We are God-beings in the making!

[David Ben-Ariel]

Converted from carnal to divine? Transformed from fallen human to heavenly being? What exactly is the end result of our conversion process? What are we literally destined to become?

We are God-beings in the making! (http://www.religionandspiritualityforum.com/view.php?StoryID=20051127-024852-4822r)

disregard this notice

[technomage]

Converted from carnal to divine? Transformed from fallen human to heavenly being? What exactly is the end result of our conversion process? What are we literally destined to become?

We are God-beings in the making! (http://www.religionandspiritualityforum.com/view.php?StoryID=20051127-024852-4822r)
David, this belongs in Unorthodox Theology, not Eschatology. One of the Moderators would be more than glad to move it for you if you ask, or (if you prefer) I'll make the request for you.

[David Ben-Ariel]

Jesus was moved outside the gates also...

Thankfully, the Firstborn of many brethren (by a resurrection from the dead to glorified holy Spirit) has risen above all the pettiness of this mortal life and has led the way for true Bible-believers to follow!

[Meh_Gerbil]

Jesus was moved outside the gates also...

eh?

[technomage]

Jesus was moved outside the gates also...

Thankfully, the Firstborn of many brethren (by a resurrection from the dead to glorified holy Spirit) has risen above all the pettiness of this mortal life and has led the way for true Bible-believers to follow!
Three basic, fundamental facts to remember, David.

1: There is one Jesus Christ.
2: You ain't him.
3: And you ain't even close.

But don't worry--I ain't Jesus Christ either.

NOTE TO MODERATORS: As the above list demonstrates, "Ain't" is now a theological term that probably needs to be added to the Glossary.

[Meh_Gerbil]

Perhaps someone could clue teh Gerbs into where David is coming from exactly.
Is he Mormon or what?

[IncRus]

Perhaps someone could clue teh Gerbs into where David is coming from exactly.
Is he Mormon or what?

Here's what Drew Williams, a Mormon or Latter-day Saint, wrote in Chapter 2, page 14 of his book, The Complete Idiot's Guide to Understanding Mormonism:

The inspired words of Genesis states, "God created man in His own image, in the image of God created He him; male and female created He them." If Genesis is to be taken literally, then God is in the image of man (italics mine), and, therefore is man himself. That's the Latter-day Saint philosophy in a nutshell: "Man is what God once was, God is what man may become." (Joseph Smith Jr.)

Members of the LDS Church believe they can become like God himself. They believe that God is a glorified man (italics mine), in whose image man was created. Latter-day Saints believe that man's spiritual progression can include the glorified privilege of having all that the Father has, as Christ promised in Romans 8:17."

Of course, common sense dictates that this interpretation of Gen. 1:27 is FALSE. If "MAN is what God once was," how was that MAN created WITHOUT God? Any comments?

[David Ben-Ariel]

Perhaps someone could clue teh Gerbs into where David is coming from exactly.
Is he Mormon or what?

Did you read the article? If so, you should know I am a Bible-believer, even if it goes against popular error or traditional teachings (that have proven idolatrous in too many cases). Read and believe the many Scriptures I've shared within the article, offering the plain truth of the BIBLE.

I am not a Mormon and have never read their book, but have only seen quotes that convince me they give the glorious Truth that mankind is created after the Godkind a bad name.

My comment about going outside the gate was in reference to Hebrews:

Hebrews 13:10-13

10We have an altar from which those who minister at the tabernacle have no right to eat.

11The high priest carries the blood of animals into the Most Holy Place as a sin offering, but the bodies are burned outside the camp. 12And so Jesus also suffered outside the city gate to make the people holy through his own blood. 13Let us, then, go to him outside the camp, bearing the disgrace he bore.

Yashua, whom true Christians follow, not just bleat "Lord, Lord" like liars, refusing to do as He did (I John 2:4), is the FIRSTBORN OF MANY BRETHREN. He was the Seed that died and was resurrected and whose great Sacrifice will bring forth much fruit. "For we shall see Him as He is, for we shall be like Him" (I John 3:2) - born of that Seed (I John 3:9), we shouldn't expect to become cats or dogs or angels or anything less than the Second Adam, partaking fully of His divine character and holy Spirit composition - just like now we resemble Adam, nothing more or less.

