect…what is eternal.

All is God, in fact there is nothing but God anywhere, there cant be can there.

All is God is a fact. All-is-God-and-not-God is a belief that manifests something other than God, which we fondly call “the universe”, thus blotting out The Universe of God from any of our reference points (ie. memory). Our little “universe” is a kind of reverse pantheism…a converse relationship with All that Is. As such, our little “many and one” universe(s) is a mask that hides God under massive concepts that block out the Light of Spirit. Many is the opposite of one. A many and one universe is reverse pantheism because while it is drawn of the power of God, it does not reflect God at all. In this way, the truth that there “all is God” is subverted, until the gospel converts the mind that makes subversion “the truth”.

Even your logical mind surely tells you that.

The mind that combines opposites has its own brand of logic, supported by a dishonest disposition. It’s brand of logic is logical right up until it’s time to be honest with ourselves.

We live and move and have our Being in Him and He in us.

Depends on whom you think “we” are. “We” are either the ocean or the fish. The ocean is what we are. The fish are what we imagine we can be…besides what we are. We think of ourselves as fish, until we are caught by the gospel, which dispels insane notions about our true Self.

Plain enough to me I think.

Our logic is plain until it is held up to the light of honest reason.

UrbanMonk

August 25th 2009, 02:14 PM

Hello UrbanMonk-

I think Gatsby is correct...it is the Course that uses word magic! And then points fingers at every one else!

Like I said, the gospel does not specify any particular tradition. It merely discusses how to tell the difference between what is true and what is false. What is true is the truth. What is false is magic. The gospel defines what magic is, so that one may tell the difference between magic and the miracle that unmakes it. It just so happens that you and Gatsby are justifying magic with a mix of meaningless words.

You even stated this once - that the Course uses words and definitions of those words in a way to 'wake up' the false self. Word magic to work magic in the dream!

The opposite of magic is a miracle. It's a miracle that I am using words to re-define what magic defines. Miracles are of use only as a false self is in need of waking up. A word-miracle would straigten out what word-magic would mix up, bend, twist, or otherwise make "wicked" (distorted). The difference between magic and miracles is that magic perpetuates illusions (spells), and miracles end illusions (spells).

None of our words are the real thing - not the Course, not mine, not yours. We simply use words to try to explain what we have experienced within.

Magic yields an experience. It is the experience of all that we can imagine and believe. The experience of what we believe is the experience of self-imposed ignorance...for the purpose of having, well, an experience! Therefore, experience is not the arbeiter of truth. Rather, experience is as much an agent of deception as it is of truth. Experience, converted, yeilds and experience of the truth. Experience, subverted, yields and experience of what we believe is, or ought to be true...but isn't.

Eghads!

That would describe an experience of what is not true, such as the experience of "the world".

The word drops is used by Masters who experience the Whole, to explain or give an analogy in human words that explains what we think we are, or what we experience - UNTIL WE WAKE UP OR REMEMBER!

"Masters" of what? Masters of disaster? Puppet masters? Masters of illusion? Master magicians? Master Masons? Masters of "divinity"? There are many kinds of "master" in an imaginary realm built on the heirarchy of differences. Then, there is a master of equality, wholeness, sameness, perfection, and non-multiplicity. We cannot serve both ,for they represent two opposing thought systems, one serving "the world" and the other serving the World of God.

When we wake up, we realize that what we mistakenly thought were drops are actually WHOLE! Why in the world are you arguing?

Besides thought managment? Because what you are saying is insane, and makes no sense. What you are saying is symptomatic of the "root" of a magical tree.

We are saying the same thing.

The "fruit" of the magical tree imposes a strong delusion over one's mind...robbing it of the ability to tell the difference between what is not the same having thoroughly mixed up opposites into a kind of singularity.

But I notice that you still did not share of your experiencing of the Whole.

I am the unlimited Whole, having a limited experience of what is different from the Whole. I am speaking from experience...experience converted.

Many Masters who have experienced the Whole use the analogy of drops of the ocean, as well as others, but I particularly like that analogy.

The whole what? The whole mind that makes "the universe" of time and mass? THAT IS NOT THE WHOLE. That is the whole concept of what is different from the Whole, separate from the Whole, and posing as the Whole. Any "whole" whose sons are "drops", is itself a "drop in the bucket". There are no such drops in the ocean that is the Whole.

Again, the truth is not in words or analogies. Words and analogies at best can only point to the truth.

When they point to the truth, they are what I would call word-miracles. But just as easily, and with pretty parables, they can point just as easily to the false.

To be clear, I am using this definition: drop = a Whole, who once mistakenly thought itself only a part of the Whole.

To be clear, I'm saying this is a mistaken concept.

No. I take it that you assume that everyone else is wrong, and only the words of the Course are right.

I have short-listed a small library of "right" worded texts. The gospel you speak of is but one of four in my short-list. It's not for every kind of reader. So, there are other "right" words for other kinds of readers. But the lessons are always the same. The lessons you are currently learning lead away from the Whole toward the glorification of multiplicity...toward making the mask that hides the Whole the "whole" instead.

You will find and experience truth quicker (not just think truth, because truth cannot be thought, but again only pointed at with our thoughts) if you realize that everything in this world points to the truth.

Eghads! Everything in this world points to itself as the truth...away from the Whole that it hides through the power of reverse pantheism (ie. magic, imagination, manifestation).

But some thoughts and ideas miss the mark (miss the mark = sin) meaning they do not point directly to the truth, that point to a round about way to the truth.

Concepts are thoughts that reverse reality. These are "sin"...impossible "truths" that we make "true" by fiat of declaration (judgement)...independent of the truth. All concepts point mind away from the truth. Concepts converted, point back to the truth. The key word is conversion.

I am saying in Unity they are all the same, each drop identical.

Then you are pulling the wool over your (our) eyes.

I have said that out of each drop, creation flows in an array of rays. And yes this is where we differ. You do not believe that what flows out of the drop or Whole beings is creation. You believe that the 'dream' that flows from the drops is false.

Yes. The Whole creates. The drops imagine they can create. But all they do is manifest what they imagine to be true. As it manifests, it confuses. As miracles de-manifest such manifestations, they clarify.

I agree that on this point we disagree. I believe that creation is the dream.

Then why do you keep saying we are saying the same thing? These are worlds apart. Imagination, a staple of the dreamer, is not an attribute of the reality of the Whole. What is real is far greater than what we can imagine. That is why what we imagine must yeild an experience less than blissful, less than joyful, less than constant, less than abundant, less than life, less then unchanging (eternal).

But I also believe that Unity is just as you discribed - a multiplicity of beings that are all the same. Identical traits.

Rather, you constantly waffle on this position, confusing the reader(s). What are different (the "drops"), are not the same! So why do you go back and forth between calling them the same and also different? Are you thinking that you can sneak them past the Keeper of the Whole within me who judges for me between "sheep" and "goats"?

Vivian

August 25th 2009, 02:51 PM

You and the Course are funny, UrbanMonk!

You define words so that the Course is right and everyone else is wrong.

That is not a miracle. That is a delusion.

Godspeed.

Viv

UrbanMonk

August 25th 2009, 03:25 PM

You define words so that the Course is right and everyone else is wrong.

Everyone is right about salvation...until they are wrong about it. Then, they may be saved. But one in ten thousand can admit they've been wrong heretofore. Wrong about what? About the world of mulitplicity, and what we think it is or what it means. Because salvation is a promise, everyone will eventuallly be right about what the world is, and right about what it isn't.

GodspeeD

P.S. - GodspeeD to Rumi too! :wink:

barnasha

August 25th 2009, 03:28 PM

Gatsby

August 26th 2009, 06:19 AM

Like I said, the gospel does not specify any particular tradition. It merely discusses how to tell the difference between what is true and what is false. What is true is the truth. What is false is magic. The gospel defines what magic is, so that one may tell the difference between magic and the miracle that unmakes it. It just so happens that you and Gatsby are justifying magic with a mix of meaningless words.

The opposite of magic is a miracle. It's a miracle that I am using words to re-define what magic defines. Miracles are of use only as a false self is in need of waking up. A word-miracle would straigten out what word-magic would mix up, bend, twist, or otherwise make "wicked" (distorted). The difference between magic and miracles is that magic perpetuates illusions (spells), and miracles end illusions (spells).

Magic yields an experience. It is the experience of all that we can imagine and believe. The experience of what we believe is the experience of self-imposed ignorance...for the purpose of having, well, an experience! Therefore, experience is not the arbeiter of truth. Rather, experience is as much an agent of deception as it is of truth. Experience, converted, yeilds and experience of the truth. Experience, subverted, yields and experience of what we believe is, or ought to be true...but isn't.

That would describe an experience of what is not true, such as the experience of "the world".

"Masters" of what? Masters of disaster? Puppet masters? Masters of illusion? Master magicians? Master Masons? Masters of "divinity"? There are many kinds of "master" in an imaginary realm built on the heirarchy of differences. Then, there is a master of equality, wholeness, sameness, perfection, and non-multiplicity. We cannot serve both ,for they represent two opposing thought systems, one serving "the world" and the other serving the World of God.

Besides thought managment? Because what you are saying is insane, and makes no sense. What you are saying is symptomatic of the "root" of a magical tree.

The "fruit" of the magical tree imposes a strong delusion over one's mind...robbing it of the ability to tell the difference between what is not the same having thoroughly mixed up opposites into a kind of singularity.

But I notice that you still did not share of your experiencing of the Whole.

I am the unlimited Whole, having a limited experience of what is different from the Whole. I am speaking from experience...experience converted.

The whole what? The whole mind that makes "the universe" of time and mass? THAT IS NOT THE WHOLE. That is the whole concept of what is different from the Whole, separate from the Whole, and posing as the Whole. Any "whole" whose sons are "drops", is itself a "drop in the bucket". There are no such drops in the ocean that is the Whole.

When they point to the truth, they are what I would call word-miracles. But just as easily, and with pretty parables, they can point just as easily to the false.

To be clear, I'm saying this is a mistaken concept.

I have short-listed a small library of "right" worded texts. The gospel you speak of is but one of four in my short-list. It's not for every kind of reader. So, there are other "right" words for other kinds of readers. But the lessons are always the same. The lessons you are currently learning lead away from the Whole toward the glorification of multiplicity...toward making the mask that hides the Whole the "whole" instead.

Eghads! Everything in this world points to itself as the truth...away from the Whole that it hides through the power of reverse pantheism (ie. magic, imagination, manifestation).

Concepts are thoughts that reverse reality. These are "sin"...impossible "truths" that we make "true" by fiat of declaration (judgement)...independent of the truth. All concepts point mind away from the truth. Concepts converted, point back to the truth. The key word is conversion.

Then you are pulling the wool over your (our) eyes.

Yes. The Whole creates. The drops imagine they can create. But all they do is manifest what they imagine to be true. As it manifests, it confuses. As miracles de-manifest such manifestations, they clarify.

Then why do you keep saying we are saying the same thing? These are worlds apart. Imagination, a staple of the dreamer, is not an attribute of the reality of the Whole. What is real is far greater than what we can imagine. That is why what we imagine must yeild an experience less than blissful, less than joyful, less than constant, less than abundant, less than life, less then unchanging (eternal).

Rather, you constantly waffle on this position, confusing the reader(s). What are different (the "drops"), are not the same! So why do you go back and forth between calling them the same and also different? Are you thinking that you can sneak them past the Keeper of the Whole within me who judges for me between "sheep" and "goats"?

Urban Monk, you say the opposite of magic is miracle. How do you get to that conclusion?

Are you aware that a miracle is no more than the outworking of spiritual law. These are the laws that govern the Universe and are creative laws such as cause and effect.

What we see outside ourselves are the effects, we are the cause ourselves. Now if you understand the spiritual laws and work with the laws miracles will manifest. Nothing to do with magic.

Also I want to just say that what Viv is saying about the ocean and the drop from the ocean is correct. There is no word magic there at all.

Go to the ocean, take a spoonfull of the water from the ocean and you have the same, both are one and the same. I have said this before. You talk about the ocean and fish, implying that we think we are the fish. I think that Vivian and I are fully aware that we are the ocean and not the fish. This is purely a anology regarding our Oneness with God. We are OF God, we Are God, hard as that may be for some to beleive. We do not have the power of God in all his glory at this time, and yes, Iam aware that in reality there is no time and space, however I have to use the words that we understand so that other's can understand, that is called communication, as far as I know not many are familar with telepathy yet:wink: Jesus did not have the full power of God in his early years as far as we know, however we do know that he grew into that power the Christ power, that Oneness of God, His Father as he called Him and we are the same in every respect.

What He could do, more would we do, that is what He said. I beleive Him, do you?

Regards
Gatsby:smile:

Vivian

August 26th 2009, 12:01 PM

Urban Monk, you say the opposite of magic is miracle. How do you get to that conclusion?

Are you aware that a miracle is no more than the outworking of spiritual law. These are the laws that govern the Universe and are creative laws such as cause and effect.

What we see outside ourselves are the effects, we are the cause ourselves. Now if you understand the spiritual laws and work with the laws miracles will manifest. Nothing to do with magic.

Also I want to just say that what Viv is saying about the ocean and the drop from the ocean is correct. There is no word magic there at all.

Go to the ocean, take a spoonfull of the water from the ocean and you have the same, both are one and the same. I have said this before. You talk about the ocean and fish, implying that we think we are the fish. I think that Vivian and I are fully aware that we are the ocean and not the fish. This is purely a anology regarding our Oneness with God. We are OF God, we Are God, hard as that may be for some to beleive. We do not have the power of God in all his glory at this time, and yes, Iam aware that in reality there is no time and space, however I have to use the words that we understand so that other's can understand, that is called communication, as far as I know not many are familar with telepathy yet:wink: Jesus did not have the full power of God in his early years as far as we know, however we do know that he grew into that power the Christ power, that Oneness of God, His Father as he called Him and we are the same in every respect.

What He could do, more would we do, that is what He said. I beleive Him, do you?

Regards
Gatsby:smile:

This is key, Gatsby. Those who are not missing the mark, who connect, embrace, know Christ within themselves are able to perform the same and greater miracles as manifested by Jesus. And as you said, they are not really miracles, but the natural working of spiritual law. As we awaken, we awaken to these truths and are able to, through the use of our will, manifest these truths in the physical in a way that appears to be miracles.

And the way that these miracles are manifested is through the will force behind our words.

The tradition that I follow recognizes that those without pure intent are able to utilize spiritual law in the physical realms, and this we call black magic. It is the same, only the intent or motivation is impure.

If I might offer UrbanMonk a warning. There has been a shift in his tone and energy making me question the intent of the 'Keeper of the Whole' that he has found.

Might I ask, UM, why would the Whole wish to speak to Itself in the manner that you often speak to others on Tweb?

Once one has known the Whole, he or she realizes that we are one and the same, that there is no difference between you and me, and thus can only interact in loving kindness with 'others'.

Shalom.

Viv

UrbanMonk

August 26th 2009, 02:33 PM

If I might offer UrbanMonk a warning. There has been a shift in his tone and energy making me question the intent of the 'Keeper of the Whole' that he has found.

Let's ignore tone and stick to axioms. The intent of a Keeper is to keep what we intend to throw away...like Wholeness. Without the Keeper, we would be forever lost in our imaginations. The Keeper keeps what is true in our minds that we may one day remember who and what we are: A Whole...and nothing else.

Might I ask, UM, why would the Whole wish to speak to Itself in the manner that you often speak to others on Tweb?

If you think I have violated a Tweb rule, please advise. Meanwhile, I have not called anyone a whitewashed tomb. And, I have included, even the resistance, within the promise of salvation, that we would be reunited as a Whole, atoned for (united) by the Keeper of the Whole. Meanwhile, our judgements about what manner of speech is of the Whole or not...may keep us from uniting with the Whole. I am authorized to teach, and to learn as I teach. I am not the master that the Teacher of the Whole is...yet. Your assessment of my grade is inconsequential to what facts are being supported.

Once one has known the Whole, he or she realizes that we are one and the same, that there is no difference between you and me, and thus can only interact in loving kindness with 'others'.

Vigilance may or may not be joyful as one stands vigilant against what is not true. You are coming at Wholeness with volley after volley of misrepresented statements. One post you are arguing for unique differences, and the next you are claiming all those who are uniquely different are the same. It's like saying red is really blue, or squares are really round. Only in our wishful imaginations backed by "masters" and "experience" - and a dose of browbeating - could this possibly be "true".

I'm saying that the reason there appear to be differences is not because there are...but because of an intent to be different. Your theory breaks down here. The intent to be Whole and the intent to be different are at odds...and cannot coexist...but in a magical imagination.

Vivian

August 26th 2009, 03:11 PM

Let's ignore tone and stick to axioms. The intent of a Keeper is to keep what we intend to throw away...like Wholeness. Without the Keeper, we would be forever lost in our imaginations. The Keeper keeps what is true in our minds that we may one day remember who and what we are: A Whole...and nothing else.

If you think I have violated a Tweb rule, please advise. Meanwhile, I have not called anyone a whitewashed tomb. And, I have included, even the resistance, within the promise of salvation, that we would be reunited as a Whole, atoned for (united) by the Keeper of the Whole. Meanwhile, our judgements about what manner of speech is of the Whole or not...may keep us from uniting with the Whole. I am authorized to teach, and to learn as I teach. I am not the master that the Teacher of the Whole is...yet. Your assessment of my grade is inconsequential to what facts are being supported.

Vigilance may or may not be joyful as one stands vigilant against what is not true. You are coming at Wholeness with volley after volley of misrepresented statements. One post you are arguing for unique differences, and the next you are claiming all those who are uniquely different are the same. It's like saying red is really blue, or squares are really round. Only in our wishful imaginations backed by "masters" and "experience" - and a dose of browbeating - could this possibly be "true".

I'm saying that the reason there appear to be differences is not because there are...but because of an intent to be different. Your theory breaks down here. The intent to be Whole and the intent to be different are at odds...and cannot coexist...but in a magical imagination.

Hello UrbanMonk -

The true Keeper or Keepers of the Whole are Holy Angels who guard the access to that which is sacred. And Wholeness is sacred.

I do not sense a Holy Angel behind your words, nor in your intent.
Yes, a Holy Angel has a sword but it is always yielded with Love and Compassion,

Peace, and may your path be abundant in blessings.

Viv

UrbanMonk

August 26th 2009, 03:28 PM

Urban Monk, you say the opposite of magic is miracle. How do you get to that conclusion?

Magic would combine opposite attributes, making a world of imagination “manifested” as “proof” it is “true”.

A miracle would deny what magic denies, namely, the truth. So, a miracle denies “the world” its apparent validity by breaking all it’s so-called “laws” (rules). A miracle serves to separate what is true from what is untrue…not combine them. Miraculous vision would completely overlook the body, for example. This is it’s healing power…to look at what’s true in a way that what is untrue (ie. sickness, a sick mind) is strengthened to conform to what is true. The body may respond in kind. This emphasizes strength of mind…which is the truth. Magic makes the body and emphasizes it’s decision making-power over the mind. This dumbs us down, so-to-speak. As a rule of thumb, magic weakens by confusing us about what is making decisions. While we are confused, it may be helpful to use magic to “heal”…by appealing to what a patient believes…such as surgery or aspirin or food or drink or affirmations or visualizations or vibrations or spells. But in the long run, strength of mind is returned through miracles.

Are you aware that a miracle is no more than the outworking of spiritual law.

The laws that govern perception, which you seem to be calling “spiritual”, are not the laws of God which govern the “Son of God” (non-gendered based metaphor). The Son of God is not subject to the laws of this world (state of mind). And so, a Son of God works miracles as he let’s the truth be true. The laws that govern perception operate according to rules that may be used by magicians, or broken by miracle workers.

These are the laws that govern the Universe and are creative laws such as cause and effect.

Whenever true cause and effect are put in order, magic may yield to a miracle. Beware; however, a world of magic is built on the reversal of cause and effect. And what a magician may think is a cause may not be a true cause at all. It may be, in fact, a trick.

What we see outside ourselves are the effects, we are the cause ourselves.

This sounds good, unless you are giving the power of cause to….well, what is not really the cause.

Now if you understand the spiritual laws and work with the laws miracles will manifest. Nothing to do with magic.

As a rule of thumb, manifestation is for magicians who call their work “creation”. A miracle is more for revealing what is already manifest based on the truth. It denies what magic has made, and reveals what the Keeper of the Whole has already made within perception by seeing only what reflects the Son of God. When we see with the Keeper, we may have the kind of influence we think of as miraculous.

Also I want to just say that what Viv is saying about the ocean and the drop from the ocean is correct. There is no word magic there at all.

It takes word-magic to combine Whole and not-Whole together, as if unlimited could be combined with limited. What is different or unique is limited. There’s just no two ways about it. What seems to shape shift is still limited. A Whole simply has not use for differences and limitations. They are meaningless to a Totality.

Go to the ocean, take a spoonfull of the water from the ocean and you have the same, both are one and the same.

You see, this is what I mean. They are not the same! One is a spoonful, and the other is the ocean! They may both contain salt. That’s not enough. Unless they are the same, they are not the same.

I have said this before. You talk about the ocean and fish, implying that we think we are the fish. I think that Vivian and I are fully aware that we are the ocean and not the fish.

I simply read how you define “we” most of the time. And most of the time you define “we” as uniquely differentiated beings. This is to be a “fish” in the “ocean”. While these fish may flip-flop between “fish” and “ocean”, they default to a state of being in which each fish is different from every other fish. This is your “base” of reasoning…and explains why you are not able to comprehend the kind of Whole I am pointing toward. I am vigilant to shift my identity away from the fish, and toward the Whole…at least when I am attempting to reason.

This is purely a anology regarding our Oneness with God. We are OF God, we Are God, hard as that may be for some to beleive.

“We”, as uniquely different beings are “of God” as a mask is “of” its mask-maker. “We”, as such, are an expression of reverse pantheism. This represents not a real relationship, but rather, a converse relationship in which we play hide and seek from our Self. Word-magic is part of the fun.

We do not have the power of God in all his glory at this time, and yes,

There’s a good reason why we do have the power of God…but don’t appear to have it. We have been working magic…combining opposite attributes (ie. power and powerlessness) rather imaginatively.

Iam aware that in reality there is no time and space, however I have to use the words that we understand so that other's can understand, that is called communication, as far as I know not many are familar with telepathy yet Jesus did not have the full power of God in his early years as far as we know, however we do know that he grew into that power the Christ power, that Oneness of God, His Father as he called Him and we are the same in every respect.

Time and mass and the distance between masses…is all magical…believe driven…using our God given power to squander our power, dissipate it’s drive, and lose the location of our true will. Jesus is about finding our true will again, giving us the strength of mind to make miraculous decisions…miracles which unmake what we’ve made (powerlessness).

What He could do, more would we do, that is what He said. I beleive Him, do you?

We can and will, but not as we oppose the Whole he found himself to be, and not as we support the “fish” self he found himself NOT to be.

UrbanMonk

August 26th 2009, 03:34 PM

Hello UrbanMonk -

The true Keeper or Keepers of the Whole are Holy Angels who guard the access to that which is sacred. And Wholeness is sacred.

I do not sense a Holy Angel behind your words, nor in your intent.
Yes, a Holy Angel has a sword but it is always yielded with Love and Compassion,

Peace, and may your path be abundant in blessings.

Viv

If I wanted to, I could speak like you do, reflecting your tone. But I've learned that the tone of the message does not guarantee the truth of the message...and may well mask it behind a smile. So I don't bother with the misuse of a sacred vocabulary. What you call "love" is not love, unless love includes within its scope the fulfilment of a prayer to be decieved. In a Whole, there are really no angels, if by angel you mean a unique sword-bearing individual with special powers. We can believe in them though, and this may be helpful until we cross the bridge from individualism to the Truth of the Whole. Love does not limit. It does not make barriers, nor does it break barriers. You have proposed the dream of limits as our Reality. This makes a barrier to love. I would not break it down except as you would continue to take my posts apart.

Peace, and may your path be abundant in blessings.

Gatsby

August 26th 2009, 05:36 PM

Magic would combine opposite attributes, making a world of imagination “manifested” as “proof” it is “true”.

Urban Monk, you have been well and truly taken in by this book. You dont understand the spiritual that's pretty plain to see, however, given in time you may come to know Truth as we all will with right timeing come to know Truth within ourselves. Our REAL SELF is withing is.

You are judging Vivian and myself with the mortal mind and not a spiritual mind.

Iam not saying that you are not a good person, the mere fact you want to know the Truth is admiral and will exceed in due course Iam sure but not until you empty your mind of all learned knowledge, clear your mind and let the REAL MIND come through you.

A miracle would deny what magic denies, namely, the truth. So, a miracle denies “the world” its apparent validity by breaking all it’s so-called “laws” (rules). A miracle serves to separate what is true from what is untrue…not combine them. Miraculous vision would completely overlook the body, for example. This is it’s healing power…to look at what’s true in a way that what is untrue (ie. sickness, a sick mind) is strengthened to conform to what is true. The body may respond in kind. This emphasizes strength of mind…which is the truth. Magic makes the body and emphasizes it’s decision making-power over the mind. This dumbs us down, so-to-speak. As a rule of thumb, magic weakens by confusing us about what is making decisions. While we are confused, it may be helpful to use magic to “heal”…by appealing to what a patient believes…such as surgery or aspirin or food or drink or affirmations or visualizations or vibrations or spells. But in the long run, strength of mind is returned through miracles.

