The dirty little secret about how the Son of God "became flesh"

[UrbanMonk]

This has got to be the best kept secret of all orthodoxy. The book of John just says, he "became flesh". Either he did not understand how, or he was hiding something. The "virgin birth" is another layer of secrecy. The truth is that the Son of God became flesh...the same way we all become flesh (incarnate)...through the imagination of the "prodigal son". In other words, the truth about Jesus is the truth about us all. This is important to understand if we would be saved.

[Metacrock]

This has got to be the best kept secret of all orthodoxy. The book of John just says, he "became flesh". Either he did not understand how, or he was hiding something. The "virgin birth" is another layer of secrecy. The truth is that the Son of God became flesh...the same way we all become flesh (incarnate)...through the imagination of the "prodigal son". In other words, the truth about Jesus is the truth about us all. This is important to understand if we would be saved.

what in the heck are you babeling about? That phrase means he was born as a man. It doesn't mean anything secret, sexy or conotative. Learn some Greek!

<i>skeouodomin</i>: Pitched his tent. the Greeks thought of the body as a tent for the mind.

[headheart]

what in the heck are you babeling about? That phrase means he was born as a man. It doesn't mean anything secret, sexy or conotative. Learn some Greek!

skeouodomin : Pitched his tent. the Greeks thought of the body as a tent for the mind.

68024

Awarded for taking out the Campus Garbage!

[mossrose]

I've seen that image twice now, and it has disgusted me both times.

[headheart]

I've seen that image twice now, and it has disgusted me both times.

You can delete it if you want, but make sure it stays attatched to this thread. :flowers:

[UrbanMonk]

what in the heck are you babeling about? That phrase means he was born as a man. It doesn't mean anything secret, sexy or conotative. Learn some Greek!

<i>skeouodomin</i>: Pitched his tent. the Greeks thought of the body as a tent for the mind.

Little kids think storks bring their baby brothers and sisters. The orthodoxy has about as much comprehension of how the Son of God became flesh ( a man) as kids. Maybe it's not because they are keeping a secret. Maybe they just don't know or care. I'm saying that the "battle" is not with flesh and blood (orthodoxy) it's more about the "prince of the air" so-to-speak. It's the "collective subconsious". It's the one thing a dark world cannot afford to know. The truth about Jesus is the truth about everyone in the world. This is what the orthodoxy cannot afford to let loose. It means that as separate minds we are all the collective prodigal son. It means that as one, we are the Son of God. It means that none of us are truly guilt of anything. It means in truth, we are sinless. It means we don't have to buy salvation. It only means we can accept salvation by accepting the truth about who/what we are.

That's great that the Greeks thought that. But actually, the body is a prison for the mind. And through THE TRUTH, we will set ourselves free as we forgive ourselves for what we think we've done as the "prodigal son".

[UrbanMonk]

Awarded for taking out the Campus Garbage!

If you intend to make Jesus different from us, then you effectively blow up the bridge providing your escape from hell. There is no way you can be saved unless it's also true that you are the Son of God, just as he was really the Son of God. How was Jesus saved? He understood that the "prodigal son" and all his deeds, was not the truth. Therefore, he was not guilty and was free to go home...as the Son of God. This truth applies to each and every one of us. This truth unites us under a single identity. To be saved, we must "confess" that this identity is our own. Otherwise, if we "deny" it, we will be denied access to heaven. Why? Because only the Son of God goes to heaven. Flesh and blood does not inherit the Kingdom of God.

[headheart]

Dear Urban Monk,

You wrote...


"The dirty little secret about how the Son of God "became flesh""

This has got to be the best kept secret of all orthodoxy. The book of John just says, he "became flesh". Either he did not understand how, or he was hiding something.


It would almost seem as if John were somehow on another frequency, ignoring the detailed accounts of Matthew, Mark and Luke. Maybe he old and fragile from all that time on the Isle of Patmos. Or, perhaps the vision had given him new light. Or, maybe he was addressing his account to a very different world, after being released from Patmos ? ( Sacred Scripture, Church Tradition, Church History and Secular History should help you to get to the bottom of that mystery. :wink: ) - Or, perhaps he had sun-stroke ?

The "virgin birth" is another layer of secrecy.

The declaration of the mystery: Matthew 1:18-25 , Mark 1:1-3 , Luke 1:26-38

The truth is that the Son of God became flesh...the same way we all become flesh (incarnate)...through the imagination of the "prodigal son".

I have read some ideas by the Mormons, about how we are spirit babies that enter at birth, however one has to be careful to confuse 'the new birth', with the unique birth of Jesus.
John 1:12-13 and John 1:18

In other words, the truth about Jesus is the truth about us all. This is important to understand if we would be saved.

The truth is that Jesus is the Lamb of God. John 1:29

The Trinity, The Incarnation and the Atonement are very mysterious, who can fully grasp them ?


If you intend to make Jesus different from us, then you effectively blow up the bridge providing your escape from hell. There is no way you can be saved unless it's also true that you are the Son of God, just as he was really the Son of God.


This may be something you learned from all your reading of various Gnostic writings (Or, related information assimilated from you time at the Jesus Seminar etc. ) and as a result you can have these fantastic ideas, but there has and will only ever be one, unique Son of God.

How was Jesus saved? He understood that the "prodigal son" and all his deeds, was not the truth. Therefore, he was not guilty and was free to go home...as the Son of God. This truth applies to each and every one of us. This truth unites us under a single identity.

Hebrews 5:7-14


To be saved, we must "confess" that this identity is our own. Otherwise, if we "deny" it, we will be denied access to heaven. Why? Because only the Son of God goes to heaven. Flesh and blood does not inherit the Kingdom of God.

2 Corinthians 5:17:19 & 1 John 3:1-3

Sincerely,
HH.

[John Goddard]

This has got to be the best kept secret of all orthodoxy. The book of John just says, he "became flesh". Either he did not understand how, or he was hiding something. The "virgin birth" is another layer of secrecy. The truth is that the Son of God became flesh...the same way we all become flesh (incarnate)...through the imagination of the "prodigal son". In other words, the truth about Jesus is the truth about us all. This is important to understand if we would be saved.

John doesn't say the Son of God became flesh, he says God's Word was made flesh.

John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

God's Word was made flesh through the body of Jesus, who was Son of God led by the Spirit to speak God's Word after his baptism.

Matthew 3:16-4:1, 4:17 And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him: And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil...From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.

Romans 8:14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.

Which means God's Word came from the mouth of a human prophet and thus was made flesh, not from out of the clouds or a burning bush.

Exodus 4:15-16 And thou shalt speak unto him, and put words in his mouth: and I will be with thy mouth, and with his mouth, and will teach you what ye shall do. And he shall be thy spokesman unto the people: and he shall be, even he shall be to thee instead of a mouth, and thou shalt be to him instead of God.

Nothing more mysterious than that.

[headheart]

This thread is destined for U.T. :smile:

Sincerely,
HH

[UrbanMonk]

John doesn't say the Son of God became flesh, he says God's Word was made flesh.

Get real. Stop quibbling. Your exegetical skills are pathetic. Use whatever poetry or metaphor you want, he's talking about the Son of God. If he's talking about a book, he's an idiot.

John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

The Son of God was given the "glory of God"...before the foundation of the world. Flesh falls way short of the glory of God. So John is probably talking about how Jesus demonstrated an enlightened, wonderful, joyful, fearless personality. These are indicators...but they are not the full "glory" of the Son of God.

God's Word was made flesh through the body of Jesus,

Be as ignorant as you wish. Words are not of God because that is not how God communicates with his Son. Words are the domain of the prodigal Son who uses them to block communication, and to maintain it's own world. The Son of God is the World of God...quite literally the Kingdom of God. Through the prodigal Son, the World of God is transformed from Spirit to "flesh". Flesh, then, is the dominion of the prodigal Son, and makes up its world - in competition with the World of God.

who was Son of God led by the Spirit to speak God's Word after his baptism.

See, I told you he was talking about the descension of the Son of God...which is the World of God...NOT the "word" of God. Words are not natural to God. They are antithetical to God because they block true communication (communion). The HOly Spirit is the Savior who bridges this communication gap, and uses everything in the domain of the prodigal Son to bring him home. Words, when used by the Holy Spirit, become the "word of God". They tell us of, well, God! Otherwise, words don't really tell us anything. Jesus spoke as he heard the Holy Spirit speak...through him. You, John Goddard, have not reached that stage yet.