Philippians 3:21
21who, by the power that enables him to bring everything under his control, will transform our lowly bodies so that they will be like his glorious body.

How logical...how biblical!

[freelight]

Converted from carnal to divine? Transformed from fallen human to heavenly being? What exactly is the end result of our conversion process? What are we literally destined to become?

We are God-beings in the making! (http://www.religionandspiritualityforum.com/view.php?StoryID=20051127-024852-4822r)




Hi David,

Yes............God is the very source, substance, essence, creator, sustainer of our very being.....and every seed produces after its kind. Those who have not advanced far enough into divine metaphysics or Spirit-revelation cannot see as those of us who have attained such vision/knowledge.

In fact.....if we come down to the bare-essentials of meta-ontological reality.....'God' is our being! - but even this is too advanced for most traditional christians who are fed tailored pulpit meals ever sunday that lack the keys to the Higher Mysteries.

Let each one discover his true Self and therein discover the God-being or Reality of their very existence (in all actuality and potentiality).





paul

[Bernie]

Hello Paul,

Religious views within Christianity can be divided into any number of categories, obviously. Generally, a division I've been mulling over for some time now lies along lines that this thread points toward. I recognize the freedom one has in Christ to explore these other dimensions, as you might call them, but sense that in the end, to draw doctrinal lines is inevitably a good thing. That this could ever be done in CU is highly unlikely as it lacks by its nature the formal structure necessary to elicit a consensus in matters like this. Most within CU hold at base (as do I) the conviction that the "formal" church is corrupt, in any number of senses. Of course, even many orthodox thinkers would agree here. But most CUs recognize that they are by virtue of a belief in the salvation of all, rejected by the 'normal' church, which leads to natural separation. I see it as a negative that possibly for lack of any other place to fit in, many CUs who come from orthodox upbringings throw in with UUs and others whose views extend far beyond orthodoxy. At least there they aren't rejected.

Yet despite universalism's rejection by the mainline churches, inroads are being made. More and more are being awakened to the notion of the salvation of all, despite this lack of doctrinal structure. Unfortunately, many seem to struggle to find a proper niche in the soteriology in which they were raised to "fit" the salvation of all. David Ben-Ariel presents in my opinion a leaning toward a popular but extreme position, which generally seems to be embraced by our Gnostic/mystic brethren, that the search for truth leads beyond the prison of orthodox thinking to the great illumination that we are in some real sense, God....or maybe that we're being fashioned into the proper form to become the God that we actually are (only we're not yet 'awakened' to this truth), as might be interpreted from your own statement, "...this is too advanced for most traditional christians who are fed tailored pulpit meals ever sunday that lack the keys to the Higher Mysteries." There are, of course, a number of beliefs within this general framework.

No one knows with any certainty what, exactly, we'll be on the other side, or what, exactly, we are now, as spiritual beings connected to a body in time and space. But at the end of the day, this view that Christianity (or Christians who embrace universalism) should drop their preconceived notions to embrace ideas like this presents problems for me. As the world's only fundamentalist esotericist, becoming (or being) God seems to hold no particularly important place in either Testament, that I can see. My fundamentalist view of the Scriptures as inspired forces me to hold the spiritual experiences of the Bible authors in higher esteem than most of my Gnostic/mystic brethren do. From this view,this "becoming God", which if true seems to me a great revelation of the Spirit, is--except for a few verses which can be interpreted to support the notion--largely absent from the theology of the Bible authors.

I can't rule out as impossible the idea that this special knowledge that we're all a little piece of God was simply not granted to them, that God has reserved this gnosis for the present age. But neither can I ignore what I believe to be the essence of all sin, that our fallen nature leads us naturally to favorite notions of personal autonomy consistent with Isa 14:12-15. At the same time, one might contrast the idea of a possession of 'Godness in being' with Isaiah's Spirit-inspired decree, "I am the LORD, that is My name; I will not give My glory to another, Nor My praise to graven images.", and, "Remember the former things long past, For I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is no one like Me (Isa 46:9).