Well, you have lost me here. I really dont understand what your talking about. You say a miracle serves to seperate what is true and what is not true and not combine them. Where have I said that a miracle combines both of these things, I have not, not as far as Iam aware. Because what you say is untrue.

Have you heard of the power of suggestion. It is a fact that there is such a thing and it can help people who may have physical ailments to get better, if the suggestion is done the right way, with good intent, this is not a miracle of course Iam not meaning to say it is, just so you understand ok. You talk about the strength of the mind. Is this the higher mind or God mind or the mortal mind you are meaning? We surrender these things to God and then only God's mind does the work, in fact it is only God's mind that is doing the work just now although most do not realise this.

The laws that govern perception, which you seem to be calling “spiritual”, are not the laws of God which govern the “Son of God” (non-gendered based metaphor). The Son of God is not subject to the laws of this world (state of mind). And so, a Son of God works miracles as he let’s the truth be true. The laws that govern perception operate according to rules that may be used by magicians, or broken by miracle workers.

You dont understand!! Iam not talking about any laws that govern perception therefore Iam not confusing spiritual laws with perception which has no law. Perception comes about via the senses and is not spiritual law. Therefore you last sentence there is completely wrong.

Whenever true cause and effect are put in order, magic may yield to a miracle. Beware; however, a world of magic is built on the reversal of cause and effect. And what a magician may think is a cause may not be a true cause at all. It may be, in fact, a trick.

Urban Monk magic is not the result of the reversal of cause and effect. I dont see how to can get a reversal of cause and effect in any case. Iam spritualy aware enough to know the law of cause and effect and it is in operation in everybody whether you or they are aware of that fact.

God does not change spiritual laws to suit us, it is up to us to learn the spiritual laws and use them as they are meant to be used.

This sounds good, unless you are giving the power of cause to….well, what is not really the cause.

Can you expand on that because I am not sure what your meaning. Let me say to you Urban Monk, you seem to belive that you are going to be tricked at every corner the way your going on. You obviously think that Viv and I are out to trick you.I can assure you that is not the case.We are trying to teach you of things we feel you ought to know to help you develop along your path. As you teach, so do we and Iam sure Viv would say like you and I say also that we learn as we teach. We most certainly dont know all there is to know so please dont thing that. There is much I have to learn Iam happy to admit that and some of what you say has helped me too. We agree on certain things but not all points discussed here.

As a rule of thumb, manifestation is for magicians who call their work “creation”. A miracle is more for revealing what is already manifest based on the truth. It denies what magic has made, and reveals what the Keeper of the Whole has already made within perception by seeing only what reflects the Son of God. When we see with the Keeper, we may have the kind of influence we think of as miraculous.

Are you meaning that this Keeper of the Whole is actually the third eye, the eye that is single as Jesus called it? If not then your paragraph above makes no sense. There is no rule of thumb with regard to miracles and those who work within the spiritual laws and can work miracles only do so for the benefit of those they teach or to help in some way. They certainly do not go around shouting out to all that will listen that they can do miracles. I think really that you are reffering to the Christ within when you say the Keeper of the Whole, I truly can think of anyone else it could be. Please tell me if this is the Christ you are talking about.

It takes word-magic to combine Whole and not-Whole together, as if unlimited could be combined with limited. What is different or unique is limited. There’s just no two ways about it. What seems to shape shift is still limited. A Whole simply has not use for differences and limitations. They are meaningless to a Totality.

You cant combine Whole and not Whole. You are not understanding this at all.
The I within you and me is God the eternal I Am. It is unlimited and can never be limited. Being limited applies to the mortal mind alone.

You see, this is what I mean. They are not the same! One is a spoonful, and the other is the ocean! They may both contain salt. That’s not enough. Unless they are the same, they are not the same.

Ah, you are confusing the size this is how you do not understand this and this is a spiritual Truth. Forget the amount of water, think only where it has come from. It has come from the ocean, a small amount of water taken from the ocean and put into a cup or glass or some other utensil. Now the water in this utensil is the SAME as the water it has come from, namely the ocean. Hence the 2 are the same, they are one and the same. Now do you understand?

I simply read how you define “we” most of the time. And most of the time you define “we” as uniquely differentiated beings. This is to be a “fish” in the “ocean”. While these fish may flip-flop between “fish” and “ocean”, they default to a state of being in which each fish is different from every other fish. This is your “base” of reasoning…and explains why you are not able to comprehend the kind of Whole I am pointing toward. I am vigilant to shift my identity away from the fish, and toward the Whole…at least when I am attempting to reason.

Urban Monk, in this mortal life we are the same in form but not the same in charachter or personality. However, the same Life runs through me as it does you. There is only ONE LIFE so it must run through you and me and it is the sustaining power in everyone on the planet. This is the Oneness we talk about, we are all of God, created by God and we are all One with God each and every one of us. God is behind all that we see and do. He is omnipresent, omniscient, and omnipotent. This means he is everywhere, all powerfull and all knowing. Being everywhere he MUST be IN US and all around us too because we wouldn't be here if that were not the case.

“We”, as uniquely different beings are “of God” as a mask is “of” its mask-maker. “We”, as such, are an expression of reverse pantheism. This represents not a real relationship, but rather, a converse relationship in which we play hide and seek from our Self. Word-magic is part of the fun.

Really?

There’s a good reason why we do have the power of God…but don’t appear to have it. We have been working magic…combining opposite attributes (ie. power and powerlessness) rather imaginatively.

Could well be so, as long as we operate from the egoic mind we will not have use of God Power within us. We will not have use of God Power within us if we only wish to use it selfishly, it must be used for the benefit of others.

Time and mass and the distance between masses…is all magical…believe driven…using our God given power to squander our power, dissipate it’s drive, and lose the location of our true will. Jesus is about finding our true will again, giving us the strength of mind to make miraculous decisions…miracles which unmake what we’ve made (powerlessness).

I agree that time and mass are a part of this reality only. However I dont call it magical, just the way it is until we know otherwise.

We can and will, but not as we oppose the Whole he found himself to be, and not as we support the “fish” self he found himself NOT to be.

Urban Monk, once realisation of the Self is fully upon us it means that we have untied the chains that bind us to this earth plane and we are free, free from bondage free from attatchments of any kind. Our live is devoted to God and doing God's will with Love for all.

Regards
Gatsby

Vivian

August 26th 2009, 06:00 PM

Greetings Gatsby!

Yes, UrbanMonk has truly been taken in by this book! But he will not see by our words, for he has been programmed to see in the words of others ideas that are not there - failing to see what is there. He will see when he sees.

I agree with Gatsby, UM, you are on the path because there is a desire in you for truth. But there are other desires in you as well. And it is these that are being dealt with in your attraction to the Course. I have learned my friend, that until we are ready for the truth, we will be drawn to lesser truths that will bring our distorted desires to the surface resulting in purification. A painful purification. But a necessary one.

As much as we wish for a shortcut, there is not one. We all will have to one day face ourselves.

Shalom.

Viv

UrbanMonk

August 26th 2009, 10:38 PM

Urban Monk, once realisation of the Self is fully upon us it means that we have untied the chains that bind us to this earth plane and we are free, free from bondage free from attatchments of any kind. Our live is devoted to God and doing God's will with Love for all.

Regards
Gatsby

Will we be free from thinking that a spoonful of ocean is the same as the ocean? If you went to the ice cream shop and ordered a scoop of ice cream and they charged you for the whole bucket, would you object? On what grounds?

UrbanMonk

August 26th 2009, 10:50 PM

Yes, UrbanMonk has truly been taken in by this book!

You seem quite taken with Rumi and Gatsby seems quite taken by Shakespeare. How is a free-thinker "taken" by a "book"? I simply recognize the "voice" of the "Good Shepherd" when it guides me to green, textual pasture for strength and openness of mind. I have a short list of books that speak the words of the Good Shepherd, the Keeper of One Flock.

But he will not see by our words, for he has been programmed to see in the words of others ideas that are not there - failing to see what is there.

Programmed and baptized are synonymous. I have intentionally washed my mind clear of the idea that a spoonful of ocean is the same as the ocean. Actually, I have been brainwashed by Sesame Street to see that "one of these things is not like the other".

He will see when he sees.

Yes. Perception will yield to a mind that has been washed clear of erroneous ideas about combining separation with oneness.

I agree with Gatsby, UM, you are on the path because there is a desire in you for truth. But there are other desires in you as well.

A good reason to be vigilant, yes?

And it is these that are being dealt with in your attraction to the Course.

Well, yes. There is the question of our will and our wish to be uniquely different.

I have learned my friend, that until we are ready for the truth, we will be drawn to lesser truths that will bring our distorted desires to the surface resulting in purification.

If a spoonful of ocean is the same as the ocean, would this be an example of a lesser truth that brings our desire to be uniquely different to the surface?

A painful purification. But a necessary one.

Changing our mind is not painful. Not changing it may be painful.

As much as we wish for a shortcut, there is not one. We all will have to one day face ourselves.

I do not consider facing mySelf to be as ominous as you imply. Rather, it should be a joyful occasion.

Gatsby

August 27th 2009, 09:50 AM

You seem quite taken with Rumi and Gatsby seems quite taken by Shakespeare. How is a free-thinker "taken" by a "book"? I simply recognize the "voice" of the "Good Shepherd" when it guides me to green, textual pasture for strength and openness of mind. I have a short list of books that speak the words of the Good Shepherd, the Keeper of One Flock.

Programmed and baptized are synonymous. I have intentionally washed my mind clear of the idea that a spoonful of ocean is the same as the ocean. Actually, I have been brainwashed by Sesame Street to see that "one of these things is not like the other".

Yes. Perception will yield to a mind that has been washed clear of erroneous ideas about combining separation with oneness.

A good reason to be vigilant, yes?

Well, yes. There is the question of our will and our wish to be uniquely different.

If a spoonful of ocean is the same as the ocean, would this be an example of a lesser truth that brings our desire to be uniquely different to the surface?

Changing our mind is not painful. Not changing it may be painful.

I do not consider facing mySelf to be as ominous as you imply. Rather, it should be a joyful occasion.

HI Urban Monk, I think Vivian was meaning your mortal self which you must face as we all must and in doing so we eradicate faulty thinking. I do not know anyone who would call that a joyfull occasion, but each to his own as they say.

Ia, failing to understand how you cant see that the analogy of the water taken from the ocean and the water that composes the ocean are the same, being the same, the spoonfull is lesser only in quantity not in quality so how does that mean that the water itself is diffferent. I really thought that would be very easy to understand but obviously I was wrong in that assumption.

No one is saying that you must not enjoy books nor am I saying you can learn from books. I love books and have gained a lot through reading books like everyone else. However books can only point the way, the words in the books may point us in the direction of Truth but they are not Truth themselves. To find Truth we can only do it one way and that is to go within, meditate, ruminate, ponder on God and mankind and the answers will be given within you as nothing external to you is the real, it is but the effects of causes put into action. One exception to this is nature, it can teach you much if you watch nature and her ways, the ways of the animals, plants vegetables for they are living things and as such will teach you but dont look for other to teach you, they can help and I have found help that way myself as I have said even what you have said has helped so Iam gratefull to all who have helped me along the way. This is how it shoud be if we are not to proud to admit we dont know it all, but we know One who does, so it behooves us to communicate with that ONE if we are serious seekers of the Truth.

Regards
Gatsby

Vivian

August 27th 2009, 03:35 PM

I think Vivian was meaning your mortal self which you must face as we all must and in doing so we eradicate faulty thinking. I do not know anyone who would call that a joyfull occasion, but each to his own as they say.

Hi Gatsby!

I was referring to the layers of self- delusion that go way beyond our outer consciousness, or the realm of thought. There are layers of subconscious that imprison us more deeply than our faulty thinking, which we cannot touch, release, and thus heal, ourselves. Hence the necessity of Grace.

Certainly we can change our outer thinking, but we will not be able to purify it completely - to rid it of all delusion - until our subconscious layers of consciousness have been purified by Grace.

Until this occurs, our realm of thinking will always have some level of distortion. And it is this purifying of our subconscious that is not so joyous. This is where the dark night of the soul comes into play.

Jesus gives a glimpse of the process of purifying the subconscious - or the pre-thought inner world - in John 3...

18 “He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. 19 And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. 20 For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed. 21 But he who does the truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be clearly seen, that they have been done in God.”

It is this revealing of our 'evil deeds' that brings the suffering, but it is only in this revealing that our subconscious can be purified so that we might find eternal life.

May all beings know this healing and liberation. Amen.

Shalom.

Viv

UrbanMonk

August 27th 2009, 03:54 PM

Ia, failing to understand how you cant see that the analogy of the water taken from the ocean and the water that composes the ocean are the same, being the same, the spoonfull is lesser only in quantity not in quality so how does that mean that the water itself is diffferent. I really thought that would be very easy to understand but obviously I was wrong in that assumption.
Gatsby

The spoonful is obviously lesser in quantity. And so, it is not the same. And being lesser in quantity, many other attributes are changed about it. So it's not just a matter of quantity anymore. It's not the same in many ways. And unless it is the same, it is different. What is different from the Whole can never be the truth, try as hard as we might to make it so through magical (perceptual) means.

I offer the following axiom: Love does not limit. It does not make barriers, nor break them.

So, our little barrier reef we call "the universe" only "exists" because love won't break it. To that extent, whatever the Son of God believes cannot be destroyed. It's seeming permanence and solidity are not the truth, though they would seem to be. It's permanence is owed to the power of belief in a very powerful mind. When that mind changes it's mind, so will all that seems solid - limited - and therefore "true" (not).

Gatsby

August 28th 2009, 06:11 AM

Hi Gatsby!

I was referring to the layers of self- delusion that go way beyond our outer consciousness, or the realm of thought. There are layers of subconscious that imprison us more deeply than our faulty thinking, which we cannot touch, release, and thus heal, ourselves. Hence the necessity of Grace.

Certainly we can change our outer thinking, but we will not be able to purify it completely - to rid it of all delusion - until our subconscious layers of consciousness have been purified by Grace.

Until this occurs, our realm of thinking will always have some level of distortion. And it is this purifying of our subconscious that is not so joyous. This is where the dark night of the soul comes into play.

Jesus gives a glimpse of the process of purifying the subconscious - or the pre-thought inner world - in John 3...

18 “He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. 19 And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. 20 For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed. 21 But he who does the truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be clearly seen, that they have been done in God.”

It is this revealing of our 'evil deeds' that brings the suffering, but it is only in this revealing that our subconscious can be purified so that we might find eternal life.

May all beings know this healing and liberation. Amen.

Shalom.

Viv

Hi Viv, yes I understand what your saying and of course this is true. The mortal mind feeds the subconscious mind from what it perceives from outside itself. Hence the subconscious must be cleared also. The subconsious mind is like a record with many grooves on it. The grooves contain all the tthe mortal mind has 'dropped' into it, hence we aquire habits of varying degrees. It is like a automatic pilot in a way and causes us to react to situations that are habitual to the senses. But, the subconsious is also where creation comes in. For out thoughts in our mortal minds are stored in the subconsious and when we have cleared the mortal outward looking mind we clear the subconsious also and we can then reprogramme it with new understanding of the Truth that we ARE and do not need to become anything.

I hope I have explained that adequately for you.

Regards
Gatsby

UrbanMonk

August 28th 2009, 02:35 PM

...of the Truth that we ARE and do not need to become anything.

Regards
Gatsby

"ARE" what?

Gatsby

August 28th 2009, 02:44 PM

"ARE" what?

"Ye are gods" saith scripture This is what we ARE!!

The very thing that we have been discussing, or at least I thought we were. I know we have gone off topic on some of the posts, but basically this is what we are discussing.

Regards
Gatsby:smile:

UrbanMonk

August 28th 2009, 02:51 PM

"Ye are gods" saith scripture This is what we ARE!!

All different and unique?

Vivian

August 28th 2009, 04:27 PM

Hi Viv, yes I understand what your saying and of course this is true. The mortal mind feeds the subconscious mind from what it perceives from outside itself. Hence the subconscious must be cleared also. The subconsious mind is like a record with many grooves on it. The grooves contain all the tthe mortal mind has 'dropped' into it, hence we aquire habits of varying degrees. It is like a automatic pilot in a way and causes us to react to situations that are habitual to the senses. But, the subconsious is also where creation comes in. For out thoughts in our mortal minds are stored in the subconsious and when we have cleared the mortal outward looking mind we clear the subconsious also and we can then reprogramme it with new understanding of the Truth that we ARE and do not need to become anything.

I hope I have explained that adequately for you.

Regards
Gatsby

Indeed, Gatsby, we are not free, but controlled by the habitual thinking, feeling, and acting that is born of our subconscious!

And yes, we do agree that it is from the subconscious that creation unfolds.

So what are we creating with our thoughts, feelings, and actions?!?

I do though hold a different understanding of becoming. God is Being indeed, but God is also Becoming, hence the act of creation. Jesus' parable of the mustard seed is a good picture for us. God as Being exists within us, as it does within the mustard seed, and God Becoming in the physical is God as Being breaking free from its outer husk of darkness (which is equated with the bestial self - the layers of darkness that imprisons each spark of God) and Becoming in the physical - in the case of the mustard seed, becoming a glorious tree in which other beings can find rest and shade.

An image came a few weeks ago while reading Pistis Sophia - Darkness Diving, or Spark Diving.

Sparks of God dive into the darkness, becoming encased in the darkness, and called to overcome the darkness, to break free of the outer husk just as we see in the image of the seed.

God planted sparks of Himself in the darkness, calling them to overcome the darkness they awaken in, so that Light might shine and live within the darkness, the darkness being a consequence of outer creation - shades and shadows being a natural occurance of creation.

And so to tie this into the OP. Yes, we are Sons of God, sparks of God (or drops of the Infinite Ocean, complete and Whole in ourselves) suddenly awakening and finding ourselves emerged and encased in darkness.

Our job is to overcome, bringing Sons of God to Life within the darkness of outer creation.

Shalom.

Viv

headheart

August 28th 2009, 05:48 PM

All different and unique?

68615

Yes.

UrbanMonk

August 28th 2009, 09:54 PM

Sparks of God dive into the darkness, becoming encased in the darkness, and called to overcome the darkness, to break free of the outer husk just as we see in the image of the seed.
Viv

Kabballa. The bible is an example of a primitive kabballa. The "Keys of Enoch, Book of Knowledge" (c. 1977 JJ Hurtak) is an example of a complex kabballa.

UrbanMonk

August 28th 2009, 09:56 PM

68615

Yes.

So you are allied with Gatsby and Vivian? That would follow as you share a primitive kabballa.

Gatsby

August 29th 2009, 03:15 PM

So you are allied with Gatsby and Vivian? That would follow as you share a primitive kabballa.

Urban Monk, it is known I think that most scriptural doctrine do contains germs of Truth. You want to label a particular one, fine but it doesn't change Truth.

I popped onto the Course in Miracles site and I see where you get your ego vs miracles from.

Quote from ACIM:

What is the ego? Nothingness, but in a form that seems like something. In a world of form the ego cannot be denied for it alone seems real. Yet could God's Son as He created him abide in form or in a world of form? Who asks you to define the ego and explain how it arose can be but he who thinks it real, and seeks by definition to ensure that its illusive nature is concealed behind the words that seem to make it so.

Now, Iam going to say that asking the question 'what is ego' and providing a answer does not mean necessarily that the one who asked the question has done so to keep the ego going. That is rubbish. People should come to know what the ego is, and it's opposite is not miracles. The ego is a representation of the tree of good and bad in the original Garden of Eden. The tree that is singular and is Life with no opposition is The Tree of Life Itself being the only Reality.

The ego is the mortal mind, the false mind that is fed by the 5 senses we use, this I have said before. Hence there is no realy need to withold a explanation of what the ego is, it is actually most important that spiritual seekers of Truth know as much about the ego and it's ways as possible to discern Truth. Yes, ego will fade away when Truth is known. Though some espouse that ego is necessary, I dont agree with that view.

Regards
Gatsby

Vivian

August 29th 2009, 04:20 PM

Urban Monk, it is known I think that most scriptural doctrine do contains germs of Truth. You want to label a particular one, fine but it doesn't change Truth.

Hi Gatsby!

In my own journey realizing the above was a critical step - realizing that all things in this world contain both good and evil. This is the first step away from a duality consciousness where the ego seeks to define everything either good or evil, black or white, nice or naughty.

This realization leads us to an awareness of the ego, or the lower ego, at work in this world. Whenever one is labeling anything right or wrong, the dualistic ego is at work.

Of course then, I am not saying that the ego is good or bad - for such declaration is dualistically minded!

Even calling the dream or illusion 'bad' and the not dream 'good' is of dualistic thinking! But again such declaration is not good, nor bad!

I find that something Paul said is the key...

All things are permissable, but all things are not beneficial.

This 'tames' dualistic thinking, having us instead define from our own experiencing what is most useful in our journey.

In the tradition that I follow, we do not see the ego as 'bad'. We see the ego as having many layers - the spark of God (I guess that is Kabballistic imagery!), or drop of the Ocean (this is Hindu imagery) has been placed in darkness, inside of an ego, and must awaken there and evolve or develop the ego, so that it can awaken to its True Self.

The lowest level of ego - necessary for the lowest level of existence in the darkness - is the bestial ego - that which sees everything based on its instinct for survival. This ego functions in survival mode - all thoughts words and actions coming out of fear, defending itself, getting what it wants and needs.

The next level of ego - necessary for connecting with the highest aspect of the soul or Spirit within us - is the godly ego, that part of us which seeks more than what is found in this world, or seeks more than purely existing in the bestial state. For the godly ego to be in charge of the personality, the bestial personality must be overcome.

This is the beast that must be overcome in Christian imagery. I believe the imagery given above this is of the Judaic tradition.

I popped onto the Course in Miracles site and I see where you get your ego vs miracles from.

Quote from ACIM:

What is the ego? Nothingness, but in a form that seems like something. In a world of form the ego cannot be denied for it alone seems real. Yet could God's Son as He created him abide in form or in a world of form? Who asks you to define the ego and explain how it arose can be but he who thinks it real, and seeks by definition to ensure that its illusive nature is concealed behind the words that seem to make it so.

Yes. To realize, not just think but realize know experience, that behind the ego, behind all things is No-Thing, is freedom! This is how all is the same, for all comes from No-Thing! When we untangle the web of dream around all things, we see that there is nothing there!

So what is there to desire? What is there to fear? All is No-Thing!

Peace and blessings, Gatsby.

Viv

UrbanMonk

August 29th 2009, 04:27 PM

Urban Monk, it is known I think that most scriptural doctrine do contains germs of Truth.

The value of any string of words is what the Spirit of Truth interprets toward one's psychological salvation. The Spirit of Truth can see when "scripture" is heading in an opposite direction, and turn the reader around by taking an opposite approach. There are no neutral thoughts/words. They are heading away or toward salvation. All of them can be used by the great Interpreter...even if they are overlooked as strings of words to be ignored as meaningless. In this way, the Spirit of Truth can be teaching, even if one is reading Harry Potter, or watching The Matrix. The bible, as such, can be thought of as the pop media of the day. It was used for instruction, not because it is true, but because it is pop media. A well known idea, interpreted, can assist communication. Jesus did this sort of thing when for example he would reference Jonah or Noah to make a point (ie. "as in the days of Noah"). These are not endorsements as if to say the stories are true. It's about using pop media as parables to teach lessons.

You want to label a particular one, fine but it doesn't change Truth.

The Spirit of Truth can interpret anything the spirit of untruth scribes that is called "scripture". Some say, for example, "film is truth". But it's the interpretation of film that lends it lessons that point to truth. Sometimes, people sit and listen to the Spirit of Truth and scribe. Even then, one must be open to the Spirit of Truth in order to glean any lessons from the text.

I popped onto the Course in Miracles site and I see where you get your ego vs miracles from.

Quote from ACIM:

What is the ego? Nothingness, but in a form that seems like something. In a world of form the ego cannot be denied for it alone seems real. Yet could God's Son as He created him abide in form or in a world of form? Who asks you to define the ego and explain how it arose can be but he who thinks it real, and seeks by definition to ensure that its illusive nature is concealed behind the words that seem to make it so.

The main thing that is overlooked here is that the ego and form go hand in hand. Form denies reality, and substitutes it's own reality instead. The ego is all about form. Form is what enables the appearance of separation and unique differences.

Now, Iam going to say that asking the question 'what is ego' and providing a answer does not mean necessarily that the one who asked the question has done so to keep the ego going.

True, it's just how the question is phrased, ie. "how did the ego come to be"? This implies that the ego IS as much as God IS. But, the ego isn't...as in, does not exist except as a belief. Our belief can't make it truly exist. Accordingly, form is belief oriented, and does not exist...except as much as we believe in it.

That is rubbish. People should come to know what the ego is, and it's opposite is not miracles.