Matthew 3:16-4:1, 4:17 And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him: And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

Baptism reveals the Son of God. If you are truly baptised in the name of the Son of God...it will be revealed that YOU are the Son of God as well. But you, John Goddard, have yet to be truly baptized, because you cherish the flesh more than Spirit. Baptism washes away the flesh to reveal the Son of God. Jesus baptism was to teach a lesson, and set an example for the rest to follow. If you deny you are the Son of God...you have not even begun to be baptized.

Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil...From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.

Are you asking me to interpret these things for you? We will all be tempted to deny we are the Son of God. Baptism is about overcoming those temptations. Our "kingdom" is not of this world, which is a "desert".

Romans 8:14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.[/I]

We are the Son of God whether we are led by the Spirit or not. For that is the truth. Only, when we allow ourselves to be led by the Holy Spirit, we come to understand that we are the Son of God. That is what baptism is all about. We are washed by the words/guidance of the "Spirit of truth". The truth is, we are the Son of God.

Which means God's Word came from the mouth of a human prophet and thus was made flesh, not from out of the clouds or a burning bush.

This sentence makes no sense whatsoever, and does not follow. You are fond of building upon false premises, just as the prodigal Son builds on false premises. I told you, the prodigal Son is intent on turning God's World into his own little world of flesh and blood. Jesus exposed this, and renounced it. And overcoming temptation, ascended back to where he came from...back to his former "glory" as the Son of God. We will follow his example or we will resist following his example. That's all that's really going on in the world of the prodigal Son.

Exodus 4:15-16 And thou shalt speak unto him, and put words in his mouth: and I will be with thy mouth, and with his mouth, and will teach you what ye shall do. And he shall be thy spokesman unto the people: and he shall be, even he shall be to thee instead of a mouth, and thou shalt be to him instead of God.

I prefer the gospel of Thomas over Exodus:

108. Jesus said, "Whoever drinks from my mouth will become like me; I myself shall become that person, and the hidden things will be revealed to him."

Nothing more mysterious than that.

[Metacrock]

Little kids think storks bring their baby brothers and sisters. The orthodoxy has about as much comprehension of how the Son of God became flesh ( a man) as kids. Maybe it's not because they are keeping a secret. Maybe they just don't know or care. I'm saying that the "battle" is not with flesh and blood (orthodoxy) it's more about the "prince of the air" so-to-speak. It's the "collective subconsious". It's the one thing a dark world cannot afford to know. The truth about Jesus is the truth about everyone in the world. This is what the orthodoxy cannot afford to let loose. It means that as separate minds we are all the collective prodigal son. It means that as one, we are the Son of God. It means that none of us are truly guilt of anything. It means in truth, we are sinless. It means we don't have to buy salvation. It only means we can accept salvation by accepting the truth about who/what we are.

That's great that the Greeks thought that. But actually, the body is a prison for the mind. And through THE TRUTH, we will set ourselves free as we forgive ourselves for what we think we've done as the "prodigal son".

so you seem to be saying that Christ is manifest in the flesh by being in us as believers? Then you are denying that he was flesh in Jesus of Nazareth?

[Metacrock]

Get real. Stop quibbling. Your exegetical skills are pathetic. Use whatever poetry or metaphor you want, he's talking about the Son of God. If he's talking about a book, he's an idiot.

"son of God" is an epithet for Messiah. The son of God was the word of God. that is all tied together in the prologue to John.

I don't know how you can be gnostic. Do I have that right? I'm not trying to make fun of you I'm trying ask what you believe?



The Son of God was given the "glory of God"...before the foundation of the world. Flesh falls way short of the glory of God. So John is probably talking about how Jesus demonstrated an enlightened, wonderful, joyful, fearless personality. These are indicators...but they are not the full "glory" of the Son of God.


Paul says Jesus gave up teh glory of God to become flesh, to "take the form of a servant" "He counted not equality with God a thing to be grasped."

I see you are on a some sort modern gnostic trip. (grumble grumble). that means you have your own little private fantasy world, you give a damn about "truth" because you define the concept to mean "I get what I want." No standard of scripture will stand in your way because you have secret knowledge no one else has. that's kind of a bore, no offense.



Be as ignorant as you wish. Words are not of God because that is not how God communicates with his Son. Words are the domain of the prodigal Son who uses them to block communication, and to maintain it's own world. The Son of God is the World of God...quite literally the Kingdom of God. Through the prodigal Son, the World of God is transformed from Spirit to "flesh". Flesh, then, is the dominion of the prodigal Son, and makes up its world - in competition with the World of God. ]/quote]

Of course all of this is the result of developing a private language of your own because you are convened that you have private truth no one else can have, right?

because the prologue is anti-gnostic and quite clear: the word became flesh. Flesh is not evil. the flesh the word became was Jesus of Naz. He "pitched his tent among us." that's just what the Greek means and the "tent" for the Greeks was the body. Jesus of Naz was the word become flesh.




[quote]I prefer the gospel of Thomas over Exodus:

ironic too because the Gospel of Thomas contradicts your little heretical fantasy world. The Gospel of Thomas says Jesus of Nazareth became flesh.

actually the idea that we are the flesh that the word manifests in is really not a gnostic concept its' actually anti-gnostic because it would assume that our flesh is not evil. The gnostic assumed it was.



Nothing more mysterious than that.

I bet you love to be mysterioso don't you?

[John Goddard]

Use whatever poetry or metaphor you want, he's talking about the Son of God.

I'm Adoptionist not Trinitarian, so from there...God's Word is the Father's will, desires, laws, commands. It's not another God person besides the Father, God's Word is the Father's Word.

In terms of human prophecy, when God speaks through a man, God's Word is made flesh. On various levels with various prophets, on a complete level with Jesus since he spoke and obeyed God's Word completely.

Because of his excellence, he is THE Son of God among other children of God.

So THE Son of God does not exist until the human Jesus exists in the flesh to speak and do God's Word perfectly. Thus he is God's Word and also God in the flesh, as much as any man can be, and at this point Trinitarians and I start to agree.

[UrbanMonk]

so you seem to be saying that Christ is manifest in the flesh by being in us as believers?

Not really. The best a body can do is take on attributes of the truth...for the purpose of leading minds to the truth...not to bodies. A body is not the truth. But, life is the truth. Therefore, having taken on the attributes of truth, Jesus body could not be killed. Likewise, Jesus was fearless and joyful. These are attributes of the truth...not of the body nor of manhood.

The body must be brough to the truth...not the other way around. Confused minds are trying to bring truth to the body the way they bring vitamins to the body. They want to make the body stronger, healthier, truer, more glorified, ect. This is a temptation. We must be delivered from this. When the body is brought to the truth, if first mimics attributes of the truth. Then, after a while, it completely disappears...because the body is not part of the truth. What confused minds have not been willing to notice is that Jesus disappeared and hasn't been seen since. THIS IS A LESSON. The path to truth leads out of the world, not into or around the world.


Then you are denying that he was flesh in Jesus of Nazareth?

I'm saying that Jesus was really Christ, the Son of God.
I'm saying that Christ was NOT REALLY JESUS, the son of man. Get it?

Is Captain Kirk really William Shatner or is William Shatner really Captain Kirk? To be a man or the "son of man" is to be an actor upon a "world" stage. It's all pretend. Christ is for real. The world is a prop for a show, and we, all men and women, are merely players. Christ is not a show. Christ is what we "know" to be real.

To say that God can become flesh is rediculous...and is part of the "show". It makes for "drama"...for a comedy and a tragedy at the same time. God becomes flesh in the imagination of the prodigal Son, who transforms the glory of God into man, beast, and all manner of creeping things.

[UrbanMonk]

I'm Adoptionist not Trinitarian, so from there...God's Word is the Father's will, desires, laws, commands. It's not another God person besides the Father, God's Word is the Father's Word.

Then you ignore that part of the Creed that talks about "true God from true God"? I'm saying that it is not about love if its about inequality...if its about heirarchy...if its about differences...if its about less than.

The Son of God is given everything his Father is and has. This means that the Son of God is/has the will of his Father...same desire...having and being the same "law" of God...the law of love. Thus, the Father is love, and the Son is love. And what They create/share/extend is also love like themselves. Flesh is not like the Father and the Son, so it comes from an immaculate conception of what God is...insane notions inside the mind of the prodigal Son.