The problem is compounded for me in that those who arrive at this conclusion tend universally to discard fundamentalist Christian ideals as archaic and outdated. Problem is, I hold actual truth to be eternal in nature. If the great truths arrived at by the blood and tribulation of Godly men are supplanted by new truth, there has to be a rational and justifiable reason for doing so...not because I say so, but because this seems to be the undisputed nature of truth itself....and I'm unable to see this justification.

This suggests to me the propriety of division, which, unlike the doctrine that man is God, is one of the principle themes of both Testaments. Am I wrong? Why?

[freelight]

Hello Paul,

Religious views within Christianity can be divided into any number of categories, obviously. Generally, a division I've been mulling over for some time now lies along lines that this thread points toward. I recognize the freedom one has in Christ to explore these other dimensions, as you might call them, but sense that in the end, to draw doctrinal lines is inevitably a good thing. That this could ever be done in CU is highly unlikely as it lacks by its nature the formal structure necessary to elicit a consensus in matters like this. Most within CU hold at base (as do I) the conviction that the "formal" church is corrupt, in any number of senses. Of course, even many orthodox thinkers would agree here. But most CUs recognize that they are by virtue of a belief in the salvation of all, rejected by the 'normal' church, which leads to natural separation. I see it as a negative that possibly for lack of any other place to fit in, many CUs who come from orthodox upbringings throw in with UUs and others whose views extend far beyond orthodoxy. At least there they aren't rejected.

Yet despite universalism's rejection by the mainline churches, inroads are being made. More and more are being awakened to the notion of the salvation of all, despite this lack of doctrinal structure. Unfortunately, many seem to struggle to find a proper niche in the soteriology in which they were raised to "fit" the salvation of all. David Ben-Ariel presents in my opinion a leaning toward a popular but extreme position, which generally seems to be embraced by our Gnostic/mystic brethren, that the search for truth leads beyond the prison of orthodox thinking to the great illumination that we are in some real sense, God....or maybe that we're being fashioned into the proper form to become the God that we actually are (only we're not yet 'awakened' to this truth), as might be interpreted from your own statement, "...this is too advanced for most traditional christians who are fed tailored pulpit meals ever sunday that lack the keys to the Higher Mysteries." There are, of course, a number of beliefs within this general framework.

No one knows with any certainty what, exactly, we'll be on the other side, or what, exactly, we are now, as spiritual beings connected to a body in time and space. But at the end of the day, this view that Christianity (or Christians who embrace universalism) should drop their preconceived notions to embrace ideas like this presents problems for me. As the world's only fundamentalist esotericist, becoming (or being) God seems to hold no particularly important place in either Testament, that I can see. My fundamentalist view of the Scriptures as inspired forces me to hold the spiritual experiences of the Bible authors in higher esteem than most of my Gnostic/mystic brethren do. From this view,this "becoming God", which if true seems to me a great revelation of the Spirit, is--except for a few verses which can be interpreted to support the notion--largely absent from the theology of the Bible authors.

I can't rule out as impossible the idea that this special knowledge that we're all a little piece of God was simply not granted to them, that God has reserved this gnosis for the present age. But neither can I ignore what I believe to be the essence of all sin, that our fallen nature leads us naturally to favorite notions of personal autonomy consistent with Isa 14:12-15. At the same time, one might contrast the idea of a possession of 'Godness in being' with Isaiah's Spirit-inspired decree, "I am the LORD, that is My name; I will not give My glory to another, Nor My praise to graven images.", and, "Remember the former things long past, For I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is no one like Me (Isa 46:9).

The problem is compounded for me in that those who arrive at this conclusion tend universally to discard fundamentalist Christian ideals as archaic and outdated. Problem is, I hold actual truth to be eternal in nature. If the great truths arrived at by the blood and tribulation of Godly men are supplanted by new truth, there has to be a rational and justifiable reason for doing so...not because I say so, but because this seems to be the undisputed nature of truth itself....and I'm unable to see this justification.

This suggests to me the propriety of division, which, unlike the doctrine that man is God, is one of the principle themes of both Testaments. Am I wrong? Why?


Bernie,

This opens up the whole realm of the nature of God and Man - and since you bring up 'propriety of division' unfolds for us the issues of metaphysics and ontology concerning the constutition of mind and spirit.