Agreed. We should be wary of what it is we believe in that opposes the truth of our Self. We just need to be careful to not lend it more belief than we already have. So I would say, for example, "people should come to beware of what the ego seems to be...but isn't". Notice the difference? "What IS the ego"? implies that it IS. For this reason, you'll hear me use the words "seems to" and "appears to" often. What we believe does not really exist, so why keep puffing it up?

The ego is a representation of the tree of good and bad in the original Garden of Eden. The tree that is singular and is Life with no opposition is The Tree of Life Itself being the only Reality.

The tree of good and bad is the concept of combining opposite attributes into a single fruit. What it produces is utterly unreal, while the Tree of Life - without opposite - is symbolic of Reality. REality, with all its attributes, has no opposite. Thus, there is no light and dark, life and death, truth and lies, free and limited, flesh and Spirit. There is only light, life, truth, free Spirit. The ego and unreality are synonymous, implying there is more than Reality...more than life, more than truth, more than good, more than, well, more than GOD. The ego, as such, is an "extra god" (acronym: e-go). It symbolizes a false god, an idol. And yes, all this is symbolized by an extra tree besides the Tree of Life.

The ego is the mortal mind, the false mind that is fed by the 5 senses we use, this I have said before.

The ego is the instigator of a limited, 5 sense system. These senses are limited to the ego's domain so that all that - and only that - which the ego imagines may be taken as "real" and "true".

Hence there is no realy need to withold a explanation of what the ego is, it is actually most important that spiritual seekers of Truth know as much about the ego and it's ways as possible to discern Truth.

In the gospel you mention, the ego is described, but not defined. Some information is provided as to what it seems to be...not what it is. All definite references to the ego are about what we definitely believe and how our belief system operates in opposition to the truth. You seem to be implying things about the gospel you mention without a full reading of the text.

Yes, ego will fade away when Truth is known. Though some espouse that ego is necessary, I dont agree with that view.

The ego is all about unique differences. It offers us the chance to be special. It's means is separation. But in offering specialness, it betrays us. We take the "gift" of bodies (to be special), only to find that the ego intends to drive us mad through their inherent capacity to be decieved, limited, hurt, misinformed and...well, confused. And this drives the mind mad that hosts them as home. The ego is the mind the body "hears" most clearly, as if it were it's own. It's set up this way. It is the mind that makes the body to wax and flourish, as well as to wane and die. So, yes, it is the "mortal mind".

Gatsby

August 29th 2009, 05:12 PM

The value of any string of words is what the Spirit of Truth interprets toward one's psychological salvation. The Spirit of Truth can see when "scripture" is heading in an opposite direction, and turn the reader around by taking an opposite approach. There are no neutral thoughts/words. They are heading away or toward salvation. All of them can be used by the great Interpreter...even if they are overlooked as strings of words to be ignored as meaningless. In this way, the Spirit of Truth can be teaching, even if one is reading Harry Potter, or watching The Matrix. The bible, as such, can be thought of as the pop media of the day. It was used for instruction, not because it is true, but because it is pop media. A well known idea, interpreted, can assist communication. Jesus did this sort of thing when for example he would reference Jonah or Noah to make a point (ie. "as in the days of Noah"). These are not endorsements as if to say the stories are true. It's about using pop media as parables to teach lessons.

The Spirit of Truth can interpret anything the spirit of untruth scribes that is called "scripture". Some say, for example, "film is truth". But it's the interpretation of film that lends it lessons that point to truth. Sometimes, people sit and listen to the Spirit of Truth and scribe. Even then, one must be open to the Spirit of Truth in order to glean any lessons from the text.

The main thing that is overlooked here is that the ego and form go hand in hand. Form denies reality, and substitutes it's own reality instead. The ego is all about form. Form is what enables the appearance of separation and unique differences.

True, it's just how the question is phrased, ie. "how did the ego come to be"? This implies that the ego IS as much as God IS. But, the ego isn't...as in, does not exist except as a belief. Our belief can't make it truly exist. Accordingly, form is belief oriented, and does not exist...except as much as we believe in it.

Agreed. We should be wary of what it is we believe in that opposes the truth of our Self. We just need to be careful to not lend it more belief than we already have. So I would say, for example, "people should come to beware of what the ego seems to be...but isn't". Notice the difference? "What IS the ego"? implies that it IS. For this reason, you'll hear me use the words "seems to" and "appears to" often. What we believe does not really exist, so why keep puffing it up?

The tree of good and bad is the concept of combining opposite attributes into a single fruit. What it produces is utterly unreal, while the Tree of Life - without opposite - is symbolic of Reality. REality, with all its attributes, has no opposite. Thus, there is no light and dark, life and death, truth and lies, free and limited, flesh and Spirit. There is only light, life, truth, free Spirit. The ego and unreality are synonymous, implying there is more than Reality...more than life, more than truth, more than good, more than, well, more than GOD. The ego, as such, is an "extra god" (acronym: e-go). It symbolizes a false god, an idol. And yes, all this is symbolized by an extra tree besides the Tree of Life.

The ego is the instigator of a limited, 5 sense system. These senses are limited to the ego's domain so that all that - and only that - which the ego imagines may be taken as "real" and "true".

In the gospel you mention, the ego is described, but not defined. Some information is provided as to what it seems to be...not what it is. All definite references to the ego are about what we definitely believe and how our belief system operates in opposition to the truth. You seem to be implying things about the gospel you mention without a full reading of the text.

The ego is all about unique differences. It offers us the chance to be special. It's means is separation. But in offering specialness, it betrays us. We take the "gift" of bodies (to be special), only to find that the ego intends to drive us mad through their inherent capacity to be decieved, limited, hurt, misinformed and...well, confused. And this drives the mind mad that hosts them as home. The ego is the mind the body "hears" most clearly, as if it were it's own. It's set up this way. It is the mind that makes the body to wax and flourish, as well as to wane and die. So, yes, it is the "mortal mind".

Hi Urban Monk, seems we agree here on quite a few things. The mortal mind is governed by the ego and is dualistic in nature and action. It has only two modes of operation and that is to attack or defend it's position against other egoic minds, which it perceives as enemies.

What gospel are you reffering to? Iam am not understanding you there.

Urban Monk, God creates form and created our form. The form itself has not to be worshipped but it is meant to be taken care of as it houses the temple of God, the temple not made with hands. The form was meant as a outlet for the expression of God through the form but you could I suppose say that the ego sabbotaged it and created it's own brand of reality, which is no reality at all.

Regards
Gatsby

Gatsby

August 29th 2009, 05:23 PM

Hi Gatsby!

In my own journey realizing the above was a critical step - realizing that all things in this world contain both good and evil. This is the first step away from a duality consciousness where the ego seeks to define everything either good or evil, black or white, nice or naughty.

This realization leads us to an awareness of the ego, or the lower ego, at work in this world. Whenever one is labeling anything right or wrong, the dualistic ego is at work.

Of course then, I am not saying that the ego is good or bad - for such declaration is dualistically minded!

Even calling the dream or illusion 'bad' and the not dream 'good' is of dualistic thinking! But again such declaration is not good, nor bad!

I find that something Paul said is the key...

All things are permissable, but all things are not beneficial.

This 'tames' dualistic thinking, having us instead define from our own experiencing what is most useful in our journey.

In the tradition that I follow, we do not see the ego as 'bad'. We see the ego as having many layers - the spark of God (I guess that is Kabballistic imagery!), or drop of the Ocean (this is Hindu imagery) has been placed in darkness, inside of an ego, and must awaken there and evolve or develop the ego, so that it can awaken to its True Self.

The lowest level of ego - necessary for the lowest level of existence in the darkness - is the bestial ego - that which sees everything based on its instinct for survival. This ego functions in survival mode - all thoughts words and actions coming out of fear, defending itself, getting what it wants and needs.

The next level of ego - necessary for connecting with the highest aspect of the soul or Spirit within us - is the godly ego, that part of us which seeks more than what is found in this world, or seeks more than purely existing in the bestial state. For the godly ego to be in charge of the personality, the bestial personality must be overcome.

This is the beast that must be overcome in Christian imagery. I believe the imagery given above this is of the Judaic tradition.

Yes. To realize, not just think but realize know experience, that behind the ego, behind all things is No-Thing, is freedom! This is how all is the same, for all comes from No-Thing! When we untangle the web of dream around all things, we see that there is nothing there!

So what is there to desire? What is there to fear? All is No-Thing!

Peace and blessings, Gatsby.

Viv

Hi Viv, just a couple of things that I dont agree on at this time. I do agree with you regarding the lower ego being the beast that must be overcome. But are you equating the God ego to what is termed the Higher Self? I think you are but Iam not quite sure, can you clarify that for me, thanks.
And yes, the ego is doing everything for it's own survival that is true. We can see the ego at work in many many people from all walks of life and all countries too. We know where they are coming from, so to speak and as long as we dont get caught up in their egoic ways and be pulled back down again then. I can see my own family caught up in the egoic mind, but it is our destiny you could say, as seekers to learn to accept all and remain poised and balanced knowing our connection to God as we do. Do you agree on that?

I dont know if it was just the way you wrote it Viv, but I dont agree that behind all things is no-thing. God is behind all things. God is in us and through us, above and below us, there is no place where God is not. He is omnipresent and I dont term that as no-thing.

Regards
Gatsby

Vivian

August 29th 2009, 05:55 PM

Hi Viv, just a couple of things that I dont agree on at this time. I do agree with you regarding the lower ego being the beast that must be overcome. But are you equating the God ego to what is termed the Higher Self? I think you are but Iam not quite sure, can you clarify that for me, thanks.
And yes, the ego is doing everything for it's own survival that is true. We can see the ego at work in many many people from all walks of life and all countries too. We know where they are coming from, so to speak and as long as we dont get caught up in their egoic ways and be pulled back down again then. I can see my own family caught up in the egoic mind, but it is our destiny you could say, as seekers to learn to accept all and remain poised and balanced knowing our connection to God as we do. Do you agree on that?

I dont know if it was just the way you wrote it Viv, but I dont agree that behind all things is no-thing. God is behind all things. God is in us and through us, above and below us, there is no place where God is not. He is omnipresent and I dont term that as no-thing.

Regards
Gatsby

Hi Gatsby!

I am saying that there are different 'parts' of the ego - a part called the bestial soul that seeks to sustain and perpetuate itself, existing in fear always seeking to sustain and perpetuate itself through means that are destructive to others (sin), and a part of the ego that is able to walk the spiritual path, that is able to function selflessly, when it is guiding as the lower bestial nature has been overcome.

We cannot function in this world of form without the ego, and so we see a lower ego and a higher ego, the higher ego able to be self aware as it finds and unites with its TrueSelf - which is beyond the ego. It is the bestial ego that is silenced in the first dark night of the soul, but if it is not silenced then our seeking for God or for the Higher Self is done by the bestial ego. And since this part of us seeks first and always to protect and sustain itself, one can see how we can become deluded or lost in our journey if this part of us is not first overcome.

The godly ego is that part of the ego which can seek and find its Higher Self - which we can call our Spirit, for it will not succumb to the same ego traps as the lower bestial ego.

And it is our Spirit that finds and unites as One with Christ.

I have before followed mindsets that did not differentiate between these different 'parts' of the ego, and so we sought God with our bestial self and many were lost because of the various ego traps encountered along the way.

This is what Jesus meant when he said only the pure in heart will see God, only those hearts that have been freed from their bestial self, that have been so purified, will be able to find and Unite with God within.

No-thing is simply a nomenclature given in multiple traditions to explain formlessness. No-Thing means there is nothing that the human mind labels as a something, there.

God Transcendent is without any form. No-Thing. But it is from this formlessness that all things come forth

Shalom.

Viv

UrbanMonk

August 29th 2009, 06:05 PM

Hi Urban Monk, seems we agree here on quite a few things. The mortal mind is governed by the ego and is dualistic in nature and action. It has only two modes of operation and that is to attack or defend it's position against other egoic minds, which it perceives as enemies.

Mainly, the ego percieves the truth as an enemy and builds defenses against it. It's world, a world of form, is itself a defense against the truth.

What gospel are you reffering to? Iam am not understanding you there.

I'm not supposed to use certain words, so I am using another word to describe what you are referring to. You call it the "Course". I call it a "gospel". I hope i don't get in trouble for that. Either that or edit out some words.

Urban Monk, God creates form and created our form.

The god-of-form made our form in its image(imagination). That is not the "our Father" Jesus spoke of. The god-of-this-world and the god-of-form, and the extra god known as ego (e-go, extra god) are all synonymous. Accordingly, the god-of-form and form are beliefs, well defended against the truth. The god-of-form offers us specialness...against the truth. It seems that specialness (unique differences) are now the truth because it is all we "see" and so it seems "real".

The form itself has not to be worshipped but it is meant to be taken care of as it houses the temple of God, the temple not made with hands.

The temple of God has no form, so it is not made with hands, which are a form of form. Temple and mind are synonymous. The temple of the ego is all about form. So it is made with (filled with) hands...legs...heads...feet...torso...ect. Form. In other words, the "son of man" fills the temple of the ego, man's "mortal mind". The "son of man" is a belief within a temple not made with form. This belief tends to destroy the temple not made with form (the mind of Christ). The ego is like a mind within a mind. It is a mind believed in, manifest of faith. The ego fills it's mind with forms, images, graven images, eleven dimensional idols...all of which seem real and true. In this way, they usurp the place (dominion, throne) of Reality and Truth. As such, form is initially the "abomination of desolation"...that which destroys the temple of God synonymous with the "mind of Christ". To value such "things" is to give them worth...or worth-ship. They aren't worth anything to the Son of God, whose temple they clutter up and desecrate. But they are worth everything to the mind within the mind of the Son. Without their apparent worth, this pseudo-mind (ego) would be doomed. A form can never "house" the temple of God. This is entirely backwards. On the other hand, the temple of God can seem to house forms...as it believes in them. It believes in them to the extent that it wants them, values them, and gives them meaning and worth (thinks of reasons why they are valuable and necessary).

The form was meant as a outlet for the expression of God through the form but you could I suppose say that the ego sabbotaged it and created it's own brand of reality, which is no reality at all.

This is traditional, orthodox egoic "reason", which protects it's barriers against the truth. God does not need form as any kind of outlet of expression. God is perfect as God, whole without form. Form, when you think about it, is a LIMIT. And what does the unlimited need with the limited? Ego does not sabatoge form. Ego makes form as a form of sabatoge against the formless unlimited. Form is not corrupted. Form is a form of corruption. The body is corruptible because it is of a corrupted mind...the ego. Form is utterly "slave" to its "master-mind"...it's "mortal mind"...egoic mind.

In salvation, the Spirit of Truth converts everything we made to hurt us (ie. form) to serve the interests of Truth, and therefore our own interests. Rather than "house" the Truth, the body is enveloped by the Sprit of Truth, to function only as a communication device for the Truth in everything it says and does.

Gatsby

August 30th 2009, 11:46 AM

68615

Yes.

Love the painting!!

Regards
Gatsby

Gatsby

August 30th 2009, 12:00 PM

Mainly, the ego percieves the truth as an enemy and builds defenses against it. It's world, a world of form, is itself a defense against the truth.

I'm not supposed to use certain words, so I am using another word to describe what you are referring to. You call it the "Course". I call it a "gospel". I hope i don't get in trouble for that. Either that or edit out some words.

The god-of-form made our form in its image(imagination). That is not the "our Father" Jesus spoke of. The god-of-this-world and the god-of-form, and the extra god known as ego (e-go, extra god) are all synonymous. Accordingly, the god-of-form and form are beliefs, well defended against the truth. The god-of-form offers us specialness...against the truth. It seems that specialness (unique differences) are now the truth because it is all we "see" and so it seems "real".

The temple of God has no form, so it is not made with hands, which are a form of form. Temple and mind are synonymous. The temple of the ego is all about form. So it is made with (filled with) hands...legs...heads...feet...torso...ect. Form. In other words, the "son of man" fills the temple of the ego, man's "mortal mind". The "son of man" is a belief within a temple not made with form. This belief tends to destroy the temple not made with form (the mind of Christ). The ego is like a mind within a mind. It is a mind believed in, manifest of faith. The ego fills it's mind with forms, images, graven images, eleven dimensional idols...all of which seem real and true. In this way, they usurp the place (dominion, throne) of Reality and Truth. As such, form is initially the "abomination of desolation"...that which destroys the temple of God synonymous with the "mind of Christ". To value such "things" is to give them worth...or worth-ship. They aren't worth anything to the Son of God, whose temple they clutter up and desecrate. But they are worth everything to the mind within the mind of the Son. Without their apparent worth, this pseudo-mind (ego) would be doomed. A form can never "house" the temple of God. This is entirely backwards. On the other hand, the temple of God can seem to house forms...as it believes in them. It believes in them to the extent that it wants them, values them, and gives them meaning and worth (thinks of reasons why they are valuable and necessary).

This is traditional, orthodox egoic "reason", which protects it's barriers against the truth. God does not need form as any kind of outlet of expression. God is perfect as God, whole without form. Form, when you think about it, is a LIMIT. And what does the unlimited need with the limited? Ego does not sabatoge form. Ego makes form as a form of sabatoge against the formless unlimited. Form is not corrupted. Form is a form of corruption. The body is corruptible because it is of a corrupted mind...the ego. Form is utterly "slave" to its "master-mind"...it's "mortal mind"...egoic mind.

In salvation, the Spirit of Truth converts everything we made to hurt us (ie. form) to serve the interests of Truth, and therefore our own interests. Rather than "house" the Truth, the body is enveloped by the Sprit of Truth, to function only as a communication device for the Truth in everything it says and does.

Hi Urban Monk, Iam a tad concerened that you say you are not allowed to use certain words. Why not and why do you think you would get into trouble for using words of your own choice.

Iam aware that if we give much energy to a thought, we will bring that thought, which may be only a thought of a word, into physical expression. Is this what you are meaning.

I cant say I agree with your explanation of the 'temple made without hand'. The temple is the very heart of us and is not meant to mean form and form alone. We make, as souls our own form before we incarnate. God made form, and eternally makes form. I also am well aware that God is Light and in that way is formless Itself but that does not stop God from creating form in the first place in 'various mansions' or different realms. The highest realm is the God realm, the fountain of all in it's purety, now that, I wouldn't even deam to say I knew of because I dont. Nor does anyone else.

Does the Course mention the subtle bodies of mankind, I meant to ask that before and I keep forgetting, are you aware of the subtle bodies we have?

Regards
Gatsby

UrbanMonk

August 30th 2009, 05:18 PM

Hi Urban Monk, Iam a tad concerened that you say you are not allowed to use certain words. Why not and why do you think you would get into trouble for using words of your own choice.

It's ok for others to use certain words, but the rules have been interpreted to limit, if not to zero, the number of times I can use certain words or words that substitute for certain words. I have several point infractions that serve to educate me - through point infractions - on just what limits are placed on my use of certain words. It's still unclear if I can even mention that I cannot use certain words. But if I get another point infraction, I guess I'll learn the lesson TWeb is trying to teach me through point infractions.

Iam aware that if we give much energy to a thought, we will bring that thought, which may be only a thought of a word, into physical expression. Is this what you are meaning.

Perhaps there is resistance here to the expression of certain words because of the power of our words.

I cant say I agree with your explanation of the 'temple made without hand'. The temple is the very heart of us and is not meant to mean form and form alone.

The temple of God is a metaphor for the mind of Christ, who encompasses God, even as Christ is encompassed by God. And this is the holy home of God. It is unlimited, and therefore formless. The concept of another - limited - temple intrudes on the unlimited temple of God and turns it into merchandise, trading on the exchange of guilt. Bodies are integral to what deals with limits. This other mind symbolizes an alien will, which, when invited into the mind of Christ, immediately goes to work to possess it and compromise/destroy it's capacity to escape it's confusion or raise itself back up from it's destruction. Form-bodies- matter -mass-limits serve as engines of destruction against the mind of Christ which knows nothing of them.

We make, as souls our own form before we incarnate.

Yes, we, in conspiracy with the mind that makes form, which intrudes upon the mind of Christ in the name of all that is uniquely different from Christ and from themselves.

God made form, and eternally makes form.

Form blasphemes God. So it must be made in a mind divided against itself.

I also am well aware that God is Light and in that way is formless Itself but that does not stop God from creating form in the first place in 'various mansions' or different realms.

Love stops God from making anything with limits, or even the appearance of limits. Love also stops God from removing the limits we place upon ourselves through our imaginative belief systems. We must therefore, let go of the things we think we cherish, or what we think is made of God but isn't. To say that form is made by God is merely to give it worth, validity, and thus to worth-ship it.

The highest realm is the God realm, the fountain of all in it's purety, now that, I wouldn't even deam to say I knew of because I dont. Nor does anyone else.

There are no levels in reality. The highest realm is the only realm, and it is one realm. The heirarchal realms you propose are propositions proffered by the mind (mortal temple) within a mind (immortal temple of Christ). Those realms are supported by all manner of kabballa. But none are true and so may be "overcome" by the one who accepts only the equal oneness of reality. .

Does the Course mention the subtle bodies of mankind, I meant to ask that before and I keep forgetting, are you aware of the subtle bodies we have?

No because that would only lend worth, validity and reality to what this gospel calls unreal "engines of destruction". No because there are no levels in reality, neither levels of mind nor levels of bodily construction, which are an expression of levels of mind. There are not known and unknown realms within the Realm of God.

headheart

August 31st 2009, 01:10 PM

So you are allied with Gatsby and Vivian? That would follow as you share a primitive kabballa.

I have not engaged either Vivian or Gatsby yet, and my thoughts are not limited to the Bible.

das Uber-Ich
HH

headheart

August 31st 2009, 01:13 PM

Love the painting!!

Regards
Gatsby

Yes, it's almost Mencius in a hat.

Gatsby

August 31st 2009, 05:11 PM

It's ok for others to use certain words, but the rules have been interpreted to limit, if not to zero, the number of times I can use certain words or words that substitute for certain words. I have several point infractions that serve to educate me - through point infractions - on just what limits are placed on my use of certain words. It's still unclear if I can even mention that I cannot use certain words. But if I get another point infraction, I guess I'll learn the lesson TWeb is trying to teach me through point infractions.

But Urban Monk you are allowing yourself to be limited in what you can say, are you not? If this is the rules given by the Course material then I would say that most definately the Course material is not Truth. However you must decide that for yourself. If this is not the doing of the Course, then who is causing you to not use certain words and what are these point infractions you mention. Who is keeping score of the words that you write which it seems your not supposed to write or speak if the case may be?

Perhaps there is resistance here to the expression of certain words because of the power of our words.

Yes, we must choose our words carefully but that is our responsibilty and not up to someone or something else to tell you what you should and shoudn't write or speak, that Urban Monk is control, just like many other religions. It is ego based.

The temple of God is a metaphor for the mind of Christ, who encompasses God, even as Christ is encompassed by God. And this is the holy home of God. It is unlimited, and therefore formless. The concept of another - limited - temple intrudes on the unlimited temple of God and turns it into merchandise, trading on the exchange of guilt. Bodies are integral to what deals with limits. This other mind symbolizes an alien will, which, when invited into the mind of Christ, immediately goes to work to possess it and compromise/destroy it's capacity to escape it's confusion or raise itself back up from it's destruction. Form-bodies- matter -mass-limits serve as engines of destruction against the mind of Christ which knows nothing of them.

The temple of God is not a metaphor for the Mind of Christ, it represents the body, the temple which is not made with hands. The Christ Mind or Holy Spirit dwells within each heart and is the comforter spoken of by Jesus. Jesus said he would destroy the temple and raise it up again in 3 days. The temple was the body and in 3 days he resurrected the body, the body of light. These are where the subtle bodies come in. The etheric counterpart, the astral body and the mental body and the casual body. The etheric body is a double of the physical body though vibrating at a higher rate. If these bodies vibrated at the same rate that we do as human beings, then we would be able to see them with our own eyes. Everything is created in the inner realms before it comes forth in the outer realm which we know of as the world, Earth.

Yes, we, in conspiracy with the mind that makes form, which intrudes upon the mind of Christ in the name of all that is uniquely different from Christ and from themselves.

Our soul makes the form before we incarnate. What does the Course teach you about the Soul of Mankind?

Form blasphemes God. So it must be made in a mind divided against itself.

I disagree.

Love stops God from making anything with limits, or even the appearance of limits. Love also stops God from removing the limits we place upon ourselves through our imaginative belief systems. We must therefore, let go of the things we think we cherish, or what we think is made of God but isn't. To say that form is made by God is merely to give it worth, validity, and thus to worth-ship it.

To say that form is made by God does not mean it is to be worshipped, or a made up word worth-ship it. That is nonsense. I haven't and wouldn't advise anyone to worship the body nor would I do so. Yes, God is unlimited that is true. But we, through lowering our vibations, many moons ago, limited ourselves to form and beleived the form was us, when it is not us, not the Real I Am which is US you could say. Only way I can put it, apologies for that but Iam sure you will understand what I mean. Just dont think that Iam meaning that there must be more than one God because I use the word us.:wink:

There are no levels in reality. The highest realm is the only realm, and it is one realm. The heirarchal realms you propose are propositions proffered by the mind (mortal temple) within a mind (immortal temple of Christ). Those realms are supported by all manner of kabballa. But none are true and so may be "overcome" by the one who accepts only the equal oneness of reality. .