What you propose over and over John...is not loving. To make anything that is limited is akin to putting things in prison. God makes no such barriers. Nor does God break the barriers we have put up to keep him out with our insane notions about his Son. All you're saying is that if the "Father" has any sons at all, they must be somehow "human"...or the "sons of man". Well this is b.s. kaballa. God is unlimited and loving and shares everything. God has the ability to create equals...and does so...because it is loving.

In terms of human prophecy, when God speaks through a man, God's Word is made flesh.

Magic kaballa b.s.

When the prodigal Son imagines that he can speak and make manifest whatever he says, then whatever he says is "made flesh". But flesh can never be anything but a mental condition. Flesh is mind, made to seem like it is something other than mind. It is the concept of mindless-mind...and oxymoron.

None of this is of Our Father, because our Father deals with the truth, with love, with reality...and not with magical imagination.

On various levels with various prophets, on a complete level with Jesus since he spoke and obeyed God's Word completely.

John, you just keep stacking more spades on your house of cards. Your premise is incorrect. It doesn't matter what you say after that, no matter how smart you think you are. The bible is basically a primitive kabballa, the latest greatest b.s. about man's genesis, man's powers, and man's destiny.

Because of his excellence, he is THE Son of God among other children of God.

You mean because of his obsequious subservience? Is that the example you expect the masses to follow? This works out perfectly for a neo-Levitical priesthood. But it doesn't work for the truth.

So THE Son of God does not exist until the human Jesus exists in the flesh to speak and do God's Word perfectly.

Your audacity just keeps getting more audacious. You have made salvation akin to works of obedience for carrots (titles) and bodily longevity and glorification. Very orthodox of you! But also, very paradoxically oxymoronic of you. What you've described is not a loving scenario authored by a loving god. So you need to re-evaluate what kind of "god" you are serving.


Thus he is God's Word and also God in the flesh, as much as any man can be, and at this point Trinitarians and I start to agree.

This is what happens when you assume your "pertinent text" is actually an accurate assessment of the truth, and begin to build on a false premise. It makes you look like a fool. Rather, it makes God look like a fool, and that is why it is blasphemous. Blasphemy does not hurt God. It hurts the minds who imagine God to be insane as if this were acceptable and normal. What you propose, along with your feathered freinds, is utterly a mockery of all that is truly of a loving God who has the power to share everything he has and is...with his creations. Such a God does not fail, nor does he make failures. His will is universal can can't be broken except in the mind of the prodigal Son, whose imagination has run wild, and whose memes have spread to it's minions enfleshed in the mindless prisons it has damned them with in his attempt to condemn the Son of God to death.

[John Goddard]

Then you ignore that part of the Creed that talks about "true God from true God"? I'm saying that it is not about love if its about inequality...if its about heirarchy...if its about differences...if its about less than.

I love my kids but there is a hierarchy even in my own house, they have to follow parental guidelines. As I said in the other thread, your ideas aren't practical.

[barnasha]

people called what jesus said bs too... i wouldn't have though.

keep up the good work, UrbanMonk.

[UrbanMonk]

I love my kids but there is a hierarchy even in my own house, they have to follow parental guidelines. As I said in the other thread, your ideas aren't practical.

You want practical? Read Popular Mechanics magazine. You want salvation? Read the truth.

[UrbanMonk]

[QUOTE=John Goddard;2754441]I love my kids but there is a hierarchy even in my own house, they have to follow parental guidelines. QUOTE]

Well, your house and God's house are not the same. There is a heirarchy in your house, so you are assuming there is a heirarchy in God's house. But God's house in an equality. A heirarchal kingdom and an equal kingdom can never coexist. One is in the mind of the prodigal Son, and the other is in the mind of God. Both mind's are within the "mind of Christ". A split mind can't last. It has to be "healed". A house (mind) divided against itself cannot stand (will pass away). So long as you choose a heirarchy in which obedience is currency, you will never return home to where Identity is currency. For what God's creates is what it is...unchanging...glorious...good...loving...and equal. In such a realm, obedience is a moot point...meaningless.

[John Goddard]

A heirarchal kingdom and an equal kingdom can never coexist.

You aren't proposing a monotheistic kingdom with hierarchy under one God as supreme ruler, but rather a type of polytheistic communism where everyone is a God.

The results of your message seem to be shutting God out as God, and thus atheism.

[UrbanMonk]

You aren't proposing a monotheistic kingdom with hierarchy under one God as supreme ruler, but rather a type of polytheistic communism where everyone is a God.

For lack of better terms, yes. It’s a communism in which everyone has everything. A better term would be “communion”…perfect communication within God. This is the inheritance of the Son of God…total abundance without limit. How could there be anything but peace in such a state? Jealousy is ruled out. There are no needs. In such an environment, it would not matter how many call themselves God. If they are all the same, how many can there really be? That is why God is called ONE. However, God is constantly sharing perfection of God. This is basically what “creation” is all about. God is already perfect. There is nothing to add or take away from the perfection. There is only the joy of sharing what is perfect. This is essentially how the “Son of God” came to “be”. Likewise, this is how the Son’s Son came to be, and so on. There is no need for more than one Son. The “many” attribute is not really an issue because God does not have an ego…does not desire to be different or special in any way. Therefore, learning is not an attribute of the world of God. Neither is growing an attribute. Knowledge is total from the very “birth” of any Son (Creation) of God. Born of the Spirit, the Son of God is perfect instantly, and eternally.


The results of your message seem to be shutting God out as God, and thus atheism.

You are correct to observe that when the attributes of the reality of God are mixed up, it amounts to a kind of atheism which shuts out God. I’m saying that a hierarchal system does just this. I’m saying that this is what “the world” is all about, and that’ why Jesus said things like, “My kingdom is not of this world”. Why are you having an issue with coexistence? Why do you insist that what is opposite (antithetical) to the world of God must coexist with it, or worse, blot out the original perfection? I’m suggesting that you are the true atheist here. The true God is something to mock, in your opinion. Why? Because God shares everything? Because God creates only equals? Why would you mock this? Why would you suggest that God does not have the power or the will to "create"/share this way?

[John Goddard]

For lack of better terms, yes. It’s a communism in which everyone has everything. A better term would be “communion”…perfect communication within God. This is the inheritance of the Son of God…total abundance without limit. How could there be anything but peace in such a state? Jealousy is ruled out. There are no needs. In such an environment, it would not matter how many call themselves God. If they are all the same, how many can there really be? That is why God is called ONE. However, God is constantly sharing perfection of God. This is basically what “creation” is all about. God is already perfect. There is nothing to add or take away from the perfection. There is only the joy of sharing what is perfect. This is essentially how the “Son of God” came to “be”. Likewise, this is how the Son’s Son came to be, and so on. There is no need for more than one Son. The “many” attribute is not really an issue because God does not have an ego…does not desire to be different or special in any way. Therefore, learning is not an attribute of the world of God. Neither is growing an attribute. Knowledge is total from the very “birth” of any Son (Creation) of God. Born of the Spirit, the Son of God is perfect instantly, and eternally.


You are correct to observe that when the attributes of the reality of God are mixed up, it amounts to a kind of atheism which shuts out God. I’m saying that a hierarchal system does just this. I’m saying that this is what “the world” is all about, and that’ why Jesus said things like, “My kingdom is not of this world”. Why are you having an issue with coexistence? Why do you insist that what is opposite (antithetical) to the world of God must coexist with it, or worse, blot out the original perfection? I’m suggesting that you are the true atheist here. The true God is something to mock, in your opinion. Why? Because God shares everything? Because God creates only equals? Why would you mock this? Why would you suggest that God does not have the power or the will to "create"/share this way?

I would rather put it this way: All those who are in Heaven with God will be doing God's Will naturally, and there will be no need for God to impose force on anyone to do God's Will. In that sense, the hierarchy of God's ultimate power and wrath against the disobedient will ideally be gone, everyone will be obedient to God's Will no matter what.

But the way you put it seems to deny God's ultimate power of getting everyone on that same page. That they don't really need God's help to be as gods themselves. And that's why it seems like Mormonism and other doctrines that simply reflect the message of Satan to Eve, and to all humanity through history: "You don't really need to listen to God since you can be a god too."