Urban Monk,
what you say is true. But that Truth has not touched us yet and is only a mental thought at the present. Jesus said,. 'In my Fathers House there are many mansions. Are you telling me that this is wrong? When you pass over to the other side, the higher side of life I shall call it, or the spirit world, that is more appropiate, where do you think you will go? People go to the Astral World and this has been a proven fact for a long time now. Proved by NDE's and other means.

No because that would only lend worth, validity and reality to what this gospel calls unreal "engines of destruction". No because there are no levels in reality, neither levels of mind nor levels of bodily construction, which are an expression of levels of mind. There are not known and unknown realms within the Realm of God.

I Beg to differ. There are no reason that I can think of why, after all you will be saying that there is no such thing as reincarnation next.

We are on our way back to God, NOW, I say that knowing that only here do we have time and space so we are with God NOW, He is within us NOW. By on our way back to God Iam reffering to us as a race. We are raising our vibrations whether we know it consiously or not.

This takes me back to 'Ye are god's saith scripture'. I take it the Course says that is wrong too.

Regards
Gatsby

UrbanMonk

August 31st 2009, 05:27 PM

I have not engaged either Vivian or Gatsby yet, and my thoughts are not limited to the Bible.

das Uber-Ich
HH

Neither are their thoughts limited to the bible. That does not prevent all three parties from making an alliance around the concept of separate and uniquely different beings. It requires what I call 'kabballa' to support it. A kaballa, for example, might include the concept that God made separate and uniquely different beings....and then "the devil" came and corrupted what God made. And now we must figure out how to be uncorrupted separate and uniquely different beings again. This deals with symptoms and not with the root of the problem. The root of the problem is the concept of uniquely different beings...a concept not of God.

UrbanMonk

August 31st 2009, 05:45 PM

This takes me back to 'Ye are god's saith scripture'. I take it the Course says that is wrong too.

It is natural to be God, and this is an inheritance given that cannot be revoked. It's what we do with the power of God that damns us to an existence of seperate, uniquely different "gods"...as in a plural muliplicity. That is the concept that builds this world, and it is the concept that is desperately defended by the defenses the friends of the world maintain.

Vivian

August 31st 2009, 05:52 PM

Neither are their thoughts limited to the bible. That does not prevent all three parties from making an alliance around the concept of separate and uniquely different beings. It requires what I call 'kabballa' to support it. A kaballa, for example, might include the concept that God made separate and uniquely different beings....and then "the devil" came and corrupted what God made. And now we must figure out how to be uncorrupted separate and uniquely different beings again. This deals with symptoms and not with the root of the problem. The root of the problem is the concept of uniquely different beings...a concept not of God.

Hello UrbanMonk -

I do not wish to argue with you but only correct incorrect statements...

What is known as Kaballah does not say as you claim. You again are making incorrect statements about other traditions in an effort to justify your own. [This fallacious technique of arguing has a name, methinks! And I am sure that somewhere in ACIM it describes these separative tendencies, or it ought to!]

And kaballah simply means to receive, so ACIM is 'A Kaballah" as well since it was received.

Shalom.

Viv

UrbanMonk

August 31st 2009, 06:10 PM

Hello UrbanMonk -

I do not wish to argue with you but only correct incorrect statements...

What is known as Kaballah does not say as you claim. You again are making incorrect statements about other traditions in an effort to justify your own. [This fallacious technique of arguing has a name, methinks! And I am sure that somewhere in ACIM it describes these separative tendencies, or it ought to!]

And kaballah simply means to receive, so ACIM is 'A Kaballah" as well since it was received.

Shalom.

Viv

What supports oneness is a gospel. What supports seperate and uniquely different personas, whether light or dense...is a kabballa. As such, a kabballa deals mainly with magic in an attempt to combine true with false, one with many, light with dark, life with death, changlessness with change, time with eternity. A kabballa will never give us our true genesis, nor our true destiny, because those originate with and return to oneness. The word kabballa is not used in the gospel you mentioned. It is how i, allowing the Spirit of truth to work through my mind, have interpreted stories that are intent on confusing the very "gods" who make them up.

UrbanMonk

August 31st 2009, 07:11 PM

But Urban Monk you are allowing yourself to be limited in what you can say, are you not? If this is the rules given by the Course material then I would say that most definately the Course material is not Truth. However you must decide that for yourself. If this is not the doing of the Course, then who is causing you to not use certain words and what are these point infractions you mention. Who is keeping score of the words that you write which it seems your not supposed to write or speak if the case may be?

Elements of Tweb are keeping score and escalate the point infractions with each infraction, working toward some kind of conclusion. I have even been given a point(s) infraction for what amounts to an inability to read a plural number of minds, each with is own idea of what a gag order limits or includes...which does not include a sense of humor. Otherwise, I am free to advertize my textual preferences in my signature. That is a consolation prize for an otherwise extensive textual blackout. The point infractions came while the goal posts were specially moved narrower and narrower in the name of advertizing until less-than-always translated into not-at-all. The idea that apologetics is about selling concepts, and/or defending concepts did not fly...even though many here are selling the bible as a "truth, whole truth, and nothing but the truth" kind of concept. I can only imagine that the reason anyone would do this is because they hold stock in Amazon and/or Barnes n Noble and/or Zondervan and are hoping to increase book sales in general and thereby profit from biblical apolegetics.

Yes, we must choose our words carefully but that is our responsibilty and not up to someone or something else to tell you what you should and shoudn't write or speak, that Urban Monk is control, just like many other religions. It is ego based.

My preferred texts do not limit what I say, trusting that I am able to convey the meaning of the text, even though I may change the form (choice of words)...in fact, expecting me to change the form of the words to meet the special needs of challenged learners.

The temple of God is not a metaphor for the Mind of Christ, it represents the body, the temple which is not made with hands.

Most certainly NOT. A body is made, well, with hands!

The Christ Mind or Holy Spirit dwells within each heart and is the comforter spoken of by Jesus.

Heart, the way you are using it is mismetaphorical. Heart, when speaking of what the Spirit abides within, is not a reference to anything limited, and therefore of form (physical, flesh). Heart is what is deepest "within"...not within a body. You cannot put the Kingdom of God within a body. You can only put it within what is unlimited...Spirit. This means we are really Spirit, not bodies.

Jesus said he would destroy the temple and raise it up again in 3 days. The temple was the body and in 3 days he resurrected the body, the body of light.

Your interpretive mind is temporarily run by the kabballistic spirit of untruth, which clings to its separatist, bodily oriented values in its persuit of unique specialness. Jesus body was a metaphor for the mind of Christ, which is destroyed by "men" (ie. mortal mind, the concept of many, form, ect.), and restored by the Spirit of truth to its original, pristine state of Being.

These are where the subtle bodies come in.

This is just a kabbalisic interpretation in order to preserve, well, bodies! This is the mistake most of Jesus hangers-on made, with the exception of Thomas, who suspected that resurrection was something more to do with MIND.

The etheric counterpart, the astral body and the mental body and the casual body.

There are no levels in reality. All of this fragmentation is the fruit of a fragmented mind...a mind intent on hiding the truth...even from itself.

The etheric body is a double of the physical body though vibrating at a higher rate.

Kabballas go into great detail about the body, but always fall short of the glory of God.

If these bodies vibrated at the same rate that we do as human beings, then we would be able to see them with our own eyes. Everything is created in the inner realms before it comes forth in the outer realm which we know of as the world, Earth.

Everything that is outside/external is projected from within. However, within, there is an alter devoted to the Truth, and an alter devoted to the false. It projects the whole world of diverse, different, separate, autonomous and unique beings.

Our soul makes the form before we incarnate. What does the Course teach you about the Soul of Mankind?

Our Soul is Christ. But as we have denied Christ, our "soul" has become many, different, separate and unique personas. Each "soul" sets it's agenda for the exploration of all that is false within a mind hijacked and dedicated to imagination. But the truth is, there are not many souls. And when we try to gain "the world" (separate status, unique differences), we lose awareness of our own Soul which is one and the same having a single name: Christ.

I disagree.

The world of separate identities, and unique differences is a mockery (mimicry) of the World of God.

To say that form is made by God does not mean it is to be worshipped, or a made up word worth-ship it. That is nonsense. I haven't and wouldn't advise anyone to worship the body nor would I do so.

But you are. Everytime you explain the different levels of subtle bodies, you are giving the body meaning, value and worth. This is worth-ship whether you want to admit it or not. It is given a status, which, if questioned, well nigh constitutes a kind of blasphemy against something you think God made, and is therefore sacred. If this isn't worth-ship, I don't know what is.

Yes, God is unlimited that is true. But we, through lowering our vibations, many moons ago, limited ourselves to form and beleived the form was us, when it is not us, not the Real I Am which is US you could say.

Lowering our vibrations, descending, and "fallen short of the glory of God" are all synonymous. The question is, from what did we lower, descend, fall from? What is our original state of "glory"? And to what "glory" do we return, ascend to? As mentioned, a kabballistic understanding does not allow the truth of the matter to prevail, rather, lowering our expectations in favor of, well, maintaining separate, different, and unique status as "gods", rather than Christ, the "only begotten" "Son of God".

Only way I can put it, apologies for that but Iam sure you will understand what I mean. Just dont think that Iam meaning that there must be more than one God because I use the word us.

Any time you impose the concept of separate and/or different states of being so that we are all unique and/or special...you are implying there is more than one God.

what you say is true. But that Truth has not touched us yet and is only a mental thought at the present.

It is like "seed" that I broadcast upon four different kinds of soil.

Jesus said,. 'In my Fathers House there are many mansions.

This is a reference to abundance for all...each given the totality of God's abundance. It is not to be taken literally except by those who are still in defiance of oneness, in support of all that is separate, different, and special in a glorious kind of way.

Are you telling me that this is wrong?

Depends on how you interprete it, with the Spirit of onenes or the spirit of separation, differences and unique status.

When you pass over to the other side, the higher side of life I shall call it, or the spirit world, that is more appropiate, where do you think you will go?

We all go back to the glory of Self. Self is the proverbial Paradise (Heaven)...our "paradise lost". Self encompasses God, and is encompassed by God, as suggested in Jesus narrative in the latter chapters of John. This means that whatever the world seems to be, it is a denial of Self, made of unbelief in Christ...the original "sin".

People go to the Astral World and this has been a proven fact for a long time now. Proved by NDE's and other means.

No, "people" (those who still believe in separate, different and unique status) just go to different levels of an unreal mind...levels that mimic the heaven of Self. They remain within a realm of change...changing...often changing back to carnation.

headheart

August 31st 2009, 07:39 PM

UrbanMonk

August 31st 2009, 08:58 PM

Call it by any name you want....it cannot change the will of God in Christ Jesus.

You're just telling me that the gospel can't break your kabballistic will to be separate, different and unique...and to justify it in the name of God, Christ, and Jesus. Perhaps it can't. Maybe you have to surrender, in order for that will to be layed down and let go and taken away.

God draws us to His Son, and when that happens we find that uniqueness in Jesus.

The desire to make Jesus special is synonymous with a secret desire to be ourselves special. For deep down, we know that the truth about Jesus is the truth about us, and the lie about Jesus is the lie about us. The Son of God is not special. And the only way for us to abandon the hell that special status makes out of us, is to accept the sameness that belongs to the Son of God as Self. Jesus died to the concept of special status, understanding that this is what betrays the Son of God, and crucifies him. The only way to be the same, and therefore to be humble, is to be the Son of God. This leads not to crucifuxion, but to resurrection.

We are the one's who make Jesus special, to save our own specialness. But this is not the kind of salvation Jesus sought nor offered.

headheart

August 31st 2009, 09:15 PM

UrbanMonk

August 31st 2009, 10:01 PM

The will of God has been firmly established before the foundations of the cosmos.

So what makes you think the cosmos, or anything that seems to happen within it, can break the will of God?

Jesus certainly was and further humbled himself, but the gift of this unique life is a present from our heavenly Father, who makes sons and daughters out of orphans.

The gift of unique status is a gift from self to self...not of Our Spiritual Father. It is given with the power Our Father gave us...which we use to imagine all that is not true about ourSelves AND about "our heavenly Father". There is a "father" that usurps the place of Our Father. It is the father of all that is unique, different, special...and therefore of everything that is separated from itself and from the god of all things unique.

Only a 'boot camp' kind of god would make sons and daughters out of "orphans". Orphans of what, whom?

headheart

September 1st 2009, 05:07 AM

Orphans of what, whom?

The orphans of God, ...born once....born twice.

Gatsby

September 1st 2009, 09:56 AM

You're just telling me that the gospel can't break your kabballistic will to be separate, different and unique...and to justify it in the name of God, Christ, and Jesus. Perhaps it can't. Maybe you have to surrender, in order for that will to be layed down and let go and taken away.

The desire to make Jesus special is synonymous with a secret desire to be ourselves special. For deep down, we know that the truth about Jesus is the truth about us, and the lie about Jesus is the lie about us. The Son of God is not special. And the only way for us to abandon the hell that special status makes out of us, is to accept the sameness that belongs to the Son of God as Self. Jesus died to the concept of special status, understanding that this is what betrays the Son of God, and crucifies him. The only way to be the same, and therefore to be humble, is to be the Son of God. This leads not to crucifuxion, but to resurrection.

We are the one's who make Jesus special, to save our own specialness. But this is not the kind of salvation Jesus sought nor offered.

Urban Monk, you are going on and on about separtness and uiniquness yet neither Viv or myself of HH have mentioned these words, it is you that is judging what we say and interpetating it as we are saying we are unique and special. Now they say that one cant see something in another unless it is already there. Hmm makes me wonder?

Is the Course the gospel you are meaning? Is this a tweb quirk or is this what folks devoted to it are calling it.

Urban Monk, I suggest you read some of Dr MacDonal Bayne's teachings as he was a man who succeeded in ascending and knowing all the ways of Spirit, much more than just being a chanel for another to dictate a book to. You will learn from these teachings I would think, and there are 2 free e books that can be dowloaded, again I think you would benefit from them.

The free e books are called Beyond the Himalayas and the Yoga of the Christ Consciousness, both are worthwile for all seekers of Truth.

Regards
Gatsby

UrbanMonk

September 1st 2009, 02:36 PM

Urban Monk, you are going on and on about separtness and uiniquness yet neither Viv or myself of HH have mentioned these words, it is you that is judging what we say and interpetating it as we are saying we are unique and special. Now they say that one cant see something in another unless it is already there. Hmm makes me wonder?

Hi Gatsby, we need to be honest with each other if we are going to communicate. I don't have time at the moment to mine quotes from you supporting the concept of differences. Differences, separation, uniqueness and specialness all go with the same territory. You can't be different without being separate as a prerequisite. And to be different is to be unique, and to be unique is to be special. If the only difference is a fingerprint, that is still indicative of a wish to be special.

Is the Course the gospel you are meaning? Is this a tweb quirk or is this what folks devoted to it are calling it.

Gospel is my word I'm currently using to describe the gospel you mention above. I have at least four gospels in my collection of green textual pastures that I've been Guided to graze in. I have explained the difference between a gospel (oneness) and a kabballa (multiplicity).

Gatsby

September 1st 2009, 06:10 PM

Hi Gatsby, we need to be honest with each other if we are going to communicate. I don't have time at the moment to mine quotes from you supporting the concept of differences. Differences, separation, uniqueness and specialness all go with the same territory. You can't be different without being separate as a prerequisite. And to be different is to be unique, and to be unique is to be special. If the only difference is a fingerprint, that is still indicative of a wish to be special.

Gospel is my word I'm currently using to describe the gospel you mention above. I have at least four gospels in my collection of green textual pastures that I've been Guided to graze in. I have explained the difference between a gospel (oneness) and a kabballa (multiplicity).

Urban Monk certainly we must be honest with each other I couldn't agree more. However, where has there been shown by me of Viv or H H a desire to be special or unique? I have not suggested that is the case and nor have the others. You say 'If only the difference is a fingerprint that is still indicative of a WISH to be special. That is absolute twaddle, I have never thought like that and I dont think Viv or HH has either but you would need to ask them.

We are seeking the same goal so I dont know why you can understand what Iam saying. Basically to me anyway it seems that you limit God by suggesting there is not a multplicity of God in form, because you say God does not create form, form is just a illusion. I say yes, what we see in the world is a illusion, Iam not saying something different from you am I.

However not knowing anything about subtle bodies or vibrations of various higher realms is not what I would call being terribly enlightened, which means also that the Course has kept this information from it's students and done them a diservice. I cant think why this information would not be imparted to students of Spiritual Truth, seekers of God within oneself. The Self being the Real and not the ego self.

For eons of time, as we know it there have been prohpets of God imparting Truth to those who would listen. Jesus was probably about the highest of the prophets, he acheived Oneness with God through the Christ. Now all scriptures bring the same message to the people of thier time that God Is Love and Love is Life. If the Course does not touch on these things then I would deem it to be a false teaching. It is not teaching you the way as Jesus said he was the Way.

I think that as far as I have read the Course that the minds of the two writers have 'coloured' what was said through them. Maybe Iam wrong on that I wouldn't say for sure that this is the case because I would need to read the whole book to reach that conclusion and what my teacher says is not to draw any conclusion but to be open minded because once a person has reached a conclusion the search ends and people are happy to just live with the accumulated knowledge they have and thing that is all they need to know. Which is not the case at all.

All is already in the Mind of God and everything comes from the Mind of God. That is the important thing to keep in our mind.

Regards
Gatsby

Vivian

September 1st 2009, 06:59 PM

Urban Monk certainly we must be honest with each other I couldn't agree more. However, where has there been shown by me of Viv or H H a desire to be special or unique? I have not suggested that is the case and nor have the others. You say 'If only the difference is a fingerprint that is still indicative of a WISH to be special. That is absolute twaddle, I have never thought like that and I dont think Viv or HH has either but you would need to ask them.

We are seeking the same goal so I dont know why you can understand what Iam saying. Basically to me anyway it seems that you limit God by suggesting there is not a multplicity of God in form, because you say God does not create form, form is just a illusion. I say yes, what we see in the world is a illusion, Iam not saying something different from you am I.

However not knowing anything about subtle bodies or vibrations of various higher realms is not what I would call being terribly enlightened, which means also that the Course has kept this information from it's students and done them a diservice. I cant think why this information would not be imparted to students of Spiritual Truth, seekers of God within oneself. The Self being the Real and not the ego self.

For eons of time, as we know it there have been prohpets of God imparting Truth to those who would listen. Jesus was probably about the highest of the prophets, he acheived Oneness with God through the Christ. Now all scriptures bring the same message to the people of thier time that God Is Love and Love is Life. If the Course does not touch on these things then I would deem it to be a false teaching. It is not teaching you the way as Jesus said he was the Way.

I think that as far as I have read the Course that the minds of the two writers have 'coloured' what was said through them. Maybe Iam wrong on that I wouldn't say for sure that this is the case because I would need to read the whole book to reach that conclusion and what my teacher says is not to draw any conclusion but to be open minded because once a person has reached a conclusion the search ends and people are happy to just live with the accumulated knowledge they have and thing that is all they need to know. Which is not the case at all.

All is already in the Mind of God and everything comes from the Mind of God. That is the important thing to keep in our mind.

Regards
Gatsby

Hi Gatsby!

What is underlined above is of utmost importance! Not educating on the subtle bodies is not only a disservice, but it is setting one's followers up for deception, for until we learn about our layers of being, or our subtle bodies - learn and understand the 'sin' that is carried in us in the deeper layers - we are still subject to deception.

We may think we have changed our way or thinking, but until the workings of our subtle bodies have been revealed to us, we will still be deceived by the same layers of subtle bodies within all creation.

Anyone who has had a 'visitation' or a revelation has experienced these subtle bodies, for spiritual visitors, inner guides, etc all speak to us through these layers of our being, and if the layers are impure, we will only be able to receive and hear impure visitors or inner guides.

And another key you have mentioned is this:

Now all scriptures bring the same message to the people of thier time that God Is Love and Love is Life.

True revelations, true visitors, true inner guidance will all come with love and compassion - which is the Way to Unity. Any visitor or inner guidance that comes with judgment and/or other separative tendencies, without unifying love and compasion, is working separation among creation and is a deceiver.

And the only way to learn to discern is to know our own subtle bodies and how they work deception in us - how they veil and blind us, keeping us in ignorance.

Shalom.

Viv

Gatsby

September 4th 2009, 11:11 AM

Hi Gatsby!

What is underlined above is of utmost importance! Not educating on the subtle bodies is not only a disservice, but it is setting one's followers up for deception, for until we learn about our layers of being, or our subtle bodies - learn and understand the 'sin' that is carried in us in the deeper layers - we are still subject to deception.

We may think we have changed our way or thinking, but until the workings of our subtle bodies have been revealed to us, we will still be deceived by the same layers of subtle bodies within all creation.

Anyone who has had a 'visitation' or a revelation has experienced these subtle bodies, for spiritual visitors, inner guides, etc all speak to us through these layers of our being, and if the layers are impure, we will only be able to receive and hear impure visitors or inner guides.

And another key you have mentioned is this:

Now all scriptures bring the same message to the people of thier time that God Is Love and Love is Life.

True revelations, true visitors, true inner guidance will all come with love and compassion - which is the Way to Unity. Any visitor or inner guidance that comes with judgment and/or other separative tendencies, without unifying love and compasion, is working separation among creation and is a deceiver.

And the only way to learn to discern is to know our own subtle bodies and how they work deception in us - how they veil and blind us, keeping us in ignorance.

Shalom.

Viv

I agree Viv and I know that we are all One. 'Ye are God's' saith the scripture is True. Sin is purely being ignorant of that fact. Belieiving in the lie which is seperation, caused through the 5 senses

Regards
Gatsby

UrbanMonk

September 6th 2009, 10:19 PM

Urban Monk certainly we must be honest with each other I couldn't agree more. However, where has there been shown by me of Viv or H H a desire to be special or unique?

Every time you've said we are unique or different.

I have not suggested that is the case and nor have the others.

Except the times you've suggested we are unique and/or different.

You say 'If only the difference is a fingerprint that is still indicative of a WISH to be special.

The reason you are experiencing a unique fingerprint is because of an ancient wish to be special.

That is absolute twaddle,

That's how it is. You are denying it.

I have never thought like that and I dont think Viv or HH has either but you would need to ask them.

If you are experiencing a fingerprint, it's because the wish to be special is in your mind.

We are seeking the same goal so I dont know why you can understand what Iam saying.

I understand that there is a wish to be different, and a will to be the same...even one. While you wish to be different, you cannot understand the will of that which wills to be one as it is in truth. While we wish, we go in different directions...opposite our will to be one.

Basically to me anyway it seems that you limit God by suggesting there is not a multplicity of God in form,

Here again is shown your wish that we be different and unique, which is all that form offers that God does not. And while you defend form, you defend an ancient wish to be special.

because you say God does not create form, form is just a illusion.

Yes. Form is part of a concept antithetical to what God is...and what God really creates. What is antithetical to God cannot be more than an illusion of opposition.

I say yes, what we see in the world is a illusion, Iam not saying something different from you am I.

Perhaps you are not grasping what illusion is. It is not godly, being antithetical to reality.

However not knowing anything about subtle bodies or vibrations of various higher realms is not what I would call being terribly enlightened,

This is a rediculous statement. We don't need Anatomy 301 to understand salvation...nor do we need to know anything about Victoria's Secret.

which means also that the Course has kept this information from it's students and done them a diservice.

The body, and all of its multileveled components, is for self-deception. So if you are counting on it for inform you of anything true, you are doing yourself a diservice.

I cant think why this information would not be imparted to students of Spiritual Truth,

Because the body tells us nothing of the truth...until it is converted. Salvation is to "know thy Self". The body is not any part of our Self. If you think so, you are not nearly as enlightened as you think you are.

seekers of God within oneself. The Self being the Real and not the ego self.

The body is the expression of the ego self...NOT our authentic Self. In fact, the concept of person is an expression of ego-self...which is a self concept and not a reality.

For eons of time, as we know it there have been prohpets of God imparting Truth to those who would listen. Jesus was probably about the highest of the prophets, he acheived Oneness with God through the Christ.

Through Christ, yes...not through a body.

Now all scriptures bring the same message to the people of thier time that God Is Love and Love is Life.

Not all that is scribed and called "scripture" sends this message. Much of what is called scripture sends a blasphemous message about God...redefining "love" in its own terms.

If the Course does not touch on these things then I would deem it to be a false teaching.

It touches on what love is, enough to let us know what love is NOT. Love does not limit. Love does not make or break barriers. Love does not maintain the concept of "other", or "they" or "him" or "her".

It is not teaching you the way as Jesus said he was the Way.

Christ is the way. Jesus went through Christ...NOT through Jesus. In this regard, he set an example...THE example. We accept ourselves as Christ or we reject. Those who accept follow Jesus. Those who reject don't...or merely pay lip service.

I think that as far as I have read the Course that the minds of the two writers have 'coloured' what was said through them.

You think? You have read? I can't imagine there would be any disinformation about such things.

Maybe Iam wrong on that I wouldn't say for sure that this is the case because I would need to read the whole book to reach that conclusion and what my teacher says is not to draw any conclusion but to be open minded because once a person has reached a conclusion the search ends and people are happy to just live with the accumulated knowledge they have and thing that is all they need to know. Which is not the case at all.

This is an excellent state of mind to begin with.

All is already in the Mind of God and everything comes from the Mind of God. That is the important thing to keep in our mind.

Then concepts must also somehow come from the mind of God...or at least taken from the mind of God, as we have judged what is false to be true.

Gatsby

September 8th 2009, 05:51 PM

[QUOTE=UrbanMonk;2772196]Every time you've said we are unique or different.

URBAN MONK, IAM WRITING THIS IN CAPITAL LETTERS BECAUSE i CAN NEVER SEEM TO FIND THE CHANGE IN COLOUR TO SIGNIFY YOUR QUOTES AND MY REPLYS, SORRY ABOUT THIS I AM NOT SHOUTING JUST IN CASE YOU THINK THAT i WAS.OK

NOW IN THIS QUOTE YOU SAY 'EVERY TIME YOU'VE SAID WE ARE UNIQUE AND DIFFERENT AND THEN IN THE NEXT QUOTE YOU SAY 'EXCEPT THE TIMES YOU'VE SUGGESTED WE ARE UNIQUE OR DIFFERENT.

LET ME SAY I HAVE NOT SAID OR SUGGESTED WE ARE UNIQUE AND DIFFERENT, OUR FORMS ARE UNIQUE AND DIFFERENT ONLY BUT NOT OUR SPIRIT WHICH IS OF THE ESSENCE OF GOD AND IS ONE WITH GOD. THE ONE BECOMES THE MANY, SURELY YOU MUST HAVE HEARD OF THAT. DONT MISCONSTRUE THIS TO MEAN WE ARE ALL DIFFERENT AND UNIQUE THESE ARE THE FORMS ONLY AND THE EXPERIENCES THAT WE ALL GO TRHOUGH, THEY ARE DIFFERENT AND UNIQUE. DUE TO OUR ABILITY TO CREATE OUR REALITY OR MISCREATE IT AS THE CASE MAY BE.

The reason you are experiencing a unique fingerprint is because of an ancient wish to be special.

URBAN MONK, IT WAS YOU WHO SAID I WAS EXPERIENCING A UNIQUE FINGERPRINT, NOT I. LOOK AT THE POST AND YOU WILL SEE THAT IS CORRECT. SO NOW, ACCORDING TO YOU THIS IS BECAUSE OF A ANCIENT WISH TO BE SPECIAL.

SORRY BUT THAT IS NONSENSE. i HAVEN'T MENTIONED ANYTHING ABOUT FINGERPRINTS IT WAS YOU THAT DID THAT, AND i RESPONDED. PLEASE GET YOUR FACTS RIGHT.

That's how it is. You are denying it. THAT IS HOW WHAT IS? DO YOU MEAN A ANCIENT WISH TO BE SPECIAL, IS THIS WHAT IAM DENYING. AND IAM SUPPOSED TO TAKE IT ON YOUR SAY SO THAT THIS DENIAL IS WHAT IAM DOING?. i DONT THINK SO URBAN MONK.
THE IDEA, FOR THAT IS ALL IT IS, AND IDEA'S ARE NOT TRUTH

If you are experiencing a fingerprint, it's because the wish to be special is in your mind.

I HAVE ANSWERED THIS ABOVE. I HAVE NO WISH IN MY MIND TO BE SPECIAL I CAN ASSURE YOU OF THAT.

I understand that there is a wish to be different, and a will to be the same...even one. While you wish to be different, you cannot understand the will of that which wills to be one as it is in truth. While we wish, we go in different directions...opposite our will to be one.

NOW AGAIN, YOU ARE BRINGING IN SOMETHING I HAVE NEVER MENTIONED BECAUSE IT DOESN'T FEATURE IN MY MIND. I HAVE NO WISH TO BE DIFFERENT, BUT I DO AIM TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE TO ALL FOR THE BETTER OF ALL. IN ANY WAY I CAN BY LISTENING TO THE ONE WITHIN WHO GUIDES ME. iN OTHER WORDS TO ALIGNE MY MIND TO THE DIVINE MIND AND DO THE DIVINE WILL NOT MY WILL.

Here again is shown your wish that we be different and unique, which is all that form offers that God does not. And while you defend form, you defend an ancient wish to be special.

AGAIN URBAN MONK I MAY TALK ABOUT FORM BUT I DONT DEFEND FORM AS YOU SAY I DO, THAT IS A DIFFERENT THING ALTOGETHER. AND WISH YOU WOULD STOP TELLING ME WHAT 'MY WISHES ARE' BECAUSE YOU ARE WAY OFF THE MARK. WRONG IN OTHER WORDS.

Yes. Form is part of a concept antithetical to what God is...and what God really creates. What is antithetical to God cannot be more than an illusion of opposition.

URBAN MONK, GOD CREATES FORM. FACT!! BUT YOU SAY DIFFERENT. SO YOU TELL ME WHAT GOD REALLY CREATES SEEING AS YOU MADE THAT STATEMENT. FORM IS NOT A CONCEPT BUT IS A REALITY. FORM OR MATTER IS MIND MATERIALISED. EVERYTHING IS MIND THAT IS A TRUTH.

Perhaps you are not grasping what illusion is. It is not godly, being antithetical to reality.

I UNDERSTAND WHAT ILLUSION IS THANK YOU. i GRASPED THIS YEARS AGO.

This is a rediculous statement. We don't need Anatomy 301 to understand salvation...nor do we need to know anything about Victoria's Secret.

WHO ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT HERE, i HAVE NEVER HEARD OF THEM. ANATOMY YES, ANATOMY 301 VICTORIA'S SECRET NO, WHAT IS THAT?

The body, and all of its multileveled components, is for self-deception. So if you are counting on it for inform you of anything true, you are doing yourself a diservice.

I DISAGREE.

Because the body tells us nothing of the truth...until it is converted. Salvation is to "know thy Self". The body is not any part of our Self. If you think so, you are not nearly as enlightened as you think you are.

WITH SALVATION WE WILL INDEED KNOW THEY SELF. THE GODSELF! THE LOWER SELF AND THE LOWER CHAKRAS ARE INTEGRATED AND TRANSCEND TO THE HIGHER CHAKRAS . DO YOU KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THE KUNDALINI ENERGY? THIS CAN ONLY BE KNOWN AND GIVE SPIRITUAL POWER TO THE BODY, PHYSICIAL. WE HAVE 2 TYPES OF NERVOUS SYSTEMS IN OUR BODY. THE NERVOUS SYSTEM AND THE SYMPATHETIC NERVOUS SYSTEN, THESE JOIN THE SPIRITUAL AND THE PHYSICAL TOGETHER.

The body is the expression of the ego self...NOT our authentic Self. In fact, the concept of person is an expression of ego-self...which is a self concept and not a reality.

YES THIS IS SO, THIS IS THE MORTAL SELF OR EGOIC SELF AND IS NOT OUR TRUE REALITY.

Through Christ, yes...not through a body.

WE MUST COME TO GOD THROUGH CHRIST. I AGREE WITH YOU THERE.

Not all that is scribed and called "scripture" sends this message. Much of what is called scripture sends a blasphemous message about God...redefining "love" in its own terms.

i HAVE NOT READ ALL SCRIPTURES URBAN MONK BUT i STAND BY WHAT i SAID, THEY BROUGHT THE AGE OLD MESSAGE OF THE LOVE OF GOD TO MANKIND.

It touches on what love is, enough to let us know what love is NOT. Love does not limit. Love does not make or break barriers. Love does not maintain the concept of "other", or "they" or "him" or "her".

WHEN WE ARE SELF REALISED WE WILL NOT LIMIT LOVE. WE COULDN'T BECAUSE WE WOULD BE LIVING IN LOVE. THE LOVE SPOKEN ABOUT IS A ALL ENCOMPASSING LOVE, IT LEAVES NO ONE OUT AND LOVES FOR LOVES SAKE. ON THIS PLANE OF LIVING WE ONLY CATCH GLIMPSES OF IT. OUR LOVE IS BUT A SHADOW OF THE REAL LOVE THAT AWAITS EVERY SINGLE ONE OF US. NO MATTER WHAT YOU HAVE DONE IN EARTH LIFE, GOD STILL LOVES YOU. WE MUST LEARN TO LOVE AS GOD LOVES, WITHOUT ANY CONDITIONS.

Christ is the way. Jesus went through Christ...NOT through Jesus. In this regard, he set an example...THE example. We accept ourselves as Christ or we reject. Those who accept follow Jesus. Those who reject don't...or merely pay lip service.

EXCUSE ME BUT THIS IS LIKE A RIDDLE. I UNDERSTAND THE CHRIST IS THE WAY AND THAT JESUS WHEN THOUGH CHRIST. IT WAS THE CHRIST IN HIM WHO SPOKE THE WORDS, IT WAS THE CHRIST IN HIM WHO HEALED THE SICK, YES, JESUS SHOWED US THE WAY. BUT YOU SAY WE ACCEPT OURSELVES AS CHRIST OR WE REJECT. WHY WOULD WE NOT FOLLOW CHRIST, BUT YOU SAY THOSE THAT ACCEPT FOLLOW JESUS, WHICH IS MOST OF THE CHRISTIAN ORTHODOXY BUT THEN AGAIN THEY DONT ACTUALLY FOLLOW JESUS BUT DO GIVE LIP SERVICE AS YOU SAY.

Regards
Gatsby

UrbanMonk

September 8th 2009, 07:39 PM

Christ is the way. Jesus went through Christ...NOT through Jesus. In this regard, he set an example...THE example. We accept ourselves as Christ or we reject. Those who accept follow Jesus. Those who reject don't...or merely pay lip service.

EXCUSE ME BUT THIS IS LIKE A RIDDLE. I UNDERSTAND THE CHRIST IS THE WAY AND THAT JESUS WHEN THOUGH CHRIST. IT WAS THE CHRIST IN HIM WHO SPOKE THE WORDS, IT WAS THE CHRIST IN HIM WHO HEALED THE SICK, YES, JESUS SHOWED US THE WAY. BUT YOU SAY WE ACCEPT OURSELVES AS CHRIST OR WE REJECT. WHY WOULD WE NOT FOLLOW CHRIST, BUT YOU SAY THOSE THAT ACCEPT FOLLOW JESUS, WHICH IS MOST OF THE CHRISTIAN ORTHODOXY BUT THEN AGAIN THEY DONT ACTUALLY FOLLOW JESUS BUT DO GIVE LIP SERVICE AS YOU SAY.

Christ leads us to...CHRIST! Christ is the Truth. If it's not Christ it's not the truth, and cannot inherit a World build of Truth....the World of God. When we "arrive" at "Christ"...we ARE Christ. If we do not accept this, then we reject it and pay lip service. It's not enough to be "like Christ". We are Christ or we are not. Accept or reject. Accept and be Christ, or reject and pay lip service.

Jesus went to Christ by way of Christ. In going to Christ, Jesus went through Christ....letting the dream of Jesus go the way of all dreams...which are NOT the Truth. Christ is not a dream. Christ is reality. Christ is not an illusion. Christ is truth. The dream cannot go with the reality. The illusion cannot go with the truth. One must go AS TRUTH on the WAY TO TRUTH. One must go AS CHRIST on the WAY TO CHRIST. This is the way to go THROUGH CHRIST. Through Christ, the mind is purified...leaving behind all that is not godly...all that is not of truth...all that is not real. So, "Jesus" was left behind and seemed to "die". And in seeming to die, he learned to "live" AS CHRIST...THROUGH CHRIST.

UrbanMonk

September 8th 2009, 07:41 PM

AGAIN URBAN MONK I MAY TALK ABOUT FORM BUT I DONT DEFEND FORM AS YOU SAY I DO,

URBAN MONK, GOD CREATES FORM. FACT!! FORM IS NOT A CONCEPT BUT IS A REALITY. FORM OR MATTER IS MIND MATERIALISED. EVERYTHING IS MIND THAT IS A TRUTH.

You wish!

And, being a "god"...you must be careful what you wish for. Form is what you imagine to be the truth as you borrow power from the mind of God. Till you can discern between a wish and a will, you will remain double-minded, as shown by the quotes above.

Form, or matter, is mind decieving itself by breaking itself up into levels. You even admit that a single body is made up of several levels. Well, this is not a reflection of truth. It is a reflection of what is not the truth about the mind...hence, what is not the truth about God.

Even Vivian alludes to the deceptive nature of multileveled construction:

And the only way to learn to discern is to know our own subtle bodies and how they work deception in us - how they veil and blind us, keeping us in ignorance.

When we study the anatomy of multileveled construction, we merely lend reality and truth to what is ultimately constructed for self-deception. To say we must understand how a multi-dimensional form is constructed in order to be saved or enlighted is utter twaddle. All it tells us is to what degree of complexity we have intended to decieve ourselves. Our best chance of understanding the body is in dismissing it as an expression of Self...utterly untrue in it's intent to make multiplicity, differences, and unique status the truth.

Vivian

September 9th 2009, 12:58 AM

When we study the anatomy of multileveled construction, we merely lend reality and truth to what is ultimately constructed for self-deception. To say we must understand how a multi-dimensional form is constructed in order to be saved or enlighted is utter twaddle. All it tells us is to what degree of complexity we have intended to decieve ourselves. Our best chance of understanding the body is in dismissing it as an expression of Self...utterly untrue in it's intent to make multiplicity, differences, and unique status the truth.

Good evening UrbanMonk -

If I might offer you some sincere advice, since you have addressed this gentle warning...

In nonduality, form is neither good nor bad, for nothing in nonduality is good nor bad. Everything just IS.

But you are spot on in saying that form is a problem for humanity. I offer though, that it is not the form itself, but our grasping and clinging to form, to any form, that is the problem or the obstacle. And certainly part of this grapsing and clinging is the desire to be special or unique.

And so we can 'reject' the specialness of outer form, or material form, but still be stuck, for we can grasp and cling at subtle forms - this would include ideas or concepts, angelic beings, inner guidance, etc. And so just as we can be misled and stuck in outer form, we can be misled and stuck in inner form.

All grasping and clinging must cease. And this my friend, takes many lifetimes.

I offer, UrbanMonk, that no one here will take you seriously because while you point fingers at everyone else, you display your own desire to be special and unique. You display your own grasping and clinging. While you might think you have 'overcome' the desire to be special, it is evident to all of us that you have not. Your words indicate that you see yourself as special and unique because you have the 'right ideas'. You have The Course. And you carry this further by grasping and clinging to the ideas of The Course. You grasp and cling to Gary, to his visitors and to all that they have revealed.

Hence I offered the warning that your own multilevel construction is deceiving you. And to be freed from this deception, this too must be brought to the Light and healed, so that you will no longer have the need to be special, to have the unique and special teachings of the Course. To have the unique and special revelations of Gary's visitors, and your own inner guidance.

No need to respond. You will either argue with me, that your own uniqueness and specialness, the uniqueness and specialness of the ideas and concepts you cling to, are somehow different than the ideas and concepts everyone else clings to.

Or you will take this response to heart, and either elimate the evident desire to be special in your own posts, and your evident grasping and clinging to the concepts of the Course, from your words, and at least then appear to practice what you preach.

Or perhaps Christ will reveal to you, as you ponder what has been shared, your own remaining desires and clinging, and you will truly begin to find freedom.

May all find freedom from grasping and clinging. Amen.

Viv

Gatsby

September 9th 2009, 03:32 PM

Good evening UrbanMonk -

If I might offer you some sincere advice, since you have addressed this gentle warning...

In nonduality, form is neither good nor bad, for nothing in nonduality is good nor bad. Everything just IS.

But you are spot on in saying that form is a problem for humanity. I offer though, that it is not the form itself, but our grasping and clinging to form, to any form, that is the problem or the obstacle. And certainly part of this grapsing and clinging is the desire to be special or unique.

And so we can 'reject' the specialness of outer form, or material form, but still be stuck, for we can grasp and cling at subtle forms - this would include ideas or concepts, angelic beings, inner guidance, etc. And so just as we can be misled and stuck in outer form, we can be misled and stuck in inner form.

All grasping and clinging must cease. And this my friend, takes many lifetimes.

I offer, UrbanMonk, that no one here will take you seriously because while you point fingers at everyone else, you display your own desire to be special and unique. You display your own grasping and clinging. While you might think you have 'overcome' the desire to be special, it is evident to all of us that you have not. Your words indicate that you see yourself as special and unique because you have the 'right ideas'. You have The Course. And you carry this further by grasping and clinging to the ideas of The Course. You grasp and cling to Gary, to his visitors and to all that they have revealed.

Hence I offered the warning that your own multilevel construction is deceiving you. And to be freed from this deception, this too must be brought to the Light and healed, so that you will no longer have the need to be special, to have the unique and special teachings of the Course. To have the unique and special revelations of Gary's visitors, and your own inner guidance.

No need to respond. You will either argue with me, that your own uniqueness and specialness, the uniqueness and specialness of the ideas and concepts you cling to, are somehow different than the ideas and concepts everyone else clings to.

Or you will take this response to heart, and either elimate the evident desire to be special in your own posts, and your evident grasping and clinging to the concepts of the Course, from your words, and at least then appear to practice what you preach.

Or perhaps Christ will reveal to you, as you ponder what has been shared, your own remaining desires and clinging, and you will truly begin to find freedom.

May all find freedom from grasping and clinging. Amen.

Viv

Hi Viv and Urban Monk. Viv I agree with you entirely. It is true that we must not cling to anything, false concepts or any concepts. In fact we also must lose the desire to be spiritual having no desire at all thereby doing away with all things of Earth nature. Our clinging comes about through fear. Fear that we may be up the creek witout a paddle so to speak, fear that we will be lost or alone and a host of many other fears which try to govern our lives. All this must be done away with before we can be really free. Anythingn that binds us, regarding even small things that are trivial in nature can halt the march to freedom. So I too say amen! However In will readily admit Iam not there yet.

Urban Monk, there is much you still have to learn. Know that matter IS mind materialised for what else can it be. All is Mind, Divine Mind. The physical body you may wish to ignore, beleiving that it is of no value. And yet everything has value as all is connceted with everything else and everyone else. Tell me how do you go within, if not through the body. The body is a vehicle of expression for the soul. We have not to worship the body, that is something many on earth at this time are doing and we can all see this, but you know better than that and you know that Iam not meaning that we should worship the body but neither can we negate it. it would be quite stupid to do so as it also is a tool to be brought under contol, out of the control of the egoic mind which has laid claim to the body for far too long. The body iteself has no power, it only has the power we give it with our minds. Our thoughts have effects on the body and can be seen in illness and disease, the thoughts being of the mental realm of course.

Also your inner voice comes through the body, the spiritual sympathetic nervous system is the tool for this and it is manifest as intuition, that knowingness that comes even when you dont know how you know the answer to something but you do know it, this is intuition which many ignore as no more than a hunch and proceed to ignore it. if they realised what they were ignoring then they would act on their intuition, which is actually their inner guide. The more intuition is used, the more sharper it get's and the less it is used the less it get's until basically it will just go quiet and that then is a great spiritual tool wasted for that lifetime.

Now if the course teaches you these things then fair enough, you are just going your way and Iam going my way, if however the course does not teach you these things then I suggest you look for more enlightened teachings and also go within as often as you can.

Regards
Gatsby

Gatsby

September 9th 2009, 04:09 PM

Urban Monk, some wise words for you re Dr Murdo MacDonald Bayne.

Understand that you are a spark of the Divine Flame, a drop out of the ocean of Spirit; that you are a being, growing, developing, unfolding, moving forward to a great goal, and then the urge is always upward and onward. Form an idea of a perfect body and endeavour to live so that it will grow accordingly.

Return to Nature. Allow the great Life to flow freely through you. Let the Power do its work for you. All it asks for is confidence. You will find that, within you, you have the power and the plan that have been placed there by the creator.

You soul is evolving and returning home to its great Majesty and Power. Therefore recognize that you have this Power by which you can accomplish many things. It has lived in this physical body, it has gained experience in this world, you have met many fellow-travellers on the same road, you have conversed with some and loved others, and you may have hated too. The fact is that hates and jealousies create destruction in the temple of the Spirit where Love and Joy and Peace and Harmony with your fellow-men bring positive action that gives you strength, health and happiness.

Therefore, within you is this Power, by which you can accomplish many things. By placing your will in contact with the Creator your will and His will become one: and great will be your reward. Have a true understanding of Nature and allow the Divine Principle to manifest through you. Live the natural life, eat natural food, breathe properly, think thoughts of joy and love, and your temple will be complete.

UrbanMonk

September 9th 2009, 08:24 PM

Good evening UrbanMonk -

In nonduality, form is neither good nor bad, for nothing in nonduality is good nor bad. Everything just IS.

You are thinking in terms of a good/bad paradigm...and/or projecting that on my main emphasis. I am thinking in terms of true/false. What is true exists, what is false does not. Form is false, and does not exist. It does not share the IS attribute with Whom IS. Form is passing away as what is not.

But you are spot on in saying that form is a problem for humanity.

Form and humanity go hand in hand.

I offer though, that it is not the form itself, but our grasping and clinging to form,

We grasp and cling to form when we say it is true...or that is IS as God IS.

to any form, that is the problem or the obstacle.

If form is false, then saying it is true can become an obstacle.

And certainly part of this grapsing and clinging is the desire to be special or unique.

That's all that form really offers...an apparent opportunity to be special or unique. This is what it adds to the perfection of Christ/Everything/God. And in adding these features to God, destroys (conceptually) the Perfection....taking away from it...sacrificing it in favor of what is false.

And so we can 'reject' the specialness of outer form, or material form, but still be stuck, for we can grasp and cling at subtle forms - this would include ideas or concepts, angelic beings, inner guidance, etc. And so just as we can be misled and stuck in outer form, we can be misled and stuck in inner form.

We are stuck with what makes us special until we choose to no longer wish for special status.

All grasping and clinging must cease. And this my friend, takes many lifetimes.

Let us cling to what is true, and let go of what is false. Yes, this could take a while, if we've habituated ourselves to clinging to what is false, and forgetting what is true.

I offer, UrbanMonk, that no one here will take you seriously because while you point fingers at everyone else, you display your own desire to be special and unique.
Whoever clings to the truth is going to appear to be special for a time...as did Jesus appear to be special and unique. I display a fingerprint, yes, as did Jesus. But as I fulfill the role that only I can fulfill, I also convert special status into what saves from special status. In brief, everything made to hurt us is being converted to save us.

You display your own grasping and clinging.

I display a unique fingerprint. But I convert my fingers for the use of renouncing the concept of being special.

While you might think you have 'overcome' the desire to be special,

One overcomes what one renounces...if it is renounced correctly. The good/bad paradigm does not work. The true/false paradigm does.

it is evident to all of us that you have not.

It is also evident that I've come a long way.

Your words indicate that you see yourself as special and unique because you have the 'right ideas'.

Then that would be an example of how to convert the desire to be special and unique into something that serves salvation from special status.

You have The Course.

I have more than that.

And you carry this further by grasping and clinging to the ideas of The Course.

Vivian, your premise is faulty. So there's no point in building a case on the badness of grasping and clinging, or how grasping and clinging applies to our attitude about information that points us toward the Truth.

You grasp and cling to Gary, to his visitors and to all that they have revealed.

I grasp and cling to the Spirit of truth within me that is able to confirm what is authentic and helpful. I select my sources carefully according to an authentic desire for what is true that I trust. Depending on what you desire, Vivian, you will be led or misled. You are not representing Spirit of truth, and so are not qualified to judge which textual pastures are good for gathering stength for a journey that involves the dismissal of much nay-saying.

Hence I offered the warning

Warning? I respond to reason, not brow-beating.

that your own multilevel construction is deceiving you.

I've already said that the multilevel construction of the body is for self-deception. If you can't admit this, you are not ready for what undecieves according to the Spirit of truth.

And to be freed from this deception, this too must be brought to the Light and healed,

Admitting that the body paradigm is for self-deception is a step toward bringing it to the Light, where it's deception may be dispelled...and where the mind that thought it was a body or in any way identified with a body can be healed.

so that you will no longer have the need to be special, to have the unique and special teachings of the Course.

At this point Vivian, you are fast losing credibility as an impartial advisor as you toy with words and concepts. Right words in a wrong world are going to be special and unique. There's no two ways around it. It's called conversion...converting the use of words where before they were used to reinforce the concept of special status and its supporting infrastructure.

To have the unique and special revelations of Gary's visitors, and your own inner guidance.

Excuse me but his "special" revelations have been shared with any and all with ears to hear. And who recognizies the Spirit of truth hears who comes in the name of the Spirit of truth...until the Spirit of truth is heard clearly.

No need to respond.

I have responded for the benefit of those with ears to hear.

You will either argue with me, that your own uniqueness and specialness, the uniqueness and specialness of the ideas and concepts you cling to, are somehow different than the ideas and concepts everyone else clings to.

You are mincing words here, upset that I've called you out and have brought your desire to be unique and special to the light. The Spirit of truth belongs to all...and is heard by all who are willing to recognize and hear...and not maintain a wall of resistance stretching back to the beginning of time. The ideas of the Spirit of truth are all different from those born of the concept of differences...thank God! Otherwise we'ld be forever lost in a psychological labyrinth ruled by the confusion of the confused who cling to differences and specialness at the cost of the truth.