And embracing that idea is what caused all sin in the first place.

[UrbanMonk]

I would rather put it this way: All those who are in Heaven with God will be doing God's Will naturally, and there will be no need for God to impose force on anyone to do God's Will.

This is how it is. But what is God’s Will does not “do” anything. God’s Will is a Being. That is, God IS God’s Will. And what God “creates” is also God, and by inheritance, God’s Will. Therefore, the “Son of God” is God’s Will…IS THE LAW OF GOD…which is the LAW OF LOVE.


In that sense, the hierarchy of God's ultimate power and wrath against the disobedient will ideally be gone,

Here’s what you need to understand if you would be saved. The Law of God (Christ) cannot be broken! That is what the metaphor of Jesus’ bodily resurrection is all about. You can’t break him! Conversely, the prodigal Son thinks the Law of God can be broken. He seeks to “prove” that it can be broken. “The world” is the prodigal Son’s proof that the Son of God (God’s Law) can be broken. As such, the world bears false witness against the Son of God. And, breaking the Son of God into pieces (metaphor: crucifixion), the prodigal Son goes about accusing the brethren through the various scenes and scenarios that he prescripts for all of the happenings that seem to “happen” in the world. They are ALL FALSE. Things are not as they seem. Appearances deceive. What the prodigal Son thinks, and attempts, is not “the truth”…and can never be true. If the “One” could be broken for the “many”, it would amount to “crucifixion”. THAT is what the world is all about…it’s about ”Christ crucified” by the “sinful” thoughts of the prodigal Son. Ultimately, this is self-crucifixion. What is so deceptively sinful about the thoughts of the prodigal Son? The Son of God cannot sin! Meaning, the Son of God cannot break the Law of Love…cannot break himself. It’s “sin” (insane) to think that he can. It is this kind of “sinful” thinking that manifests another – prodigal – world of time and mass and matter and scenes, scenarios, and happenstance. It’s all a big fat lie!



everyone will be obedient to God's Will no matter what.

No one has ever broken or been able to break the Law of God. If it can be broken it wasn’t a law in the first place! Get it? Can a grasshopper break the law of gravity? You simply don’t understand how it is that what appears to be “evil” is really “love in disguise”. How can that be? All of the “evil” – the whole world – is an answer to prayer. It’s what the prodigal Son wanted!!! So, if we are given what we ask for, is that not love? In the world, we have asked Christ for crucifixion, and so, it has become “real” for us. And as ONE, we are all conspirators in the crucifixion of the Son of God…of our self-crucifixion. The “old testament” is really about COVERT LOVE…the asking for crucifixion at the hands of “others”. Well, there are really no “others” except our self. That is why in the “new testament” Jesus asks us to love one another as our “self”. Thus, the new testament is really about OVERT LOVE. It about not asking for crucifixion anymore. It’s about…drum roll please…the resurrection (awakening) from a deep sleep…a nightmare of our own making.

But the way you put it seems to deny God's ultimate power of getting everyone on that same page.

The “same page” you are talking about is old school, as in “old testament” (see above definition). The “obedience” theme has been tried and found wanting. It doesn’t work! In fact, nothing the prodigal Son does really works. It’s not supposed to work! That’s the dirty little secret about the “old testament”.


That they don't really need God's help to be as gods themselves.

What is already God needs help in re-awakening to that fact (truth) through the work of the Holy Spirit…sent to save the Son of God from his own self-induced sleep, and consequent dreams/nightmares.

And that's why it seems like Mormonism and other doctrines that simply reflect the message of Satan to Eve, and to all humanity through history: "You don't really need to listen to God since you can be a god too."

This is a reference to the temptation to see flesh as “god”. Excuse me, but the orthodoxy is teaching exactly this when they tell us that a man (Jesus) was “god”. The truth is, no man is truly God. A man can only be a metaphor for God, as was Jesus. A metaphor is not the truth. A metaphor points to the truth.

And embracing that idea is what caused all sin in the first place.

As said, the orthodoxy embraces this idea. It embraces it for at least one human. That’s all it takes…just one bite…to damn us all to hell. The problem is not that we are God or want to return to Godhood. It's that we have denied we are God (Christ) and believe that we can be something else (namely "man")...and give it the attributes of God. This leads to death, because God (Christ) is life, and what denies it is Christ must "die". It's simple logic. We have denied we are ONE (the one and only Son of God) and believed that we can be MANY...as in plural...as in many "gods". Thus, in Hebrew lore, it is a plurality - a plural god - which makes man in it's image (imagination). The prodigal Son is a plural god...not a true Oneness. Even so, true Oneness cannot be broken.

[John Goddard]

This is how it is. But what is God’s Will does not “do” anything. God’s Will is a Being. That is, God IS God’s Will. And what God “creates” is also God, and by inheritance, God’s Will. Therefore, the “Son of God” is God’s Will…IS THE LAW OF GOD…which is the LAW OF LOVE.

Ok, whatever...in that realm, for you, everyone will be Son of God and God's Will. Works out the same.

The Son of God cannot sin! Meaning, the Son of God cannot break the Law of Love…cannot break himself.

Sure, for those who no longer sin.

No one has ever broken or been able to break the Law of God. If it can be broken it wasn’t a law in the first place! Get it? Can a grasshopper break the law of gravity? You simply don’t understand how it is that what appears to be “evil” is really “love in disguise”.

So if someone spit in your face it's really love. No, it's going against the Law of God. There's a difference between breaking it to make it invalid, and breaking it in terms of going against it. You're playing word games.

The “same page” you are talking about is old school, as in “old testament” (see above definition). The “obedience” theme has been tried and found wanting. It doesn’t work! In fact, nothing the prodigal Son does really works. It’s not supposed to work! That’s the dirty little secret about the “old testament”.

Man has been found wanting of being obedient. Obedience is not the problem, abuse of free will is.

What is already God needs help in re-awakening to that fact (truth) through the work of the Holy Spirit…sent to save the Son of God from his own self-induced sleep, and consequent dreams/nightmares.

This is a reference to the temptation to see flesh as “god”. Excuse me, but the orthodoxy is teaching exactly this when they tell us that a man (Jesus) was “god”. The truth is, no man is truly God. A man can only be a metaphor for God, as was Jesus. A metaphor is not the truth. A metaphor points to the truth.

You say what is already God is flesh but needs help to be awakened, which is just another way of saying that man already is God.

So if the flesh is deluded, who is it going to get help from? God.

I think you are trying to present yourself as this "help" but everything you say voids out your own ability to help since you are still flesh.

[Bernie]

Urban, I have to admit, your idea is intriguing to me for personal reasons. But--assuming for the sake of argument that your assertion that we have to come to the knowledge of sinlessness is true--wouldn't it be fair to say that the separation of the individual from this lack of knowledge of the truth is achieved via a death of real sorts?

Btw, don't you really mean in your signature that, "...one time I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express"?

[John Goddard]

Urban, I have to admit, your idea is intriguing to me for personal reasons. But--assuming for the sake of argument that your assertion that we have to come to the knowledge of sinlessness is true--wouldn't it be fair to say that the separation of the individual from this lack of knowledge of the truth is achieved via a death of real sorts?

In part he denies the necessity of Jesus as the only one who can remain sinless and makes everyone a Messiah and God as he goes on.

But that's only if you accept his doctrine, which simply makes him another Satan and a False Prophet, Matthew 24:11.

[Bernie]

In part he denies the necessity of Jesus as the only one who can remain sinless and makes everyone a Messiah and God as he goes on.

But that's only if you accept his doctrine, which simply makes him another Satan and a False Prophet, Matthew 24:11.
I understand this, JohnGoddard. I tend to agree with the general content of your posts, though I see UM's position as more pantheistic than atheistic. Like you, I also see UM's theology as eventually breaking down and inconsistent, but have to admit that the like all folks, I tend to use my own theology as the arbiter of all others, so am using an imperfect theology to judge his imperfect theology.