Or you will take this response to heart, and either elimate the evident desire to be special in your own posts,

This is thought management. Whether the desire to be special is manifest in "your" mind or "mine" it is still within my mind. You seem eager to sell the idea of being special, and so, I just see it as an opportunity to renounce it.

and your evident grasping and clinging to the concepts of the Course,

You are evidently renouncing such concepts in favor of...what? What makes us special?

from your words, and at least then appear to practice what you preach.

The only way to NOT be special is to be Christ. To be Christ, one must be "baptized", which removes all that is added to Christ that hides Christ from us...such as the desire to be special. I preach Christ as the Identity belonging to all...while renouncing what identities do not belong to all.

Or perhaps Christ will reveal to you, as you ponder what has been shared, your own remaining desires and clinging, and you will truly begin to find freedom.

Christ is revealed as baptism progresses...as what was added to Christ is washed away...such as the desire to be special.

May all find freedom from grasping and clinging. Amen.

May all find freedom from grasping after the desire to be special, by clinging to our true desire to be what is revealed after all that is false is washed away.

Vivian

September 10th 2009, 02:37 AM

It is also evident that I've come a long way.

Hello UrbanMonk -

Certainly, we know when we are being healed - when we begin to cling and grasp less and less, and by all means if The Course is a means whereby you are finding some growth, some spiritual sanctification, then this is a good place to be.

All spiritual revealings come with good intentions and offer something to humanity.

I will pray that your healing continues.

Shalom and blessings.

Viv

Gatsby

September 11th 2009, 06:10 AM

Urban Monk, all things are here for a reason and that includes the body we inhabit in this earth plane. It is you who are denying spiritual facts. The body IS the temple of God, the inner temple where communication takes place is in the heart. The very heart of you and me is where God resides. Dont mistake this for your physical heart for it is the spiritual heart Iam talking about. It is within you.

You still haven't answered my question to you about going within to commune with God. If you dont go withing how do you commune with God. How does your friend Garry commune with his spirit friends? And Iam sorry to keep repeating this but all matter is mind materialised. It doesn't change because you dont beleive in that, are you aware of the spiritual laws. Does the Course teach you anything about them? If so please let me know what the Course teaches .

Regards
Gatsby

Gatsby

September 11th 2009, 09:41 AM

You are thinking in terms of a good/bad paradigm...and/or projecting that on my main emphasis. I am thinking in terms of true/false. What is true exists, what is false does not. Form is false, and does not exist. It does not share the IS attribute with Whom IS. Form is passing away as what is not.

Form and humanity go hand in hand.

We grasp and cling to form when we say it is true...or that is IS as God IS.

If form is false, then saying it is true can become an obstacle.

That's all that form really offers...an apparent opportunity to be special or unique. This is what it adds to the perfection of Christ/Everything/God. And in adding these features to God, destroys (conceptually) the Perfection....taking away from it...sacrificing it in favor of what is false.

We are stuck with what makes us special until we choose to no longer wish for special status.

Let us cling to what is true, and let go of what is false. Yes, this could take a while, if we've habituated ourselves to clinging to what is false, and forgetting what is true.

Whoever clings to the truth is going to appear to be special for a time...as did Jesus appear to be special and unique. I display a fingerprint, yes, as did Jesus. But as I fulfill the role that only I can fulfill, I also convert special status into what saves from special status. In brief, everything made to hurt us is being converted to save us.

I display a unique fingerprint. But I convert my fingers for the use of renouncing the concept of being special.

One overcomes what one renounces...if it is renounced correctly. The good/bad paradigm does not work. The true/false paradigm does.

It is also evident that I've come a long way.

Then that would be an example of how to convert the desire to be special and unique into something that serves salvation from special status.

I have more than that.

Vivian, your premise is faulty. So there's no point in building a case on the badness of grasping and clinging, or how grasping and clinging applies to our attitude about information that points us toward the Truth.

I grasp and cling to the Spirit of truth within me that is able to confirm what is authentic and helpful. I select my sources carefully according to an authentic desire for what is true that I trust. Depending on what you desire, Vivian, you will be led or misled. You are not representing Spirit of truth, and so are not qualified to judge which textual pastures are good for gathering stength for a journey that involves the dismissal of much nay-saying.

Warning? I respond to reason, not brow-beating.

I've already said that the multilevel construction of the body is for self-deception. If you can't admit this, you are not ready for what undecieves according to the Spirit of truth.

Admitting that the body paradigm is for self-deception is a step toward bringing it to the Light, where it's deception may be dispelled...and where the mind that thought it was a body or in any way identified with a body can be healed.

At this point Vivian, you are fast losing credibility as an impartial advisor as you toy with words and concepts. Right words in a wrong world are going to be special and unique. There's no two ways around it. It's called conversion...converting the use of words where before they were used to reinforce the concept of special status and its supporting infrastructure.

Excuse me but his "special" revelations have been shared with any and all with ears to hear. And who recognizies the Spirit of truth hears who comes in the name of the Spirit of truth...until the Spirit of truth is heard clearly.

I have responded for the benefit of those with ears to hear.

You are mincing words here, upset that I've called you out and have brought your desire to be unique and special to the light. The Spirit of truth belongs to all...and is heard by all who are willing to recognize and hear...and not maintain a wall of resistance stretching back to the beginning of time. The ideas of the Spirit of truth are all different from those born of the concept of differences...thank God! Otherwise we'ld be forever lost in a psychological labyrinth ruled by the confusion of the confused who cling to differences and specialness at the cost of the truth.

This is thought management. Whether the desire to be special is manifest in "your" mind or "mine" it is still within my mind. You seem eager to sell the idea of being special, and so, I just see it as an opportunity to renounce it.

You are evidently renouncing such concepts in favor of...what? What makes us special?

The only way to NOT be special is to be Christ. To be Christ, one must be "baptized", which removes all that is added to Christ that hides Christ from us...such as the desire to be special. I preach Christ as the Identity belonging to all...while renouncing what identities do not belong to all.

Christ is revealed as baptism progresses...as what was added to Christ is washed away...such as the desire to be special.

May all find freedom from grasping after the desire to be special, by clinging to our true desire to be what is revealed after all that is false is washed away.

Hi Urban Monk, quote from you:

Whoever clings to the truth is going to appear to be special for a time...as did Jesus appear to be special and unique. I display a fingerprint, yes, as did Jesus. But as I fulfill the role that only I can fulfill, I also convert special status into what saves from special status. In brief, everything made to hurt us is being converted to save us.

Are you not being disengenuous here. Telling Viv and I that we are 'wishing' we were special and you admiting that you appear to be special as did Jesus. I think what you say is in your own words 'word magic' because it appears to make you into a hypocrite. I dont use that word lightly but I can think of another one at the moment.

I think we would all agree that Jesus led the way and was unique in that. Iam also mindfull that he said that what he would do, more would we do that followed him, meaning followed his way and not just him personally as Christian orthodoxy had believed.

Regards
Gatsby:ahem:

Vivian

September 11th 2009, 03:10 PM

Hi Urban Monk, quote from you:

Whoever clings to the truth is going to appear to be special for a time...as did Jesus appear to be special and unique. I display a fingerprint, yes, as did Jesus. But as I fulfill the role that only I can fulfill, I also convert special status into what saves from special status. In brief, everything made to hurt us is being converted to save us.

Are you not being disengenuous here. Telling Viv and I that we are 'wishing' we were special and you admiting that you appear to be special as did Jesus. I think what you say is in your own words 'word magic' because it appears to make you into a hypocrite. I dont use that word lightly but I can think of another one at the moment.

I think we would all agree that Jesus led the way and was unique in that. Iam also mindfull that he said that what he would do, more would we do that followed him, meaning followed his way and not just him personally as Christian orthodoxy had believed.

Regards
Gatsby:ahem:

Yes, this is just what I heard as well, Gatsby. And did prepare a reply to UM, one bearing a heavy satirical tone saying pretty arrogantly exactly what you are saying. But this is not the way to treat one another, so I repented and did not post it.

Shalom.

Viv

UrbanMonk

September 11th 2009, 06:22 PM

Are you not being disengenuous here. Telling Viv and I that we are 'wishing' we were special and you admiting that you appear to be special as did Jesus. I think what you say is in your own words 'word magic' because it appears to make you into a hypocrite. I dont use that word lightly but I can think of another one at the moment.

No, it's your intent that determines which way you are going with this. The intent to be special has given us legs with which we've gotten ourselves lost within a psychological labyrinth (the physical is 100% mental manifestation, backed by belief). (We have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God). When we repent, and turn around and go back to sameness (away from the intent to be special), we still have legs to carry us for a while...until they are no longer needed. Then they will be gone, as Jesus' legs are now gone. This is called CONVERSION...not hypocricy. It is not my intent to teach that special status is a god-given fact, as you do. Big difference.

Vivian

September 12th 2009, 02:37 AM

We are not saying that specialness is a gift from God, we are saying that In sameness - all is the same. Whether it is form or not form. There is no difference.

If you are saying there is a difference, you are not speaking from the place of Unity, from the place of sameness.

Still though, ceasing our grasping and clinging, no matter which teaching is guiding us, is moving in the right direction.

Viv

Gatsby

September 12th 2009, 10:20 AM

No, it's your intent that determines which way you are going with this. The intent to be special has given us legs with which we've gotten ourselves lost within a psychological labyrinth (the physical is 100% mental manifestation, backed by belief). (We have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God). When we repent, and turn around and go back to sameness (away from the intent to be special), we still have legs to carry us for a while...until they are no longer needed. Then they will be gone, as Jesus' legs are now gone. This is called CONVERSION...not hypocricy. It is not my intent to teach that special status is a god-given fact, as you do. Big difference.

Hi Urban Monk, where do you get to the conclusion that my intent is to be special and unique?
I could turn that around and say, we are all special and unique and that would be true as well. But either way it makes no difference because you seem to have got it into your head that what I say has to be refuted by you. Where is the common ground? Are we not both aiming for the same conclusion, that being One with God, One with all our fellow brothers and sisters in all realms, for we cannot honestly beleive that this is the only realm that God has made, even you would not subscribe to that.

You are doing a awfull lot of assuming I think and you are way off the mark. You do not know my intent nor do I know yours, but your tone colours in the 'blank bit's you could say.

Now to quote you here:

the physical is 100% mental manifestation, backed by belief

Sounds very much like 'matter is mind materialised'. Yet your protest at that, a bit too loudly I think.

I think your coversion is just another way of saying transition. Seems like the Course has to use different words to try and 'be different and unique' thereby giveing the whole screed some semblance of authenticity or hoping that is the case anyway. Another way to tell if this is the case is to look and see how many so called 'teachers' there are at the moment. The spiritual has become big business now and many have jumped on that badwagon. What makes the course different I ask? You can tell me!!. However a guide is to look and see how much paraphenalia is attatched to teachings. Textbooks, DVD's videos and seminars and a abundance of things costing lots of money. This is the way of many so called spiritual teachings that are around these days. Makes me wonder I have to say. It costs nothing to go within and find the pearl of great price, not a bean and yet most will lay out thousands for courses and all the material that goes with them and thinking all the while that they are exceedingly spiritual for doing so. Urban Monk Iam not meaning for you to take this personal here Iam merely making a observation of the sign of the times you could say and as such we need to be even more on gaurd that we have indeed found the pearl of great price.

Regards
Gatsby

UrbanMonk

September 12th 2009, 10:16 PM

Hi Urban Monk, where do you get to the conclusion that my intent is to be special and unique?

Every time you say you are.

I could turn that around and say, we are all special and unique and that would be true as well.

You just said it again.

But either way it makes no difference

Unless being the same is true and being special (different, unique) is false. But you are already on record as saying that the difference between the ocean and a spoonful of ocean is no difference. So your credibility is in question whenever you say there is no difference between being the same or being special.

because you seem to have got it into your head that what I say has to be refuted by you.

I do it as a matter of practice and discipline. I call it thought management...a form of vigilance. I don't have to do it if I don't want to.

Where is the common ground?

There is a common ground. But you are not standing on it when you keep saying that what is different is the same.

Are we not both aiming for the same conclusion, that being One with God, One with all our fellow brothers and sisters in all realms, for we cannot honestly beleive that this is the only realm that God has made, even you would not subscribe to that.

Our common ground is the World of God (Realm of God). Our battleground is the world of "gods"...an illusion we made as a gift to self.

You are doing a awfull lot of assuming I think and you are way off the mark.

Just reading what you write, such as your turnabout in the first two sentences above.

You do not know my intent nor do I know yours,

We can know the intent of the One who saves us from illusions about ourselves. We cannot know the intent of "gods". To the extent that you exhibit the appearance of intending to make what is false true, I will continue to call you out on that.

but your tone colours in the 'blank bit's you could say.

Let's disregard tone and stick to axioms.

Now to quote you here:

the physical is 100% mental manifestation, backed by belief

Sounds very much like 'matter is mind materialised'.

Mind manifesting is still mind. Mind "materialized" is still mind. Matter is not anything other than what a mind believes in.

Yet your protest at that, a bit too loudly I think.

What do you think I'm protesting? Just because a mind manifests what it believes in doesn't mean what it believes is true. And the minute the belief is withdrawn, what was manifested disappears. So there's no point in trying to tell me that God created form...because what God creates is eternal, like God, unlimited, and able to create like it's creator.

I think your coversion is just another way of saying transition.

What you think is of no consequence in this regard. Conversion is simply what our Savior does with everything we've manifested through miscreative faith. Everything that we made to hurt ourselves is converted to save us....BY CHANGING ITS INTENT (PURPOSE).

Seems like the Course has to use different words to try and 'be different and unique' thereby giveing the whole screed some semblance of authenticity or hoping that is the case anyway.

Things aren't always what they seem to be.

Another way to tell if this is the case is to look and see how many so called 'teachers' there are at the moment.

I can imagine there are twelve, maybe less, maybe more.

The spiritual has become big business now and many have jumped on that badwagon.

Please let me know how I can make some money doing this. Thanks ahead of time.

What makes the course different I ask?

You can get a copy at a used book store for $10.

You can tell me!!.

You can get a copy at Amazon for $20.

However a guide is to look and see how much paraphenalia is attatched to teachings.

Pipes and bongs cost extra.

Textbooks, DVD's videos and seminars and a abundance of things costing lots of money.

Whatever they cost, it's usually less than a pint of blood.

This is the way of many so called spiritual teachings that are around these days.

You mean like the kind that will sell you a pint of god-blood to buy your way into heaven?

Makes me wonder I have to say.

If you'd have listened to the Spirit of truth to begin with, you'd not have to fork up the $10 for a used copy of text. But you can't hear the Spirit because you've tuned out so long that you don't have a clue what the Spirit stands for, or how to discern between the various teachers/teachings and what the Spirit of truth teaches.

It costs nothing to go within and find the pearl of great price,

Well, it'll cost you your entire point-of-view heretofore. If you go within looking for support for a false point-of-view...you'll find it. But you won't have gone deep enough. If you go deep enough, it'll cost you everything you previously thought was true.

not a bean and yet most will lay out thousands for courses

You might be able to get a used copy for $5. If you click on my signature, you can access a free copy in the public domain.

and all the material that goes with them and thinking all the while that they are exceedingly spiritual for doing so.

Who/what are you talking about exactly?

Urban Monk Iam not meaning for you to take this personal

You're just trolling. I don't take it personally.

here Iam merely making a observation of the sign of the times

Trolling.

you could say and as such we need to be even more on gaurd that we have indeed found the pearl of great price.

Beware of the pearl of no price.

Gatsby

September 13th 2009, 07:31 AM

Every time you say you are.

You just said it again.

Unless being the same is true and being special (different, unique) is false. But you are already on record as saying that the difference between the ocean and a spoonful of ocean is no difference. So your credibility is in question whenever you say there is no difference between being the same or being special.

I do it as a matter of practice and discipline. I call it thought management...a form of vigilance. I don't have to do it if I don't want to.

There is a common ground. But you are not standing on it when you keep saying that what is different is the same.

Our common ground is the World of God (Realm of God). Our battleground is the world of "gods"...an illusion we made as a gift to self.

Just reading what you write, such as your turnabout in the first two sentences above.

We can know the intent of the One who saves us from illusions about ourselves. We cannot know the intent of "gods". To the extent that you exhibit the appearance of intending to make what is false true, I will continue to call you out on that.

Let's disregard tone and stick to axioms.

Mind manifesting is still mind. Mind "materialized" is still mind. Matter is not anything other than what a mind believes in.

What do you think I'm protesting? Just because a mind manifests what it believes in doesn't mean what it believes is true. And the minute the belief is withdrawn, what was manifested disappears. So there's no point in trying to tell me that God created form...because what God creates is eternal, like God, unlimited, and able to create like it's creator.

What you think is of no consequence in this regard. Conversion is simply what our Savior does with everything we've manifested through miscreative faith. Everything that we made to hurt ourselves is converted to save us....BY CHANGING ITS INTENT (PURPOSE).

Things aren't always what they seem to be.

I can imagine there are twelve, maybe less, maybe more.

Please let me know how I can make some money doing this. Thanks ahead of time.

You can get a copy at a used book store for $10.

You can get a copy at Amazon for $20.

Pipes and bongs cost extra.

Whatever they cost, it's usually less than a pint of blood.

You mean like the kind that will sell you a pint of god-blood to buy your way into heaven?

If you'd have listened to the Spirit of truth to begin with, you'd not have to fork up the $10 for a used copy of text. But you can't hear the Spirit because you've tuned out so long that you don't have a clue what the Spirit stands for, or how to discern between the various teachers/teachings and what the Spirit of truth teaches.

Well, it'll cost you your entire point-of-view heretofore. If you go within looking for support for a false point-of-view...you'll find it. But you won't have gone deep enough. If you go deep enough, it'll cost you everything you previously thought was true.

You might be able to get a used copy for $5. If you click on my signature, you can access a free copy in the public domain.

Who/what are you talking about exactly?

You're just trolling. I don't take it personally.

Trolling.

Beware of the pearl of no price.

Urban Monk, I didn't realise you were such a fool, but the penny has dropped and yes, you are a fool. Iam not wasting any more spiritual energy on you. But I do bless you on your way.

Regards
Gatby

Gatsby

September 13th 2009, 01:36 PM

Vivian

September 13th 2009, 04:23 PM

Hi Gatsby,

Indeed it is a sure sign that one is following a deceptive spirituality when it is taught that it alone has truth, for any who have known Unity have seen on the other side of all traditions, all spriituality, and have seen from what source - or ultimately Source - they have all come. For at this realization, being liberated from self-grasping, attachment and aversion, downward and outward, inward and upward, or whatever dualism may be named, there is no difference – in every direction we go to God, or the Infinite.

Also when asked to produced any from the Course who have known such Unity, none are produced, are they? For the Course does not carry the Light Power and Presence, the Grace, necessary for Liberation.

I have encountered many following these lesser traditions, who are doing some work towards salvation. Working at salvation at this level though, without the Light Presence and Power, will take thousands of lifetimes.

But when in any life, we through merit meet up with a tradition that does bring this into the world, that does have among its adherents many who have known Unity and are liberated, it is an opportunity that we cannot let slip through our fingers.

[Another key is being able to recognize the archons behind lesser traditions by the leaking of our own energy when engaging.]

Shalom and blessings.

Viv

UrbanMonk

September 13th 2009, 09:46 PM

Urban Monk, I need to ask you something. I clicked on your link to the course and read the introduction. Below is a bit of it.

INTRODUCTION TO MIRACLES
It is crucial to say first that this is a required course. Only the time you take it is voluntary. Free will does not mean that you establish the curriculum. It means only that you can elect what to take when. It is just because you are not ready to do what you should elect to do that time exists at all. (You will see miracles through your hands through me. You should begin each day with the prayer "Help me to perform whatever miracles you want of me today.")

When it says Urban Monk that this is a required course, I take it they are talking to those who are already students of the course and have read the book. Is that correct? I ask that because otherwise it appears to be dictating to everyone that they should be reading the Course which of course, lol not correct at all. Going by this bit alone I can see that the writers have failed to grasp what is spiritual, they seem to be more in the market of control. Hmmm not a good place to be.

However I will await your response.

Regards
Gatsby

The "course" is everything you need to learn (unlearn) in order for time to end for you. I don't think it's a reference to this particular book, although that would be ideal for many learners. Perhaps there is another way for you to learn what Jesus teaches than this specific explanation/meditation. The "curriculum", however, is universal, and contains bits of knowledge that you can't compromise. If you compromise certain principles, you aren't really learning the universal curriculum of the Spirit of truth...and are using time to continue to learn about fantasy-as-truth.

Because the minds of the special are so filled with fantasy-as-truth themes, it's challenging for them to actually tune in to the universal Teacher, the Spirit of truth. Courses like the one mentioned bridge the gap between what you have been given, and what you are able to recieve through discernment of Spirit. It's like a teachers aid which enables you, through practice, to open your mind enough to talk directly with the Teacher for the remainder of the journey home.

Beware, until you hear the Spirit of truth, you may be listening to your own thoughts as if they were of the Spirit of truth. In this case, you elect to take the Spirit's curriculum later, prolonging your special experience in time. The Spirit of truth has other courses for other kinds of learners. However, the basics don't change. There is no world. It never happened. This is an essential part of the curriculum to be accepted. You cannot change the basics, nor compromise them. You can only elect to learn them sooner or later.

I can say with surety, that if you intend to continue to pursue compromise (try to attempt to marry opposing attributes), you are electing to exodus time later than sooner. You are wasting your time defending the "truth" of specialness. That is, unless wasting time is what you intend and wish for.

UrbanMonk

September 13th 2009, 11:50 PM

Hi Gatsby,

Indeed it is a sure sign that one is following a deceptive spirituality when it is taught that it alone has truth,

The truth is universal, and encompasses the World of God. It alone is the truth, and it is a Being. This Being - all that it comprises - is the truth. There appears to be a world of unique beings which experience levels, dimensions, time, gender, change and growth. This is not the truth. Nothing you can say or do will ever make it the truth. It will eventually pass away, unable to outlast eternity. The truth does not include what "people" generally call "the universe", or what Jesus called "the world". There is no world. It never happened. What seems real to the eye is not what it appears to be, and can eventually be disregarded as meaningless.

Your premise is faulty, as usual, if you are implying that there is more than one truth. A "spirituality" will teach the one truth...or it won't. You won't.

for any who have known Unity have seen on the other side of all traditions, all spriituality, and have seen from what source - or ultimately Source - they have all come.

I'm not impressed with these kinds of appeal to authority. A lofty experience is not necessarily the experience of Self. There is a difference between grandiosity as self-concept, and grandeur as Self.

For at this realization,

The recognition and remembrance of Self is all that matters, not the making real of fantasy-as-truth scenarios.

being liberated from self-grasping,

When we stop grasping for self-concepts, we will be liberated from them, free to be our Self.

attachment and aversion,

When we are willing to let of all that constitutes that primal self-concept "the world", we will be set free to be Self again.

downward and outward,

These are concepts which have no meaning to Self, and can be let go.

inward and upward,

At best, these are concepts that help re-educate and re-orient toward Self.

or whatever dualism may be named,

I have been dismissing the dualism you have been postulating in the name of truth.

there is no difference – in every direction we go to God, or the Infinite.

Generally, we go by way of truth to God.

Also when asked to produced any from the Course who have known such Unity, none are produced, are they?

You are conveniently leaving out Arten and Pursah, Gary's visitors, perhaps because they elected not to sit on your sofa.

For the Course does not carry the Light Power and Presence, the Grace, necessary for Liberation.

The special one's are at enmity with the truth. And as you defend your specialness, you will no doubt attempt to assail any deposit of knowledge which questions it's validity. And there will be much gnashing of teeth in this regard.

I have encountered many following these lesser traditions,

The words of the special verily drip with the condescension of comparison...speaking of love, but knowing nothing of it.

who are doing some work towards salvation.

It's still a question whether you understand what is salvation or not as yet. If you say you do, but don't really, then you are wasting your time and ours.

Working at salvation at this level though, without the Light Presence and Power, will take thousands of lifetimes.

As one finger points, three point back. First understand salvation. Then understand why it may take longer for some, and not long for others.

headheart

September 14th 2009, 06:56 AM

69118

"Doh! 4 Fingered Toon at your service!"

Gatsby

September 15th 2009, 01:17 PM

69118

"Doh! 4 Fingered Toon at your service!"

:lol:Ha Ha He Hem good one, LOL I like it!!

Gatsby:smile:

Gatsby

September 15th 2009, 01:35 PM

The "course" is everything you need to learn (unlearn) in order for time to end for you. I don't think it's a reference to this particular book, although that would be ideal for many learners. Perhaps there is another way for you to learn what Jesus teaches than this specific explanation/meditation. The "curriculum", however, is universal, and contains bits of knowledge that you can't compromise. If you compromise certain principles, you aren't really learning the universal curriculum of the Spirit of truth...and are using time to continue to learn about fantasy-as-truth.

Because the minds of the special are so filled with fantasy-as-truth themes, it's challenging for them to actually tune in to the universal Teacher, the Spirit of truth. Courses like the one mentioned bridge the gap between what you have been given, and what you are able to recieve through discernment of Spirit. It's like a teachers aid which enables you, through practice, to open your mind enough to talk directly with the Teacher for the remainder of the journey home.

Beware, until you hear the Spirit of truth, you may be listening to your own thoughts as if they were of the Spirit of truth. In this case, you elect to take the Spirit's curriculum later, prolonging your special experience in time. The Spirit of truth has other courses for other kinds of learners. However, the basics don't change. There is no world. It never happened. This is an essential part of the curriculum to be accepted. You cannot change the basics, nor compromise them. You can only elect to learn them sooner or later.

I can say with surety, that if you intend to continue to pursue compromise (try to attempt to marry opposing attributes), you are electing to exodus time later than sooner. You are wasting your time defending the "truth" of specialness. That is, unless wasting time is what you intend and wish for.

Uraban Monk, it seems to me that what you are basically saying is that this Course has represented itself as teaching Universal Truth. What you fail to recognise is that no teacher or spiritual philosophy will tell you that they teach Universal Truth and that what they teach is a required course for everyone, who is ready that it is. This is arrogance and misleading to propagate this as Universal Truth.

Iam well aware that time does not exist in Relaity nor does space and I managed to know that Truth long before the Course was ever written, how on earth did I ever manage to lean Spiritual Truths without the Course, it must have been pot luck in what teachers I had obviously.

Iam also well aware that much of what is written is information already stored in the mind and that people beleive that they have been given a mission to teach what comes through there minds because it appears to be spiritual material but it is not, they are just emptying their own minds, so yes, great care must be taken with this type of material. This I learned from my own teacher who warned his students about this..........that too was long before the Course material was written. You see what Iam saying here, where this is leading to you. It is basically showing you that the Course does NOT have a monopoly of the Truth and it would be foolish to think it had. Discernment is indeed the watchword for any spiritual material and from wherever it is proposing to come from.

At this time there are many so called Christ's living on the earth. Maitraiya is one such one, there is another one in Russia who states he is the reincarntaion of Jesus. Iam wary of these ones and should be and yet who am I to say they are not these ones as we all have the Christ within us and it is our desire that the Christ manifests throuh us, thereby we do the will of God and not our own will. So discerment, certainly has to be used in all cases written or otherwise.

Regards
Gatsby

Vivian

September 15th 2009, 01:52 PM

Uraban Monk, it seems to me that what you are basically saying is that this Course has represented itself as teaching Universal Truth. What you fail to recognise is that no teacher or spiritual philosophy will tell you that they teach Universal Truth and that what they teach is a required course for everyone, who is ready that it is. This is arrogance and misleading to propagate this as Universal Truth.

Indeed Gatsby!

To say that since Jesus ' incarnation and revelation, all we have to show for it are these two angels that appear to Gary? And so how did they find liberation before The Course was revealed, or are they the only ones to find it - they being the only ones who had the true understanding of Jesus?

I warn UrbanMonk, for I too fell for a teaching that arrogantly claimed it was the only one - that everyone else was wrong. And we had angels too!

A huge huge key is the one or ones in and through whom revelation is made. If they do not realize what has been revealed in themselves, in its fulness, it is a sure sign that the revelation is false, or at least lacking.

In other words, since Helen and William were not fully liberated, whatever they received will have been distorted by the distortions that still imprisoned them. However, that does not mean that ACIM cannot be useful.

Shalom.

Viv

OneSizeFit

September 15th 2009, 02:09 PM

(This post is in response to Scooner)

As for Psalm 82, its point is that kings are not god in the same sense that YHWH is God. Positionally, they are gods (Psalm 82:6), but ontologically, they are men (Psalm 82:7) and can be judged by YHWH like any other man.

Beyond what our different interpretations are of Psalm 82 - I believe Jesus did use the quote to prove that we are Divine.

However, I agree the original text was talking about either Kings or the Priestly class.

Torah translation -

Psalms 82:6 I said: Ye are godlike beings, and all of you sons of the Most High.
Psalms 82:7 Nevertheless ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes.'
Psalms 82:8 Arise, O God, judge the earth; for Thou shalt possess all nations.

Gatsby

September 15th 2009, 05:07 PM

Beyond what our different interpretations are of Psalm 82 - I believe Jesus did use the quote to prove that we are Divine.

However, I agree the original text was talking about either Kings or the Priestly class.

Torah translation -

Psalms 82:6 I said: Ye are godlike beings, and all of you sons of the Most High.
Psalms 82:7 Nevertheless ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes.'
Psalms 82:8 Arise, O God, judge the earth; for Thou shalt possess all nations.

Hi, looking at Psalms 82.8 Why would God judge the earth and how shall he possess all nations when He already created them. That seems like conundrum. God creates something and then judges it. Doesn't make sense, does it?

Of course we are Divine, all of us are. We are God's children so why could we not be divine. Or do you prefer to believe that we are al sinners and can never attain our Divine status once more? If the Bible says we are godlike Beings then it must be true must it not? Or else the people of the churches are talking the bits out of the Bible that they want to take or are told to, accept but basically they dont beleive it. I ask why not?

Regards
Gatsby

UrbanMonk

September 15th 2009, 05:09 PM

Uraban Monk, it seems to me that what you are basically saying is that this Course has represented itself as teaching Universal Truth. What you fail to recognise is that no teacher or spiritual philosophy will tell you that they teach Universal Truth and that what they teach is a required course for everyone, who is ready that it is. This is arrogance and misleading to propagate this as Universal Truth.

The truth is universal. It is the same for all. If a teacher is not teaching this, then that teacher is adding to the conceptual chaos that manifests an experience in which the truth is different for all. The question is, what truth is universal for all? It turns out that the truth is a Being. And if one is not this Being, one is living a lie (illusion, fantasy, delusion). This Being has attributes that distinguish it from what is different. If one does not display those attributes, one is living as a concept, using the mental faculties of this Being. As such, one does not really exist, but rather, has an experience of being different. What is different from LIFE and CHAnGLESSNESS does not live, and/or changes. Alas, it will change back to what it was, this Being.

Gatsby

September 15th 2009, 05:10 PM

Indeed Gatsby!

To say that since Jesus ' incarnation and revelation, all we have to show for it are these two angels that appear to Gary? And so how did they find liberation before The Course was revealed, or are they the only ones to find it - they being the only ones who had the true understanding of Jesus?

I warn UrbanMonk, for I too fell for a teaching that arrogantly claimed it was the only one - that everyone else was wrong. And we had angels too!

A huge huge key is the one or ones in and through whom revelation is made. If they do not realize what has been revealed in themselves, in its fulness, it is a sure sign that the revelation is false, or at least lacking.

In other words, since Helen and William were not fully liberated, whatever they received will have been distorted by the distortions that still imprisoned them. However, that does not mean that ACIM cannot be useful.

Shalom.

Viv

I agree totally with you Viv, I dont get any inner feeling that the two that channeled the book were in any degree acomplished in spiritual law. Hence I would take what they have said with a pinch of salt poured over my discernment.

Regards
Gatsby

UrbanMonk

September 15th 2009, 09:41 PM

I agree totally with you Viv, I dont get any inner feeling that the two that channeled the book were in any degree acomplished in spiritual law. Hence I would take what they have said with a pinch of salt poured over my discernment.

Regards
Gatsby

The two did not claim much knowledge of what was going on or how things worked. They just faithfully transcribed for a Being who said that the reader will believe these words entirely or not at all. The Author/Being states the meaning of the words is all true or not true at all. It makes no sense for it to be partly true or partly false. (In other words, there are no doctrinal errors in this text). The way the truth is presented here is efficient for many people. But there are other ways, other words, that may be better for others. For that matter, the Spirit of truth is able to select a single sentence, phrase or meaning from any source, and impress it's importance upon the perciever. I got a lot of confirmation this way over the years. It's rare that you can incorporate an entire text into one's thought stream. This is one such text. I'm sure there are others. There is a growing body of text representing, authentically, the truth...the apparent paths leading away from the truth, and the paths leading most directly back to truth as Self.

Both you and Vivian reject Self as the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, and embrace a self that is different from Self, and say that both it and Self are the truth. So you are compromising the truth, and listening to another voice for truth-confirmation experiences/feelings. And this other voice is competing with the Voice of Self for confirmation...and outshouts true Voice....even as it whispers. It speaks first, and speaks smoothly, and with an air of authority. But this is a front, and I can see right through it. The fact is, both you an Vivian are at odds with massages as presented by the Spirit of truth under any pseudonym or any method of delivery....because you are defending your specialness as if it is incorporated in the truth....not wishing to be disenfranchised. But it is only as we break loose of concepts we've added to the truth do we set ourselves free to experience the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth always.

Gatsby

September 16th 2009, 05:40 AM

The two did not claim much knowledge of what was going on or how things worked. They just faithfully transcribed for a Being who said that the reader will believe these words entirely or not at all. The Author/Being states the meaning of the words is all true or not true at all. It makes no sense for it to be partly true or partly false. (In other words, there are no doctrinal errors in this text). The way the truth is presented here is efficient for many people. But there are other ways, other words, that may be better for others. For that matter, the Spirit of truth is able to select a single sentence, phrase or meaning from any source, and impress it's importance upon the perciever. I got a lot of confirmation this way over the years. It's rare that you can incorporate an entire text into one's thought stream. This is one such text. I'm sure there are others. There is a growing body of text representing, authentically, the truth...the apparent paths leading away from the truth, and the paths leading most directly back to truth as Self.

Both you and Vivian reject Self as the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, and embrace a self that is different from Self, and say that both it and Self are the truth. So you are compromising the truth, and listening to another voice for truth-confirmation experiences/feelings. And this other voice is competing with the Voice of Self for confirmation...and outshouts true Voice....even as it whispers. It speaks first, and speaks smoothly, and with an air of authority. But this is a front, and I can see right through it. The fact is, both you an Vivian are at odds with massages as presented by the Spirit of truth under any pseudonym or any method of delivery....because you are defending your specialness as if it is incorporated in the truth....not wishing to be disenfranchised. But it is only as we break loose of concepts we've added to the truth do we set ourselves free to experience the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth always.

Urban Monk, Iam aware that there are messages of Truth out there and coming through different people to be taught at the level that one can understand what is being said. Iam sure Viv is well aware of this too. I certainly dont want to be at loggerheads with you re my teacher knows more than your teacher nonsense, teachers of Truth will attract the student to them when the students is receptive to hear and understand. However, Truth is experienced and all a teacher and book can do is help point the way to Truth. The words themselves are not Truth, purely a guide to it. Some teachers however are teaching from their own spiritual experience which has been developed over time. Yes, I know there is no time as such but it is the only way I can describe things in this realm of mortality as you will know. Now, personally I would prefer to have a teacher who actually knows what he is talking about, who has experienced what he/she is talking about than someone who has dictated what a 'entity' regardless who the entity is, has channeled to them. The reason for that perference is because channeled material, which can of course contain Truth cannot be gaurenteed to be pure and not be coloured by the mind of the channelers. You obviosuly resonate with this book, and that's fine. We all will find our own way to Truth eventually.

Regarding Self, we are taking about the same Self the Real Self within us not any mortal self. I think you may have got a bit confused on that point.

Regards
Gatsby

Vivian

September 16th 2009, 11:41 AM

Urban Monk, Iam aware that there are messages of Truth out there and coming through different people to be taught at the level that one can understand what is being said. Iam sure Viv is well aware of this too. I certainly dont want to be at loggerheads with you re my teacher knows more than your teacher nonsense, teachers of Truth will attract the student to them when the students is receptive to hear and understand. However, Truth is experienced and all a teacher and book can do is help point the way to Truth. The words themselves are not Truth, purely a guide to it. Some teachers however are teaching from their own spiritual experience which has been developed over time. Yes, I know there is no time as such but it is the only way I can describe things in this realm of mortality as you will know. Now, personally I would prefer to have a teacher who actually knows what he is talking about, who has experienced what he/she is talking about than someone who has dictated what a 'entity' regardless who the entity is, has channeled to them. The reason for that perference is because channeled material, which can of course contain Truth cannot be gaurenteed to be pure and not be coloured by the mind of the channelers. You obviosuly resonate with this book, and that's fine. We all will find our own way to Truth eventually.

Regarding Self, we are taking about the same Self the Real Self within us not any mortal self. I think you may have got a bit confused on that point.

Regards
Gatsby

Hi Gatsby-

I was talking to my mentor last night about the reasoning behind individuals' simple acceptance of something that is revealed to them via the spiritual realms. Believing beings, for example, that appear and tell you that your are a disciple incarnate, or that they have the truth for you alone that no one else has. That they selected you and you alone through which to reveal the truth to humanity. There are so many beings in the spiritual realms who actually do this! They appear to one or two of us and get us to believe somehow that we are special, that we are the ones through whom the truth will be revealed or perhaps that we are great souls who in the past incarnated as great men and women.

I too receive such visitations, that wanted to play on my specialness as being the only one who could hear, or being a special soul through which this revelation could be made, etc. But I thought it all a bunch of hogwash, because a messenger of Christ does not work in this way to feed into our desires to be special!

In his compassion he shared that these sort of folks are really hurting. They have very low self esteem and a great need to feel special. He then pointed out that this is a double edged sword - that some of us in our low self esteem have a need to be told that we are failures - trash, a need to doubt ourselves. And I had to say yes, that latter describes myself. I have the opposite need - and that is to not be special! So I am vulnerable to the 'accusers' who want me to think I am a failure, that I cannot do anything for God.

My mentor went on to share that we all have to work through both sides of this sword - and it can take many many lives!

I find it odd that those with the need to feel special are the ones most vulnerable to a revelation about the sin of needing to feel special! Just think of it. WIth ACIM only Helen and William were special enough to be channels for this teaching. Only Gary is special enough to receive angel visitors.

But then this is the mystery of how God works - he allows us to face our weaknesses head on - so that we can learn experientially the results of trying to fulfill a bestial need to be special. And certainly those who can see this weakness best - those most vulnerable to receiving a teaching or revelation regarding this weakness - are those who suffer from it the most.

The end will be that their seeking to fulfill their need to feel special by following a teaching or revelation that only those special enough to receive it, do, will blow up in their face, so that they might overcome.

As shared, the weakness I had to face and overcome was a need to prove myself a failure, and boy did I! And by fulfilling this, I was able to overcome and move on to a more advanced spiritual practicing.

May all be led to quickly face and overcome their own weaknesses. Amen.

Viv

Gatsby

September 16th 2009, 03:12 PM

Hi Gatsby-

I was talking to my mentor last night about the reasoning behind individuals' simple acceptance of something that is revealed to them via the spiritual realms. Believing beings, for example, that appear and tell you that your are a disciple incarnate, or that they have the truth for you alone that no one else has. That they selected you and you alone through which to reveal the truth to humanity. There are so many beings in the spiritual realms who actually do this! They appear to one or two of us and get us to believe somehow that we are special, that we are the ones through whom the truth will be revealed or perhaps that we are great souls who in the past incarnated as great men and women.

I too receive such visitations, that wanted to play on my specialness as being the only one who could hear, or being a special soul through which this revelation could be made, etc. But I thought it all a bunch of hogwash, because a messenger of Christ does not work in this way to feed into our desires to be special!

In his compassion he shared that these sort of folks are really hurting. They have very low self esteem and a great need to feel special. He then pointed out that this is a double edged sword - that some of us in our low self esteem have a need to be told that we are failures - trash, a need to doubt ourselves. And I had to say yes, that latter describes myself. I have the opposite need - and that is to not be special! So I am vulnerable to the 'accusers' who want me to think I am a failure, that I cannot do anything for God.

My mentor went on to share that we all have to work through both sides of this sword - and it can take many many lives!

I find it odd that those with the need to feel special are the ones most vulnerable to a revelation about the sin of needing to feel special! Just think of it. WIth ACIM only Helen and William were special enough to be channels for this teaching. Only Gary is special enough to receive angel visitors.

But then this is the mystery of how God works - he allows us to face our weaknesses head on - so that we can learn experientially the results of trying to fulfill a bestial need to be special. And certainly those who can see this weakness best - those most vulnerable to receiving a teaching or revelation regarding this weakness - are those who suffer from it the most.

The end will be that their seeking to fulfill their need to feel special by following a teaching or revelation that only those special enough to receive it, do, will blow up in their face, so that they might overcome.

As shared, the weakness I had to face and overcome was a need to prove myself a failure, and boy did I! And by fulfilling this, I was able to overcome and move on to a more advanced spiritual practicing.

May all be led to quickly face and overcome their own weaknesses. Amen.

Viv

Hi Viv, could well be the case. I cant say that I ever thought of it that way but it would make sense to me. Iam glad you were able to overcome your own weakenss and let me say you do not appear a failure in any way to me. I have much admiration for you and what you say.

We do all have failings though, that is true and is true of me also. Iam working on them that is all I will say.

Now it could just be that the 2 writers of the course, who, from what I recall did not get along well at all. Then suddenly they both had to get on with each other to recieve and write the channeled material, I think it took about 12 yrs or thereabout. Much time to put old contentious issues to bed and regain freindship. Most likely a karma thing, however it is not for us to know. All that can be said is that 'God works in mysterious way's, and even we dont know all the ways.

There aree indeed many 'spiritual writings' at this time which seem to start with words like, 'You who are reading this book are those who this book was written for' ie you are the chosen people to receive this new spiritual information. You will be as familar with these type of writings as Iam, yet that less discerning can become hooked quickly by these words alone and look upon these words as if they are indeed making them 'special' as opposed to others who are not privy to the same information. Iam not saying that books with these words in them cannot be spiritual books, but for the uninitiated it is a easy hook and one they can get very attatched to. There lies the danger.

Regards
Gatsby

OneSizeFit

September 16th 2009, 04:47 PM

Hi, looking at Psalms 82.8 Why would God judge the earth and how shall he possess all nations when He already created them. That seems like conundrum. God creates something and then judges it. Doesn't make sense, does it?

Of course we are Divine, all of us are. We are God's children so why could we not be divine. Or do you prefer to believe that we are al sinners and can never attain our Divine status once more? If the Bible says we are godlike Beings then it must be true must it not? Or else the people of the churches are talking the bits out of the Bible that they want to take or are told to, accept but basically they dont beleive it. I ask why not?

Regards
Gatsby

I see your points, and I believe lots of the nuances of Psalms (they are songs after all, poetry) were lost in translation over the years.

I have already been labeled a heretic over at the Orthodox section but I still have some fundamental beliefs about Christianity.

1. On your conundrum - God created us (and thus the nations) but he also gives us free will, now if we are a leader of a nation, we are held to a higher accountability (such as King David), and while God is mighty, loving, and merciful - God is also JUST - God is a judge, he will judge our actions. For instance, does Hitler deserve mercy, surely not, he will be judged, but he was also installed as a result of Germany's free will which is God given.

2. Yes we are divine, God literally breathed life into us (consciousness, thought, judgment, creativity & love) - but now we come to the fork in the road. WE ARE ALL SINNERS (from little white lies to adultery to genocide).

We just are and for whatever reason beyond our understanding, God cannot accept us as Divine on our own. Life is a test and through Jesus we are able to return to our source, and I am not speaking in vague theological terms, but from experience, if you really want to know God, repent, and ask him in Jesus' name to receive the Holy Spirit (I know it sounds corny, but if you want it he will give it to you and you will physically feel it). It is a gift from God. We just need to admit we cannot be reconciled by our own righteousness, spirituality, meditation, orthodox doctrinal beliefs or even good works.

I am not God and cannot judge, I do not even like worrying about the after life - but I know what I KNOW. God bless you truly.

Vivian

September 16th 2009, 06:52 PM

I see your points, and I believe lots of the nuances of Psalms (they are songs after all, poetry) were lost in translation over the years.

I have already been labeled a heretic over at the Orthodox section but I still have some fundamental beliefs about Christianity.

1. On your conundrum - God created us (and thus the nations) but he also gives us free will, now if we are a leader of a nation, we are held to a higher accountability (such as King David), and while God is mighty, loving, and merciful - God is also JUST - God is a judge, he will judge our actions. For instance, does Hitler deserve mercy, surely not, he will be judged, but he was also installed as a result of Germany's free will which is God given.

2. Yes we are divine, God literally breathed life into us (consciousness, thought, judgment, creativity & love) - but now we come to the fork in the road. WE ARE ALL SINNERS (from little white lies to adultery to genocide).

We just are and for whatever reason beyond our understanding, God cannot accept us as Divine on our own. Life is a test and through Jesus we are able to return to our source, and I am not speaking in vague theological terms, but from experience, if you really want to know God, repent, and ask him in Jesus' name to receive the Holy Spirit (I know it sounds corny, but if you want it he will give it to you and you will physically feel it). It is a gift from God. We just need to admit we cannot be reconciled by our own righteousness, spirituality, meditation, orthodox doctrinal beliefs or even good works.

I am not God and cannot judge, I do not even like worrying about the after life - but I know what I KNOW. God bless you truly.

Hi OneSizeFit!

If I might chime in...

The meaning of words has been lost through the ages, causing the interpretation of scripture to veer off into the negative and the material. We are warned to not get lost in the letter of scripture!

Take the term nations for example. Paul teaches that the enemy of God and of humanity is not something in the physical, but principalities and dominions of evil found in the lower heavens. And so while the OT uses imagery of nations in the physical, the true enemy is found in the spiritual, and it is these nations in the spiritual that God will defeat, these dominions and principalities, in order to free those being held in bondage.

And lets look at the words like judge. The nomadic peoples of Israel viewed God from a pagan perspective - a sometimes vengeful, angry God. But we know that God loves his enemies, and those he loves he disciplines. And so when we speak judging or defeating or punishing, it is a good thing! For it is freeing judgment, defeating, and punishing, it is all for freeing the captives - freeing those being held in bondage to sin by the dominions and principalities of evil - the true enemies of God,

So that, as Paul tells us, all that is in heaven and on earth can be made one in Christ. ALL - including those who are or that which is considered enemies!

And true, God will grant us what we desire. And if we desire to know God through Jesus, he will reveal himself through Jesus. The most important thing is making sure that we are holding to the First Commandment, that in all our seeking and longing we are seeking and longing for the Highest God, above which there is no other. Jesus continually pointed to something Higher than himself. And this Highest we might not understand, but if we seek anything less, the less is what we will receive.

A lesser can be of the dominions and principalities of evil.

Shalom.

Viv

OneSizeFit

September 16th 2009, 07:03 PM

Vivian

September 16th 2009, 07:17 PM

Hi Viv,
I totally agree, to add to your point (I hope) I think the Bible is divinely aspired, and to apply one layer of meaning to any part of, whether purely literal or purely spiritual is a snare in itself and severe limits the Holy Spirit in guiding our inspiration.
Amen! Great post !

2 Corinthians 3:6 (King James Version)

6Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.

Indeed, OneSizeFit (I have to share that I first typed OneLife, for that is what came to mind when reading your post!) -

All - physical and spiritual - is of God and is to be made one. Nothing is to be left out. And I think the meaning or one meaning of the letter killeth and the spirit giveth life is that when we look at things from a spiritual perspective, all is included - all that is in heaven and on earth, all that is physical and spiritual. The problem arises when we limit ourselves to the surface meaning, the literal - which in the case I was offering, the physical nations. Certainly behind these physical representations or manifestations, the spiritual verity will be found. But the spiritual is not limited to the physical imagery.

I heard something interesting the other day. When the Apostle John wrote about the whore of Babylon, the physical representation of the spiritual verity he was addressing would have been the whore of Rome, for the spiritual whore was then centered around the power center of Rome. But as a prisoner of Rome, John could not have very well dissed them. But those to whom he was writing understood the spiritual verity behind the physical imagery.

Shalom.

Viv

OneSizeFit

September 16th 2009, 07:22 PM

Word, multiple layers of meaning. Also, the Beast is supposedly Nero on the surface level, I guess an incarnation of the spiritual beast? Peace Peace.

UrbanMonk

September 17th 2009, 10:46 PM

Now, personally I would prefer to have a teacher who actually knows what he is talking about, who has experienced what he/she is talking about than someone who has dictated what a 'entity' regardless who the entity is, has channeled to them.

Hi Gatsby,
Imo, the ability to select the "right" teacher is a mark of wisdom, if not guidance from the Spirit of truth. I might add, the Spirit of truth puts student and teacher together. A challenging relationship can be a teacher-student-lesson opportunity. A smile can be a "lesson" from teacher to student. When it comes to selecting textual material, we will be matched with what we are ready for. We will dismiss whatever we are not ready for. It's possible we will dismiss valuable, authentic information is we are not ready and willing. And we will dismiss it for erroneous reasons.

The man/woman team behind the text we are talking about here are not the Teacher. So, you are judging whether or not you believe the Voice she heard represents One who has wisdom, knowledge or experience. In this case, the Teacher does make claim on experience, in fact, the ultimate experience. Could there be errors in the text as part of the transmission/editing process? Sure, why not. In this case, that is not an excuse of dismissing the Teacher who authors the text.

How does the student "know" that the teacher knows what he is talking about? If the student knew, would he need the "teacher"? And, does the student judge rightly who judges based on the "experience" of the teacher? What experiences does the student consider to be worthy of note? Is the student really in a position to judge what experiences mark wisdom/truth or not?