All the same, my own walk of faith contains elements that cohere with certain concepts in UM's presentation. For example, I believe there is an illusion of sinfulness which has to be overcome to achieve true faith. I seem to find myself returning to the theshold of this illusion with disappointing regularity. This notion of illusion re sinfulness is orthodox and a quite consistent part of Paul's theology, btw....Rom 7 for example. Seems to me there are stages to obtaining faith: recognition of personal worthlessness, remorse, repentance, acceptance of Christ's righteousness for one's own filthiness. This faith is distinguished from the superficial 'blab-it-n-grab-it' Christianity so prevalent in the organized church, based more on club membership than a contrite spirit...which, while I believe it assures salvation in time, must eventually find purification in Godly fire in order to establish the real thing. One of the greatest stumbling blocks to true faith seems to me to be the illusion of sinfulness. The illusion is caused by something real (falsity), as illusions seen in a mirror are caused by a real mirror.

My point to UM is that something in the ethereal realm has to die or be changed or replaced in order for the unity of inner [intellectual] truth with external or absolute truth to be complete, for communion with God in faith to be concluded. Until the illusion of sinfulness in the mind is extracted from the soul and burned to ash, faith is not complete. Eradication of the illusion requires death imo. UM takes the metaphor beyond the point I'm willing to go (that we're not actually sinful, that Jesus wasn't God, blood atonement, etc.), but I find it interesting that even in the distance he takes the metaphor of Scripture from tradition, I still find threads of truth in his view.

[UrbanMonk]

Urban, I have to admit, your idea is intriguing to me for personal reasons. But--assuming for the sake of argument that your assertion that we have to come to the knowledge of sinlessness is true--wouldn't it be fair to say that the separation of the individual from this lack of knowledge of the truth is achieved via a death of real sorts?

Yes, if ignorance is considered some kind of “life”. So yes, the death of ignorance is the rebirth of life…the life we always had, have, and will have. This kind of rebirth requires that we accept the fact that our original birthright is of Spirit…and not of “flesh” (ie. of the world, mother nature, of man). Thus, to be “born again” is to recognize our divine inheritance and accept it as the truth. We inherited love and innocence as WHO WE ARE. Therefore, in order to BE INNOCENT, we must BE WHO WE ARE. We cannot maintain a split identity. It must be one or the other. For this reason, Jesus advised us to, "call no man father". Acceptance of Spiritual birth is the denial of physical birth/origin/geneology. When we deny physical genesis, we also deny everything that it implies, including unworthiness, sinfulness, separation, differences, inequality...etc. The only way for us to be the same is to be the Son of God. To be the same is to be humble. To be special is to be arrogant. The only way we can be special is to be different...to be physical. But to be different and physical, we must 'sacrifice' the Truth about our Self.

Ignorance is self-imposed for the purpose of having an experience. "The world" is the experience of ignorance. As such, ignorance is the basis of our so-called "life". To be ignorant is to deny knowledge, which we did "before the foundation of the world". To be knowledgable is to deny ignorance. This is a kind of "repentance". To accept knowledge and to accept Christ is the same because Christ has/is Knowledge. Conversely, to deny knowledge is to deny Christ as Self, and consequently, have an experience of ignorance. The denial of knowledge is the beginning of "the fall" ...from "grace". It's the dirty little secret about how the Son of God became flesh.


Btw, don't you really mean in your signature that, "...one time I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express"?

Thanks for pointing that out. I'll go stay at one! :smile:

[UrbanMonk]

My point to UM is that something in the ethereal realm has to die or be changed or replaced in order for the unity of inner [intellectual] truth with external or absolute truth to be complete, for communion with God in faith to be concluded.

Yes, this is the only kind of "death" that Jesus ever recommended. This is not a physical death, but rather, a death to a state of mind in which a physical existence has value to us. We appear to be physical because we value the concept of being special. Prerequisite to being special, we must be separate and different from the oneness of the Truth. Therefore, the “death” that Jesus accepted was the death of the desire to be unique and special…and therefore different and separate (physical).

[John Goddard]

UM takes the metaphor beyond the point I'm willing to go (that we're not actually sinful, that Jesus wasn't God, blood atonement, etc.), but I find it interesting that even in the distance he takes the metaphor of Scripture from tradition, I still find threads of truth in his view.

I'll hang back and see what you come up with, I think.

[UrbanMonk]

I understand this, JohnGoddard. I tend to agree with the general content of your posts, though I see UM's position as more pantheistic than atheistic.

There is Christ, and there is a "mask" or "veil" over the face of Christ. Christ is the Truth, and the mask is the lie. "The world" and everything in it, is the mask/lie. The mask expresses concepts such as Christ not Christ (anti-christ), God not God (false gods, true and false gods), Good not Good (evil, good AND evil), Truth not Truth (lie, lie AND truth, reality AND illusion), Life not Life (death, life AND death)). In other words, everything the mask is...IS WHAT GOD IS NOT. And yet, without the reality behind the mask, there could not be a mask. So is the mask God? Yes and no! So i've coined the phrase, reverse-pantheism. The prodigal Son represents a great reversal of reality. The world, therefore, is reality upside down, backwards masked, inside out, and mixed up. As such, it denies God. The mask makes God as good as dead. Whoever believes in the mask must by default disbelieve in God. Hence, both the orthodoxy and the atheist meets on common ground. And believing in the world, they will both meet six feet under.

It’s this understanding that enables us to “forgive”…to see Christ in our “neighbor”…to love our neighbor as our Self. This “knowledge” enables us to “overlook” appearances…beyond the mask. If we are willing to do this, we can see the Son of God standing in front of us, offering us salvation…offering us his Identity as our own. In this way, as we forgive, we receive. We forgive as we take the mask off our brother, by looking at him with the "eyes of Christ"...with "vision"...with a shift in mental perceptual filters. These filters automatically "judge" our brother as NOT CHRIST. And as we judge this way, we condemn both our brother and ourself along with him. As such, "the world" is the sight of what has been condemned, the Son of God. That is why it is echoed in the bible that as we continue to disbelieve in Christ, we are "condemned already".


Like you, I also see UM's theology as eventually breaking down and inconsistent, but have to admit that the like all folks, I tend to use my own theology as the arbiter of all others, so am using an imperfect theology to judge his imperfect theology.

The key word is “judge”. We will judge according to the mindset of the prodigal Son and the theological memes we’ve inherited, or, we can judge with the “mind of Christ” and/or the “Spirit of Truth”, and/or the “Holy Spirit”. One must virtually open up his mind and invite Guidance of this sort to “judge” what is perfect and what is imperfect. I think you’ll find that if you do this, your thoughts will become consistent…as a “seamless robe”. Try to rip it up. It’s not easy…otherwise I would not be an advocate of this way of thinking. It’s “new wine”. You can’t put new wine in an old wineskin (the bible) without destroying the old wineskin. Consequently, whenever I try to use biblical catchphrases or parables, i end up compromising the very book they come from.

All the same, my own walk of faith contains elements that cohere with certain concepts in UM's presentation. For example, I believe there is an illusion of sinfulness which has to be overcome to achieve true faith.

Indeed. Think of sin as a “spell”. Think of what dispels the spell as the “gospel” or “go-spell”. It’s all about a shift in the way we think. That is true repentance. Its about changing our minds about what we think is true. Everything that is not true that we think is true….is “sin”. There is no world. So, if we think the world is true, we are “sinners”. We are sinners when we believe that God is not all-encompassing, or that the Truth is not universal. We think there can be a time or place or circumstance where the truth is not true…or where God is not. This is really faithlessness in what is Christ. Christ is reality. If it is not Christ…it isn’t real. Baptism is about repeating what is true within our minds over and over and over again…until the “spell” is dispelled. At that point, the whole world is washed away, and Christ is revealed where Christ was once hidden.





I seem to find myself returning to the theshold of this illusion with disappointing regularity.

Don’t be discouraged. It is a very persistent illusion in a very powerful mind. The good news is that it is YOUR mind, and you can change your mind to think with a yet more powerful mind – the mind of Christ. This is also YOUR mind, and these are the only two choices we can possibly make.

This notion of illusion re sinfulness is orthodox and a quite consistent part of Paul's theology, btw....Rom 7 for example.

What do you see in Paul’s portfolio that suggests sin is an illusion?


Seems to me there are stages to obtaining faith: recognition of personal worthlessness, remorse, repentance, acceptance of Christ's righteousness for one's own filthiness.

The prodigal Son believes he is filthy and unworthy. He repented when he thought to himself that things were better at home, and it would be better for him to go back home. When we accept Christ’s righteousness as “ours”, we are really accepting Christ as our Self. It’s pretty simple. How could it be any other way? This is the way home. This is what repentance is all about. The prodigal Son had to go back to what he was…to be the Son of his Father…not the alien “sons” (ie. “son of man”) of another “father”. Accordingly, Jesus counseled, “call no man father”. This is a sign of a willingness to repent of fleshly (worldly, physical) heritage, and claim our spiritual heritage instead. It means to accept that we are “born of the Spirit”…and not of flesh. To be “born of the Spirit” is to lay claim to the Son of God as our true Identity.


This faith is distinguished from the superficial 'blab-it-n-grab-it' Christianity so prevalent in the organized church, based more on club membership than a contrite spirit...which, while I believe it assures salvation in time, must eventually find purification in Godly fire in order to establish the real thing.

The prodigal Son has been blabbing it and grabbing it since the beginning of time. He’s been grabbing anything and everything…except his own true inheritance, which he has squandered on all that is not true. The orthodoxy will allow you to blab and grab onto any kind of identity…except your own…except the Son of God. You are a member of the Son of God “club” whether you believe it or not. If not, we may continue to be the “prodigal Son” living in denial. Or, we can be the Son of God…living in acceptance. Our experiences will change accordingly. The experience of the prodigal Son is uncomfortable, unpleasant, frustrating, disappointing, aweful. The experience of the returning prodigal Son may encounter some of these vestiges of past thought. But as his thoughts are turned toward what is true, these experiences will gradually pass away and be replaced with happy experiences until he finally reaches home.





One of the greatest stumbling blocks to true faith seems to me to be the illusion of sinfulness. The illusion is caused by something real (falsity), as illusions seen in a mirror are caused by a real mirror.

The only thing real about the illusion of sin is the mind that imagines that it can perceive something other than Christ. THAT is the mind in need of healing. That is YOUR mind. The world is a reflection of what you think about yourself. So, it is a SELF-CONCEPT. Everything it says about you is…FALSE. It bears FALSE WITNESS against YOU. So, it bears false witness against Christ. Understanding this, we become ready to “forgive” what it seems to tell us in so many negative ways. It is virtually our “accuser”…a cosmic prison containing that “criminal”, the So of God. As such, it is falsehood made to seem “real”. It is a “spell” cast upon our minds by false premises.

My point to UM is that something in the ethereal realm has to die or be changed or replaced in order for the unity of inner [intellectual] truth with external or absolute truth to be complete, for communion with God in faith to be concluded.

Yes. When we change our minds from the prodigal Son to the mind of Christ, we will be able to shift our perception to a world that reflects only Christ, instead of what Christ is not. This is the world Jesus spoke of when he said, “the Kingdom of God is at hand”. It’s at hand because its sight is a matter of perceptual shift. And, because Christ and the Kingdom of God are synonymous, the sight of Christ is a matter of a perceptual shift. Till we see Christ, we are “blind”. We are blind because there is no world. If we see “the world” we are seeing what IS NOT THERE. The sight of Christ is the sight of a whole new world. At first, this world appears perceptually. We go THROUGH this world on our WAY back to KNOWLEDGE (Heaven, Home, the Kingdom of God, Self). In this way, we go through the reflection of Christ to the reality of Christ. After that, there is no more reflections, no more perceptions, no more belief nor unbelief. All is KNOWN in the Kingdom of God…in Christ. Nothing else exists, being unknowable. To think we can know anything else is a “temptation”. We cannot “know” good AND evil. We can only KNOW GOOD. Evil is all about beliefs…about imagination…about judgment (declaring true what is not true).


Until the illusion of sinfulness in the mind is extracted from the soul and burned to ash, faith is not complete.

Yes. It’s a bit of a journey…returning from a far off land. The more we forgive the closer we get. Forgiveness is like bringing the cold of snow to the warmth of the spring sun. It must melt away.


Eradication of the illusion requires death imo.

It requires the death of the prodigal Son. The prodigal Son is a concept…not a reality. So long as we believe in what the prodigal Son believes in, we will have the prodigal Son’s experience(s) to deal with. The truth is, there can be no other Son than the ONLY BEGOTTEN Son of God. When we withdraw our faith in another son, or other sons (and daughters), the prodigal Son will “die”. The prodigal Son is like an idol. It is fueled by faith. It lives by our faith and it dies when we withdraw our faith from it. This idol desecrates our home, our temple…OUR MIND. It is against our home, and would destroy it if if could. But what it thinks it can do…is false. It takes great faith in what is true to overcome our faith in what is false….because we see so much “evidence” for what is false…as if it were true. Don’t believe it! This is a false witness.

UM takes the metaphor beyond the point I'm willing to go (that we're not actually sinful, that Jesus wasn't God, blood atonement, etc.),

I have not said that Jesus wasn’t God. What I’ve said is that God isn’t Jesus…that God cannot become flesh except in a wild imagination, except as a concept…except as the “prodigal Son”. I’m saying that “the world” is a mask over the face of Christ. When you take off the mask, Christ is revealed. Jesus, like any other person/personality/body…is a mask over the face of Christ. Therefore, when Jesus says things like, “I am the way, the truth and the life”…he is not talking about his persona, his person, his body, his worldly heritage. He is talking about his reality as Christ, and not as a man…about his Spirit heritage, not his physical heritage.

Your concept of the need for blood atonement is a “spell” cast over your mind…a “strong delusion” brought on by an ancient unbelief in Christ that goes back to the time the prodigal Son left home…before the foundation of the world. The world, then, has become the home of the prodigal Son…as he has built it to suit his preferences…all based on false premises (sand).

The good news would dispel your belief in the need to pay for your inheritance with anything but your willingness to accept it and receive it back. You can never succeed in throwing your inheritance away, so what makes you think you need to buy it back? It was kept for you in safe-keeping, lets’ just say, by the “Holy Spirit”….awaiting a day when you would “redeem” it. To re-deem it, you must re-value it…re-evaluate it’s worth to you. When it is worth more than what you’ve given yourself through the prodigal Son’s worldly adventures, then you will be given it back. To get it back, simply “forgive”…meaning, give what you want (your inheritance) to everyone else….because it is their inheritance as well. But if you deny your inheritance to anyone else, it will not be given back to you. It belongs to all…without exception.



but I find it interesting that even in the distance he takes the metaphor of Scripture from tradition, I still find threads of truth in his view.

I look for wheat among the tares, “judging” the difference as I am enabled through my Guidance.

[Bernie]

*Whew* That was some post, UM.

Lots of good stuff there, I enjoy following your thinking. I might be wrong here, but I'd bet your theology is a synthesis of most major religions. I'm guessing you argue here from the Christian viewpoint because this is primarily a Christian board, but your metaphor leaves lots of room for elements from other strains of belief.

Despite the impressive presentation, I have to remain faithful to certain beliefs for which I feel I have appropriate warrant. For instance, that the Christian bible, of all famous religious texts, is alone wholly inspired and contains the highest order of prescriptive truth on earth, and that because of this the principles and fundamentals found there are universally good and true in nature and fact. Where I'm guessing you start from the assumption that the puzzle of life and salvation is found in the aforementioned synthesis of major religious traditions, I start from belief in the Bible's inspiration.

As such, I'd have to agree with John Goddard's assesment, "You aren't proposing a monotheistic kingdom with hierarchy under one God as supreme ruler, but rather a type of polytheistic communism where everyone is a God."....though not sure I'd go with the term 'polytheistic communism'.

From Christianity's "God reaching down to fallen man", which is strongly supported by the reality of everyday life, your waking to the realization that we are God is in immediate tension with the Bible, as re Isa 14:12-15 for example.

We probably aren't on the same page about the illusion of sinfulness. If I understand your version, this is a natural consequence in every human of living in a "prodigal son" or largely illusory existence. My version necessarily presupposes having endured a state of grace and sanctification, of having been brought by Christ via death (and rebirth) of one's own spiritual death to an inner brokenness (early stages of sanctification). From this state, the inner glimpse of God produces the understanding of personal moral filthiness, not by God forcing the knowledge on the human mind, but by introspection of one's true inner self (fragmental falsity and evil) in the harsh light of the holiness of God. The events taking one there are regenerational and thus destructive to the cause [falsity] of our illusion of self-worth and autonomy. Once one sees himself for what he truly is by the light of God's sheer otherness--which confirms the foundational Biblical prinicples--the second stage....accepting God's pronouncement of guiltlessness despite the knowledge of worthlessness....defines the "illusion of sin" I'm referring to. The difference between these views is significant.