The reason for that perference is because channeled material, which can of course contain Truth cannot be gaurenteed to be pure and not be coloured by the mind of the channelers.

It's hard to color such statements as "There is no world". What "color" is added to this? Did the man/woman team believe this? Doubtfully. They just let the author say what the author wanted to say. Do you doubt this? Why?

You obviosuly resonate with this book, and that's fine. We all will find our own way to Truth eventually.

The book says we will all find our way to the Truth eventually...but not while we maintain psychological blocks in our way of thinking.

Regarding Self, we are taking about the same Self the Real Self within us not any mortal self. I think you may have got a bit confused on that point.

Self is the full awareness of our divine nature. What goes back and forth between expanded awareness and narrow awareness is not our true "self". Fully aware, our Self has no need for, nor any interest in limitations or anything that would make it unique or different.

Gatsby

September 18th 2009, 02:16 PM

Hi Gatsby,
Imo, the ability to select the "right" teacher is a mark of wisdom, if not guidance from the Spirit of truth. I might add, the Spirit of truth puts student and teacher together. A challenging relationship can be a teacher-student-lesson opportunity. A smile can be a "lesson" from teacher to student. When it comes to selecting textual material, we will be matched with what we are ready for. We will dismiss whatever we are not ready for. It's possible we will dismiss valuable, authentic information is we are not ready and willing. And we will dismiss it for erroneous reasons.

YES URBAN MONK i AGREE WITH MUCH OF WHAT YOU SAY HERE. THE OLD SAYING THAT WHEN THE STUDENT IS READY THE TEACHER WILL APPEAR, IS A TRUISM. i DONT SUBSCRIBE TO THIS BEING A ACT OF WISDOM, MORE A CASE OF FOLLOWING YOUR INNER GUIDANCE, WHICH i SUPPOSE COULD BE DEEMED A ACT OF WISDOM, SO YES i AGREE WITH YOU.

The man/woman team behind the text we are talking about here are not the Teacher. So, you are judging whether or not you believe the Voice she heard represents One who has wisdom, knowledge or experience. In this case, the Teacher does make claim on experience, in fact, the ultimate experience. Could there be errors in the text as part of the transmission/editing process? Sure, why not. In this case, that is not an excuse of dismissing the Teacher who authors the text.

PROBABLY A BIT OF BOTH i WOULD SAY. i DONT RECALL THE CLAIM OF EXPERIENCE, BUT AS I HAVE SAID TO YOU BEFORE, I DIDN'T READ ALL THE BOOK. iF YOU CAN TELL ME WHAT PAGE THAT IS ON OR CHAPTER I SHALL LOOK UP THE WEB AND FIND THE TEXT AND READ IT AND LET YOU KNOW WHAT I THINK. I CERTAINLY WAS NOT IMPRESSED WITH WHAT I DID READ AS I HAVE SAID TO YOU BEFORE. AND YES, I COULD UNDERSTAND IT, IT WAS MORE A CASE OF REPEATING AND REPEATING THE SAME THING PAGE AFTER PAGE. IT WAS BORING AND NOT IN THE LEAST INSPIRING. THAT IS MY OPINION ONLY OF COURSE, I AM WELL AWARE THAT THERE ARE DEVOTEES OUT THERE WHO THINK IT IS THE GREATEST THING SINCE SLICED BREAD. JUST NOT FOR ME, THAT'S ALL.

How does the student "know" that the teacher knows what he is talking about? If the student knew, would he need the "teacher"? And, does the student judge rightly who judges based on the "experience" of the teacher? What experiences does the student consider to be worthy of note? Is the student really in a position to judge what experiences mark wisdom/truth or not?

I THINK YOU ARE WELL AWARE THAT THE STUDENTS OWN INNER GUIDANCE, INTUITION IN OTHER WORDS WILL CAUSE THE STUDENT TO RESONATE WITH WHAT THE TEACHER IS SAYING, EITHER THE TEACHERS OWN EXPERIENCE OR A WRITTEN TEXT. YOU JUST KNOW WITHOUT KNOWING HOW YOU KNOW, THAT IS INTUITION AND IT IS NEVER WRONG.

It's hard to color such statements as "There is no world". What "color" is added to this? Did the man/woman team believe this? Doubtfully. They just let the author say what the author wanted to say. Do you doubt this? Why?

YES, I DOUBT IT AND YET AT THE SAME TIME I DONT WANT TO JUDGE THE 2 PEOPLE CONCERNED WITH WRITING THIS COURSE. IAM SURE THAT IN ALL GOOD FAITH THEY WOULD THINK THAT THEY HAD WRITTEN WHAT WAS PASSED TO THEM AND POSSIBLY THAT HAVE, HOWEVER IT IS HIGHLY LIKELY THAT SOME OF WHAT WAS WRITTEN HAS HAD THEIR OWN SLANT ON THE WRITINGS AS IT COMES THROUGH THE CONSCIOUS MIND. THIS IS SOMETHING THAT HAPPENES TO MANY CHANNELED MATERIAL SO IT IS NOT ABOUT THEM, IT IS ABOUT CAUTIONING THE STUDENT TO USE DISCERNMENT, ESPECIALLY IF THE STUDENT DOES NOT RELY ON HIS OR HER INTUITION. HAVING THEIR OWN SLANT ON THINGS IS COLOURING THEM WITH YOUR OWN IMAGINATION OR CONSCIOUSNESS WHICH CAN BE IS HIGHLY INVENTIVE.

ALSO TO SAY 'THERE IS NO WORLD' SHOWS A LACK OF SPIRITUAL KNOWLEDGE EVEN THOUGH THERE IS KNOWLEDGE NOW THAT THIS OUTER WORLD IS ILLUSIONARY IN IT'S NATURE. THERE ARE MANY WORLDS THEREFORE TO SAY THERE IS NO WORLD IS WRONG, PLAIN AND SIMPLE.

The book says we will all find our way to the Truth eventually...but not while we maintain psychological blocks in our way of thinking.

I HAVE ALREADY SAID THAT SEVERAL TIMES BEFORE. TELL ME SOMETHING NEW!!

Self is the full awareness of our divine nature. What goes back and forth between expanded awareness and narrow awareness is not our true "self". Fully aware, our Self has no need for, nor any interest in limitations or anything that would make it unique or different.

YOU ARE CORRECT IN YOUR FIRST SENTENCE HERE. WHAT YOU SAY AFTER THIS SHOWS A LACK OF SPIRITUAL KNOWLEDGE. WHY? BECAUSE ONCE ONE IS SELF AWARE, KNOWING OUR DIVINE NATURE AS YOU SAY BUT ALSO ACTING FROM OUR DIVINE NATURE WHICH YOU DONT SAY. ONE WE ARE AT THAT STAGE, ALL LIMITATION FALLS AWAY, IT IS NOT A CASE THAT WE HAVE NO INTEREST IN LIMITATION. IT IS ONLY OUR BELIEFS OF THE MORTAL MIND THAT BRING ABOUT LIMITATIONS. IT HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH BEING UNIQUE OR SPECIAL, SOMETHING THAT YOU DONT SEEM TO UNDERSTAND OR REALISE. I SAY THAT BECAUSE IT IS YOU WHO ARE PRIMARLY BRINING INTO EVERY REPLY SOMETHING ABOUT BEING UNIQUE OR SPECIAL. ALSO ONCE ONE HAS REACHED THAT STAGE OF DEVELOPEMENT, BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT IT IS, OUR GOING HOME, WE WALK A PATH AND ALL THAT, ANYWAY, THE INTEREST IN SPIRITUAL MATTERS AND SEEKING COMES TO A END. AFTER ALL YOU HAVE REACHED THE GOAL YOU ATTAINED TO.

Regards
Gatsby

Gatsby

September 18th 2009, 04:54 PM

Gatsby

September 18th 2009, 05:02 PM

Urban Monk I wanted to just write this on intuition. It is from the back cover of a book entitled Intuition Initiation by White Eagle, channeled by the late Grace Cook.

'At one level, intuition is a sixth sense. At another, it is the 'I' or the divinity within which knows everything. If the Divinity within is sufficiently developed, it is all-conscious and knows all things.
At this stage, the whole body (not the physical only, but the higher bodies too) is registering, and you can see from any part. Indeed, the whole being sees. In this respect, the sixth sense dispenses with all the other senses'

Regards
Gatsby

Gatsby

September 19th 2009, 09:20 AM

Word, multiple layers of meaning. Also, the Beast is supposedly Nero on the surface level, I guess an incarnation of the spiritual beast? Peace Peace.

Hi One Size Fit, the beast is what we now call commonly T.V. I has now usurped many things in the world and caused a crystalisation of thought among all peoples. When you realise that the majority of the people in the world sit and watch TV every day, it shows you the power it has or I should maybe put it a different way and say that it shows how much of our power we have given away to it. The internet is also the beast growing if you follow me, this too takes up much of our time nowadays as the ordinary person has access, like we do now and when we understand that everything is vibration, higher or lower we can see what this could do to us. It can have both a negative and positive influence if we let it.

Regards
Gatsby

Vivian

September 19th 2009, 12:17 PM

Hi One Size Fit, the beast is what we now call commonly T.V. I has now usurped many things in the world and caused a crystalisation of thought among all peoples. When you realise that the majority of the people in the world sit and watch TV every day, it shows you the power it has or I should maybe put it a different way and say that it shows how much of our power we have given away to it. The internet is also the beast growing if you follow me, this too takes up much of our time nowadays as the ordinary person has access, like we do now and when we understand that everything is vibration, higher or lower we can see what this could do to us. It can have both a negative and positive influence if we let it.

Regards
Gatsby

Hi Gatsby!

Certainly the 'beast' can express itself through multiple means in this world, the beast is our lower self - the bestial self that is self-cherishing, that has desires and aversions for this world, and seeks predominately to fulfill its own desires and avoid that which it does not like.

It is called the beast because it is the lower level animal consciousness - that which drives the 'beasts' of the field, or the non-human animals in this world.

The Course calls the beast, or this self-sherishing, the desire to be special, but it is so much more than that. It is the 'I' that drives and compels us through life.

It is this 'I' that must be overcome. There is another "I" within us. The "I" that does seek the things of God. And all of us have this "I" peeking through at one time or another. The choice is which "I" we will follow.

And certainly the bestial "I" can seek things spiritually, and in doing so will invoke the archons or the gods of ignorance that mostly control these realms and their religious revelations.

Hence we must always seek the The First Commanment, the Highest, the True Light, that from which all things come.

"I make the Light and create the darkness." Isaiah 45.

Shalom.

Viv

Gatsby

September 19th 2009, 02:16 PM

Hi Gatsby!

Certainly the 'beast' can express itself through multiple means in this world, the beast is our lower self - the bestial self that is self-cherishing, that has desires and aversions for this world, and seeks predominately to fulfill its own desires and avoid that which it does not like.

It is called the beast because it is the lower level animal consciousness - that which drives the 'beasts' of the field, or the non-human animals in this world.

The Course calls the beast, or this self-sherishing, the desire to be special, but it is so much more than that. It is the 'I' that drives and compels us through life.

It is this 'I' that must be overcome. There is another "I" within us. The "I" that does seek the things of God. And all of us have this "I" peeking through at one time or another. The choice is which "I" we will follow.

And certainly the bestial "I" can seek things spiritually, and in doing so will invoke the archons or the gods of ignorance that mostly control these realms and their religious revelations.

Hence we must always seek the The First Commanment, the Highest, the True Light, that from which all things come.

"I make the Light and create the darkness." Isaiah 45.

Shalom.

Viv

Hi Viv, yes I know this lower self is the beast too.[I]am talking about the beast that rears it's head. Chapter and verse I dont remember which is the same thing, the same small I. What it makes is usually a self agranditising of itself (sp). Hence we have the beast that is the tv that carries waves of negative energy which is mopped up by those who have still got animalistic tendencies. We only need to look at most of what is on tv now to know it's appeal is to the lowest common denominator and therefore it is the beast in that sense. Also it can educate people, this is a positive trait yet people prefer to be 'entertained' and pick up negative news reports from all over the world and this is the food that is eaten and becomes toxic within and then in the outer realm.

Yes, the I Am of the higher self is the real Self without any flaw in it and the small I that we name ourselves by is the lower self or the term we use because actually if all people were aware they would be calling out God's name many times a day. If only they knew!!

Regards
Gatsby

Vivian

September 21st 2009, 01:50 AM

Hi Viv, yes I know this lower self is the beast too.[i]am talking about the beast that rears it's head. Chapter and verse I dont remember which is the same thing, the same small I. What it makes is usually a self agranditising of itself (sp). Hence we have the beast that is the tv that carries waves of negative energy which is mopped up by those who have still got animalistic tendencies. We only need to look at most of what is on tv now to know it's appeal is to the lowest common denominator and therefore it is the beast in that sense. Also it can educate people, this is a positive trait yet people prefer to be 'entertained' and pick up negative news reports from all over the world and this is the food that is eaten and becomes toxic within and then in the outer realm.

Yes, the I Am of the higher self is the real Self without any flaw in it and the small I that we name ourselves by is the lower self or the term we use because actually if all people were aware they would be calling out God's name many times a day. If only they knew!!

Regards
Gatsby

Indeed.

Anywhere in this world we look we can see the forces of darkness or ignorance at work as well as the forces of goodness. Usually within anyone or anything, it is an admixture. And our job is to seek the good and discern the not-good.

There is much humanity is not yet ready for, so being kind and compassionate to one another is a good place to rest. Just being true to the highest that we know.

Anytime we think we have figured it all out - we are in delusion!

Shalom and blessings to all.

Viv

Gatsby

September 21st 2009, 06:02 AM

Indeed.

Anywhere in this world we look we can see the forces of darkness or ignorance at work as well as the forces of goodness. Usually within anyone or anything, it is an admixture. And our job is to seek the good and discern the not-good.

There is much humanity is not yet ready for, so being kind and compassionate to one another is a good place to rest. Just being true to the highest that we know.

Anytime we think we have figured it all out - we are in delusion!

Shalom and blessings to all.

Viv

Yes of course compassion must come into this. It is a observation Iam making only. We must discern the wheat from the chaff and in so doing we eliminate the false, the not real and fall in line with the REAL and embrace the REAL alone.

I dont believe that we stop learning, I believe that we go on learning ad finitum and yet, when we connect with our soul self, the higher self, we do litteraly know everything because it already knows all there is to know. Howevere consciousness is ever expanding the God Self is ever expanding and it is evolving all the time, hence, we continue to lean, all the time.

Regards
Gatsby

Vivian

September 21st 2009, 11:54 AM

Yes of course compassion must come into this. It is a observation Iam making only. We must discern the wheat from the chaff and in so doing we eliminate the false, the not real and fall in line with the REAL and embrace the REAL alone.

I dont believe that we stop learning, I believe that we go on learning ad finitum and yet, when we connect with our soul self, the higher self, we do litteraly know everything because it already knows all there is to know. Howevere consciousness is ever expanding the God Self is ever expanding and it is evolving all the time, hence, we continue to lean, all the time.

Regards
Gatsby

Indeed God self is forever expanding! I am awakening to new insights on this every day!

Have you ever read Pistis Sophia? I am presently reading it, and it kind of brings the Old Testament into greater light in revealing how in creation, Light awakens in matter - the process of Light awakening in matter. And this is the miracle of creation, when even Light clothed in matter can become a son of God!

As I have been reading it, I thought about ACIM and how such understanding, which is interwoven throughout the Old Testament, is mostly absent. Pistis Sophia though brings greater understanding to the mysery of repentance and what is being expressed in the Psalms and other songs and prayers of the OT.

Shalom!

Viv

Gatsby

September 22nd 2009, 08:59 AM

Vivian

September 22nd 2009, 02:10 PM

Hi Viv, I love it when insights just seem to 'appear' and greater understanding comes forth.

I have not read Pistis Sophia, although the name rings a bell with me for some reason. I will certainly look it up on the web and read what is available. Thanks. Iam sure it will be interesting.

Regards
Gatsby

Hi Gatsby!

I do not believe any writing or tradition in this world has things exactly right, for what has transpired cannot be explained in human language. Human language though can point to the events leading the souls of humanity to the here and now as it points to Truth.

Right now what I am learning blows wide open the Old Testament, bringing all that is recorded there into understanding and wisdom. With Pistis Sophia, I am learning that this world began formless - just a bunch of 'matter' without form. Some say it was the 'refuge' or leftovers from the Enlightenment of another Universe. And this formless sludge has evolved into the life that we see before us - human beings, animals, plants, rocks, water, air, etc - all things having a spiritual essense behind them and sparks of Light buried deep within.

Our story is about these sparks of Light awakening in the darkness and being fully Enlightened, Saved, Liberated, as sons of God, or of the Highest Light! And so we are indeed one - a collective of sparks trapped in matter, evolving into greater and greater consciousness until we are able to seek and find God or our Soure, our Creator, with individual self- awareness. Now this may not resonate with others, for of course this is only one attempt in human language to explain something that cannot be explained in human language.

And so when ACIM says we are all one - indeed we are! We are all the One Light, or as Pistis Sophia puts it, the Treasury of Light - which I have learned is called YHWH in the Old Testament - who released sparks of itself to be buried in matter.

Light awakening to itself in matter, thus redeeming the matter!

Hallelu-Yah!

Viv

Gatsby

September 24th 2009, 08:38 AM

Hi Gatsby!

I do not believe any writing or tradition in this world has things exactly right, for what has transpired cannot be explained in human language. Human language though can point to the events leading the souls of humanity to the here and now as it points to Truth.

Right now what I am learning blows wide open the Old Testament, bringing all that is recorded there into understanding and wisdom. With Pistis Sophia, I am learning that this world began formless - just a bunch of 'matter' without form. Some say it was the 'refuge' or leftovers from the Enlightenment of another Universe. And this formless sludge has evolved into the life that we see before us - human beings, animals, plants, rocks, water, air, etc - all things having a spiritual essense behind them and sparks of Light buried deep within.

Our story is about these sparks of Light awakening in the darkness and being fully Enlightened, Saved, Liberated, as sons of God, or of the Highest Light! And so we are indeed one - a collective of sparks trapped in matter, evolving into greater and greater consciousness until we are able to seek and find God or our Soure, our Creator, with individual self- awareness. Now this may not resonate with others, for of course this is only one attempt in human language to explain something that cannot be explained in human language.

And so when ACIM says we are all one - indeed we are! We are all the One Light, or as Pistis Sophia puts it, the Treasury of Light - which I have learned is called YHWH in the Old Testament - who released sparks of itself to be buried in matter.

Light awakening to itself in matter, thus redeeming the matter!

Hallelu-Yah!

Viv

Hi Viv, I usually resonate with what you write but on this occasion Iam slightly puzzled.

I know many like to say we are 'sparks' of the Creator and yet it is not something I say myself. Even Dr Mac has used that term at times I think, if memory serves me right. However your last sentence is what puzzles me most, maybe you can explain it for me, and yes, I do acknowledge that it is difficult to try and put spiritual truths into our common language but if you can try for me. The puzzle is when you say that the 'Light awakening to itself in matter, this redeeming the matter'. I dont understand what this means. How can matter be redeemed and why would matter be redeemed when matter has no power of it's own. When all is Mind and mind stuff what needs redeeming?

I took a look at the Pitsis Sophia on the net, there is much to read there so there is no way I can comment on that just now, but interesting, yes ideed.

Regards
Gatsby

Vivian

September 24th 2009, 05:18 PM

Hi Viv, I usually resonate with what you write but on this occasion Iam slightly puzzled.

I know many like to say we are 'sparks' of the Creator and yet it is not something I say myself. Even Dr Mac has used that term at times I think, if memory serves me right. However your last sentence is what puzzles me most, maybe you can explain it for me, and yes, I do acknowledge that it is difficult to try and put spiritual truths into our common language but if you can try for me. The puzzle is when you say that the 'Light awakening to itself in matter, this redeeming the matter'. I dont understand what this means. How can matter be redeemed and why would matter be redeemed when matter has no power of it's own. When all is Mind and mind stuff what needs redeeming?

I took a look at the Pitsis Sophia on the net, there is much to read there so there is no way I can comment on that just now, but interesting, yes ideed.

Regards
Gatsby

Hi Gatsby!

I am not very familiar with Dr. Mac and so do not know how he presents such things, but let me give this a try in a common language.

Certainly we can say the only thing that is REAL is something we can call MIND or Ain Sof, or the Source of all things, or the Ultimate Intelligence, or Clear Light, or True Light (every tradition uses a different name to describe the Highest). But even you have agreed that there is purpose in creation, in multiplicity.

The One became Many.

Yes?

The One becomes many by sending out sparks of itself who clothe themselves in form, degrees of form - from Brilliant Light, to White Light, to Rainbow Light, to vital bodies, mental bodies, astral bodies, and eventually physical bodies. All are clothing the sparks don.

Pistis Sophia and other writings describe the process of creation similar to the tale of the prodigal son, where sparks of Light go out into the outer darkness, becoming clothed in form and having to awaken in form and find their way back to the Source.

This happened at the Brilliant Light level, the White Light level, and the Rainbow Light level. And as above so below, yes? So this also must happen at the vital, mental, astral and physical levels. Do you agree?

When sparks of Light awaken at these differing levels, the process of evolution is an evolution of consciousness that goes hand in hand with the evolution of the 'form material' in which the spark awakens. We certainly can see that this has happened at this level, at the physical level.

And it is the spark along with the developing consciousness and the form the developing c'ness clothes itself in that is held captive by the forces of darkness that naturally occur at that level of creation. We are given a seed as imagery. There is something 'trapped' in a seed, behind the husk of the shell. And when the seed awakens it is able to transform the matter it finds itself in into a body in which it can function in that realm or world. This process is the same with the redeeming of the spark - for it is also the redeeming of the material of the world in which the spark awakened, so that that material is than joined with Kingdom - the Kingdom then extends out into the outer darkness.

So when a spark of Light is liberated through the awakening and liberation of the consciousness housing the spark of Light, all the form clothing the spark is also liberated, for all then 'enters into the Kingdom' - the Kingdom of Heaven then stretching out into the worlds of matter.

Now one might have a different lingo, and say that the spark of Light alone is redeemed. But I would also say that all form clothing the spark of Light is also redeemed in the process.

Perhaps we are simply using terms in a different way.

Shalom.

Viv

Gatsby

September 25th 2009, 06:38 AM

[QUOTE=Vivian;2787318]Hi Gatsby!

I am not very familiar with Dr. Mac and so do not know how he presents such things, but let me give this a try in a common language.

Thanks Viv, yes, Dr Mac also states it is difficult to present Truth in our common language and I recognise that only too well, so thanks for putting it in a different way for me which I understand.

Let me say re Dr Mac's writings that he states, categoricaly that God creates form and becomes the form that He makes. Hence we house within us God as you know yourself.

Certainly we can say the only thing that is REAL is something we can call MIND or Ain Sof, or the Source of all things, or the Ultimate Intelligence, or Clear Light, or True Light (every tradition uses a different name to describe the Highest). But even you have agreed that there is purpose in creation, in multiplicity.

The One became Many.

Yes?

Yes, most certainly I agree with you.

The One becomes many by sending out sparks of itself who clothe themselves in form, degrees of form - from Brilliant Light, to White Light, to Rainbow Light, to vital bodies, mental bodies, astral bodies, and eventually physical bodies. All are clothing the sparks don.

Yes, I accept this. We are in fact Light, this is our reality. Although it is necessary that we come here with the Light veiled. Many teachers tell us that if this were not the case we wouldn't come here, but we have purpose as you have rightly said.

Pistis Sophia and other writings describe the process of creation similar to the tale of the prodigal son, where sparks of Light go out into the outer darkness, becoming clothed in form and having to awaken in form and find their way back to the Source.

I dont have enough room here to insert what Dr Mac has taught about Creation Itself.

This happened at the Brilliant Light level, the White Light level, and the Rainbow Light level. And as above so below, yes? So this also must happen at the vital, mental, astral and physical levels. Do you agree?

Most certainly I agree. There are many mansions in my Father's house is reference to the different levels of Creation and of course what starts at the top, you could say, most certainly filters down to the depths. That is just terminology you understand when I say depths.

When sparks of Light awaken at these differing levels, the process of evolution is an evolution of consciousness that goes hand in hand with the evolution of the 'form material' in which the spark awakens. We certainly can see that this has happened at this level, at the physical level.

Yes, these sparks are consciousness Itself but asleep at first to the knowledge of the Oneness of the Creator and with the Creaotr.

And it is the spark along with the developing consciousness and the form the developing c'ness clothes itself in that is held captive by the forces of darkness that naturally occur at that level of creation. We are given a seed as imagery. There is something 'trapped' in a seed, behind the husk of the shell. And when the seed awakens it is able to transform the matter it finds itself in into a body in which it can function in that realm or world. This process is the same with the redeeming of the spark - for it is also the redeeming of the material of the world in which the spark awakened, so that that material is than joined with Kingdom - the Kingdom then extends out into the outer darkness.

I can understand this Viv and yet, the form itself has no power except for the power we give it. We are to realise this fact and understand through our awakening that we are not the body, the body as you say are mere clothes which Spirit clothes itself in this level of reality. But, yes, I can agree with what your saying.

So when a spark of Light is liberated through the awakening and liberation of the consciousness housing the spark of