To answer your question about Paul's theology, Rom 7 and 8 speak to a mystery tradition doesn't see, that the mind set on spirit as alive and that set on flesh is dead represent not different people but dual elements within the same person....Jesus teaches the same thing, for instance in Luke 6:45: "The good man out of the good treasure of his heart brings forth what is good; and the evil man out of the evil treasure brings forth what is evil..." Even though the literal understanding of this...that Scripture is speaking of individuals here, good and bad persons....is incoherent, the organized church still teaches and believes this is its primary meaning. Tension dissolves when this is understood figuratively as elements within each person (as also tares and wheat, sheep and goats, etc.) because in reality every person brings forth a fragmented variety of good and bad fruit, good and bad treasure, etc.

And this brings me to my final disagreement, that the underlying metaphor of Scripture does not dissolve the underlying and base literal meaning from which it arises, changing it to something very different in kind as your theology does. Instead, the Biblical metaphor supports, embellishes and enhances the foundational principles found in the literal. For example, there's not only no contradiction in reducing via metaphor Jesus' teachings from the literal application of "the one" to the universal "many" constituent parts of every human, but once understood, this reduction is immediately seen in virtually every other book of the Bible, both Testaments. This move from the literal "that" God will save through Christ Jesus to the metaphorical "how" God saves through Christ Jesus embraces and strengthens the Bible's underlying principles....human fallenness, God's sovereignty and mercy, the sheer antithesis of purity and evil/ true and false, etc....that define orthodox Christianity. Your metaphor simply dissolves orthodoxy and calls its sweetness bitter and its bitterness sweet. I think this is the essence of what John Goddard found and I'd have to agree.

It may be that the metaphors you contend for represent truth, but I don't see it, UM. It's possible that I haven't travelled the path far enough to see the light, but it seems also possible that the endgame you suggest is an illusion and darkness that Christ's light will dispel. In any case, I believe Christ will bring us all eventually to the truth...which, once revealed, may well be something so far above all our assumptions and searchings that we'll have no recourse but to fall silent in deference to its purity. Won't come too soon to suit me.

[UrbanMonk]

*Whew* That was some post, UM.

Lots of good stuff there, I enjoy following your thinking. I might be wrong here, but I'd bet your theology is a synthesis of most major religions.

Somewhat, yes. One could say the same about Jesus. The west would prefer to ignore his eastern roots. I'm sure he looked at any and all information he considered wise, true or helpful...including Plato (see Plato's parable of "The Cave").

I'm guessing you argue here from the Christian viewpoint because this is primarily a Christian board, but your metaphor leaves lots of room for elements from other strains of belief.

Yes, I'm building a word-bridge between christianity and Christ. Minds need to take baby-steps from what is familiar to what is further "out there". I'm teaching by association, otherwise known as a 'parable'. But it's also because of my conviction that Jesus had it right, and has been misconstrued, that I am interested in redeeming his authentic legacy - the Way - before it was paved over to make way for a super-highway for the popular mainstream orthodoxy...as it evolved.

Despite the impressive presentation, I have to remain faithful to certain beliefs for which I feel I have appropriate warrant. For instance, that the Christian bible, of all famous religious texts, is alone wholly inspired and contains the highest order of prescriptive truth on earth, and that because of this the principles and fundamentals found there are universally good and true in nature and fact.

See, this is your decision. On what grounds? Inter-textual grounds? But YOU chose the text in the first place! What you are really saying is that you are not entitled to internal Guidance...and must seek an external authority...perhaps by a belief in authority-by-association...or just because its seems believable that there should be a very old, very truthful text in the world.

Where I'm guessing you start from the assumption that the puzzle of life and salvation is found in the aforementioned synthesis of major religious traditions, I start from belief in the Bible's inspiration.

Again, you give your power to other's ability to hear and scribe truth...rather than your own mind. Why aren't you able to be inspired? Why would God leave you without inspiration? And, isn't it true that you are defaulting to some kind of inspiration merely to select one book over another as "inspired"? The question is, which spirit is inspiring you (ie.Spirit of Truth, spirit of untruth)? And, if you are entitled to select a text, why are you not entitled to select phrases from the text that the Spirit of Truth wants you to hear, and others the Spirit of Truth would ignore?


As such, I'd have to agree with John Goddard's assesment, "You aren't proposing a monotheistic kingdom with hierarchy under one God as supreme ruler, but rather a type of polytheistic communism where everyone is a God."....though not sure I'd go with the term 'polytheistic communism'.

Goddard is proposing a heirarchy, which is not really monotheistic unless there is a single "god" at the top and non-gods below. Goddard promotes the dollar-bill scenario (pyramid and all-seeing eye). I say that all are born equal in the Kingdom of God. Just because you don't understand how an unlimited, omnipotent God can possibly accomplish this, does not mean it is not so. You already have an example in Jesus (Christ), who did not consider it grasping to be equal with God. And if one Son, can be equal, why not all? And if they are all the same, are there really many? No, I say they are one. Therefore, the polytheistic argument is hypocritical and shortsighted.

[John Goddard]

Goddard is proposing a hierarchy, which is not really monotheistic unless there is a single "god" at the top and non-gods below. Goddard promotes the dollar-bill scenario (pyramid and all-seeing eye). I say that all are born equal in the Kingdom of God.

Because there is a temporary lag in our learning curves. We are equals in eternity, and temporarily unequal in time. Jesus is behind the Holy Spirit (who represents Christ in the "world"), I am behind Jesus, and you are behind me.

Gotcha. :blush:

[UrbanMonk]

Gotcha. :blush:

What you are implying is debunked here. (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=131057&page=5) As this relates to the topic of this thread, the Son of God became flesh when the concept of inequality was allowed to temporarily blot out the reality of equality. I offer as evidence the appearance that men are born unequal...each different from another...none the same. And equality has become merely legendary, poetic, hyperbole...at best temporary...at worst non-existent..."dead". And in it's place a heirarchy rears its ugly head. In this way, the world-story conspires to "kill" the truth, and substitute its own version of "the truth" in its place. But heirarchy will never be more than fiction, and this will be made clear as the truth prevails upon lies, and the lying liars that tell them.

Put it this way, if you don't follow me, you can go to one or several of many prestigeous schools of hard knocks. That is all that "life" really offers...until you learn the lessons we must all learn if we would return to the reality that is equality, for one and all.

[John Goddard]

Put it this way, if you don't follow me, you can go to one or several of many prestigeous schools of hard knocks. That is all that "life" really offers...until you learn the lessons we must all learn if we would return to the reality that is equality, for one and all.

Hard Knock #1: Don't ask people to follow you as you preach equality, since you are a walking contradiction and will be laughed at by those who know better. :lol:

[UrbanMonk]

As such, I'd have to agree with John Goddard's assesment, "You aren't proposing a monotheistic kingdom with hierarchy under one God as supreme ruler, but rather a type of polytheistic communism where everyone is a God."....though not sure I'd go with the term 'polytheistic communism'.

How about a monotheistic communion in which all (everything) is shared equally. Whatever "poly" may be involved in this, it becomes a moot point when each has a monopoly on reality. What do you call it when one is encompassed by God, and also encompasses God? What do you call it when what everyone has is also what they are? Our dabbling in a heirarchal system has virtually erased this from our memory...were it not for the provision of One Who holds our memory for us.

From Christianity's "God reaching down to fallen man", which is strongly supported by the reality of everyday life, your waking to the realization that we are God is in immediate tension with the Bible, as re Isa 14:12-15 for example.

Cooincidently, there is a person/personality here in my town who makes claim to be Isaiah reincarnated...born with memories intact...and highly favored of the god-of-this-world...having special powers...and frequent visions and vacations in god-land. I have no reason to doubt he may very well be the reincarnated Isaiah. He certainly fits the profile. Regardless, as a personality subservient to the god-of-this-world, i have yet to meet a more arrogant tongue...a veritable walking, talking, wolf in sheeps clothing. Tension? Let's just put it this way, i ignore him. So, there's no tension, even though he once stated he could kill me with one thought in three days.

Tension? What do you think was going on between Jesus and the Pharisees who were by far the most expert authorities on what "scripture" said was "the truth"? They were the bible-believers of their day, and we are not without their modern counterparts. There will always be an orthodoxy or a mainstream speaking in the name of God upon the authority of a book...offering death to passerby and bystanders alike, as robed rabbi (teachers) stand at the door to the Kingdom, not entering, and not allowing anyone else to enter...trafficking in guilt at the expense (sacrifice) of the truth.

We probably aren't on the same page about the illusion of sinfulness. If I understand your version, this is a natural consequence in every human of living in a "prodigal son" or largely illusory existence.

I'm saying sin leads to illusions of Self, yeilding a self-concept. Because Self is reality, separation from Self leads to unreality, hence, "self-concept"...a facade, a front, an appearance, a persona, a role, an act, a mask, a masquerade...halloween 24/7/365. Sin is fundamentally the concept that we can separate ourselves from God, thus destroying the oneness of God, hence, the death of God. Since this is neither possible nor true, sin must be some kind of insanity...because it thinks it can walk away from the sanity of reality...which is what God IS. The net effect is an illusion of cosmic proportions. It is a lie so big it seems it must be the truth. But as Hitler learned, the bigger the lie, the easier it is for the masses to swallow. Sin itself is a lie...an untruth...an impossibility. It is merely a set of assumptions which, when lended the power of an unlimited mind, seem to "come true", and are deemed (esteemed, defined) as "real". To "redeem" these assumptions/premises is to redefine, to re-esteem, re-evaluate, re-translate, transform, and re-store our former glory, given to us before the foundation of the world.


My version necessarily presupposes having endured a state of grace and sanctification, of having been brought by Christ via death (and rebirth) of one's own spiritual death to an inner brokenness (early stages of sanctification).

We have all died with Christ...IF Christ has died. The truth about Christ is the truth about us all. This is basic if you would be "baptized" into Christ. This requires the washing away of any and all thoughts that say you are not Christ so that the beloved Son of God can be revealed as who and what you are...unchanged by illusions of your self as taught by "the world". The world is for teaching you that you are not Christ. Baptism is for teaching you that you are, and in the process, washes away the world from your face as if it were mud in your eye. Then you can "see". This is what sanctification is alll about...the washing away of lies from your mind by the Spirit of Truth and those words chosen by the Good Shepherd to Guide your way home. What we are intending to break - during the baptismal/sanctification process, is the will that "lives" as our true Will dies. This is an alien will...an unholy spirit...a desire to be separate, unique, special...and therefore NOT CHRIST. This must be "surrendered" if we would BE CHRIST, restored to our rightful inheritance...and his righteousness.

From this state, the inner glimpse of God produces the understanding of personal moral filthiness, not by God forcing the knowledge on the human mind, but by introspection of one's true inner self (fragmental falsity and evil) in the harsh light of the holiness of God.

Do not be offended if I inform you that you've got this backwards as you fall prey to the self-accusatory spirit of "the accuser of the bretheren". This is what a sinner thinks about himself. This is NOT what the Holy Spirit thinks about the Son of God...completely overlooking (forgiving) what thinks it can sin. God knows sin is not the truth! An inner glimpse of God is an inner glimpse of yourSELF. So, who is this morally filther person you keep talking about? It does not compute...and does not exist. To accept the non-existence of the "filthy" thing you think you are...is to break its will...and surrender to the truth of Christ as Self. It is a lie, and can't coexist with the Truth. If you look within and see what is "filthy", you aren't looking deep enough.

The events taking one there are regenerational and thus destructive to the cause [falsity] of our illusion of self-worth and autonomy.

The lessons that teach us of our holiness are destructive to the lessons that have taught us we were "not worthy"...living in some kind of "Wayne's World". The lessons of holiness must be repeated over and over, as if to WASH AWAY what tells us we are autonomous, separate, individual, unique, different and special. The Son of God has no ego because he is the same as all that lives and IS. Thus, the only way for us to break the cycle of arrogance is to accept the name of the Son of God as our own, thus to begin the process of baptism, which leads us to Christ as Self...the beloved Son of God.


Once one sees himself for what he truly is by the light of God's sheer otherness

Correction: By the Light of God's oneness and our inclusion in its wholeness (holiness).

--which confirms the foundational Biblical prinicples

What, that we are guilty? No. God's oneness confirms that we are innocent.

--the second stage....accepting God's pronouncement of guiltlessness despite the knowledge of worthlessness

Correction: Worthlessness cannot be known, for otherwise it would be the truth. There is no such thing as worthlessness in God's World...and besides God's World, there is no other. Only the truth can be known. What is false can only be believed. We must accept what can be known, despite what we have believed. Then, we will be sanctified.

....defines the "illusion of sin" I'm referring to. The difference between these views is significant.

You seem to be saying that sin is first made real...is shown to us to be real...and then "forgiven". Well, this is not what forgiveness is about. This kind of forgiveness would damn us all to hell....because it denies the truth, and makes sin the truth instead.


To answer your question about Paul's theology, Rom 7 and 8 speak to a mystery tradition doesn't see, that the mind set on spirit as alive and that set on flesh is dead represent not different people but dual elements within the same person

Dual, as in, one of these mindsets is real, and the other is an illusion. And yes, these are both within, as a "house divided against itself". When our will for reality prevails over our wish for illusions, our mind will be healed of its unholy (unwhole, divided, fragmented) split...and made whole (holy) again. This divided duality is expressed in each "person"...but does not derive from each person. It's "root" is in a mind which encompasses all of time and mass...which mind belongs to each of us. The solution is found in uprooting the root (the idea of separation) of the cause (sin) of the effects (persons). This is done by making a decision, after first training our minds to think clearly through the (baptismal) process of washing our minds with the words of the Spirit of Truth...and the experiences that devotion to such words bring to our attention.

....Jesus teaches the same thing, for instance in Luke 6:45: "The good man out of the good treasure of his heart brings forth what is good; and the evil man out of the evil treasure brings forth what is evil..." Even though the literal understanding of this...that Scripture is speaking of individuals here, good and bad persons....is incoherent, the organized church still teaches and believes this is its primary meaning. Tension dissolves when this is understood figuratively as elements within each person (as also tares and wheat, sheep and goats, etc.) because in reality every person brings forth a fragmented variety of good and bad fruit, good and bad treasure, etc.

Yes, because each "person" is an effect of a mind that is digesting the ramifications of combining dual (opposite) attributes into one "thing". For this reason, a "person" appears to be both "good and evil". Neither are true, because there are no people....except in the imagination of a mind that hosts duality as an expression of the freedom to self-decieve a sane mind...driving it mad as it drives it further and further away from reality.

[UrbanMonk]

Hard Knock #1: Don't ask people to follow you as you preach equality, since you are a walking contradiction and will be laughed at by those who know better. :lol:

Very funny. How do you know if an elf is lying? If it moves it's lips. Why? Elves don't exist! Ha ha! Likewise, any mouth that teaches the world does not exist, is a walking talking contradiction. Yes. I get it. Now, you can mock, and walk. Or you can be grateful that the Spirit of Truth uses our hands, and feet, and mouths to tell us that we don't exist except as Spirit in Truth...as Truth. But mock as you will, you only reinforce what I've said about how the world mocks the Son of God...making what is sane appear insane....making what is real appear insignificant...making what is powerful appear weak...making what is alive appear to be dead. Go ahead and mock. I belong to the first church of the last laugh. God is not mocked because...drumroll please...the world does not exist! :lol:

[UrbanMonk]

Hard Knock #1: Don't ask people to follow you as you preach equality, since you are a walking contradiction and will be laughed at by those who know better. :lol:

Depending on how you interpret "follow" you will save yourself or damn yourself. I offer the following fundamentals (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/follow):

Use follow in a Sentence
5. to imitate or copy; use as an exemplar: They follow the latest fads.
6. to move forward along (a road, path, etc.): Follow this road for a mile.
8. to go after or along with (a person) as companion.
10. to try for or attain to: to follow an ideal.
11. to engage in or be concerned with as a pursuit: He followed the sea as his true calling.
14. to keep up with and understand (an argument, story, etc.): Do you follow me?

[John Goddard]

Depending on how you interpret "follow" you will save yourself or damn yourself. I offer the following fundamentals (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/follow):

I replied in the other thread, I'll confine my concerns to that one.