Essentially we cannot deny that we are from or of God...because there is no other Creative or Original Source of being existing. This Original Source is the Substance from which all 'being' and 'consciousness' issues, inheres and has its being. In a familial sense because we are the offspring of Deity....we have within us the potential to attain some form of divinity perfection or maturity. This is according to the law, 'a seed reproduces after its kind'. So at least here in this example....we can become like God because we are His seed and that seed has the divine potential to become 'as' the giver of that seed 'IS'.

It is quite true that the writers of the Bible are writing prominently from a dualistic, relative sense (from mans finite perspective) and therefore see 'God' as a wholly seperate, holy Being from themselves. I do not deny this view because its part of the realm of perspective, but it is limited to the finite senses. So on this plane of perception...sure God seems like Hes 'out there' as a seperate being, person or entity. This is duality.

In recently exploring a more non-dual, wholistic, absolute View of Reality, Truth, God.....I have seen that in this purview of the ONE, the ALL...there really is no seperation between God and Man - these 'seperations' only exist by relative perception within the limited finite sense of Man. But in the Absolute Realm of divine BEING, Presence, Mind, Spirit...the all-pervading....there is only God existing....and nothing can exist outside of 'God' - so if we take this to greater absoluteness....'there is only God'. - now this view may be extreme because the finite senses and relativity-bound mind of Man cannot pertain to it. Only when ones consciousness has expanded into the Unity, Oneness of God-consciousness does this Higher Sense of the All come into Being....but in Reality it all-ways WAS. As we come back down to our relative, finite, time-space bound hu-man sense.....we see seperation, dividision, relativity everywhere we look...because we are conditioned by the parameters we are restricted to. - but perhaps I digress. (getting into metaphysics).

But yes,....both testaments do present the perception/view that Man is not God and God is not Man....HOWEVER....there are meta-logical insights and experiences in the Spirit of God of which Man shares and has received...that awaken and make Man a partaker of the divine Nature and a divine Son. A Son naturally has the nature of His Father...and furthermore with the anointing of the Spirit....is even christened more to be empowered and granted knowledge that only Deity possesses. This power, being and gnosis then is possessed by His divine Sons and shared with God as ONE. - there is a realm/place/space of being-ness, substance, glory where God and Man are spiritually 'one'....this in the deepest core of his being(spirit/soul). We do know these things as attested by John because God has given us of His Spirit...so they are spiritually discerned. This is why most nominal or merely intellectual believers have not necessarily tasted of these more exsquisite realities of their divine inheritance and Christhood because they have not availed themselves to know God in spirit and truth or awaken to their own divine Sonship in the Christ.

It comes down to the souls light and its own revelation as far as ones seperation or union with God.





paul

[Bernie]

Hi Paul,

You seem to present a pretty good summary of the Gnostic position, overall.

...we cannot deny that we are from or of God...because there is no other Creative or Original Source of being existing. This Original Source is the Substance from which all 'being' and 'consciousness' issues, inheres and has its being."

But this is only one model. The mind, methods and motives of God as infinite and perfect allow for other possiblilities, too, since we view them from not merely a finite knowledge, but one corrupted in a number of senses. When God said "Let us make man according to Our likeness", He may not have limited Himself to our interpretive models. I.e., He might as easily limited the creation of man to a more literal likeness or similitude than the ontological connection you contend for, which seems to suggest more of a 'sameness'. I agree with your comment, "In a familial sense because we are the offspring of Deity....we have within us the potential to attain some form of divinity perfection or maturity. This 'some form' is our hope, of course. But what form?

"This is according to the law, 'a seed reproduces after its kind'. So at least here in this example....we can become like God because we are His seed and that seed has the divine potential to become 'as' the giver of that seed 'IS'."

Holy Mormonism, Batman! I can accept the 'reproducing after its kind' analogy as long as we recognize that this example from descriptive reality may itself not achieve more than a 'through a glass darkly' correspondence. I'm hesitant to apply the literalness of the transfer of the essence of, say, an apple from the tree's seed--which is basically equal in most respects--to the realm of spirit. I don't say it's not possible, just that there seem to be good reasons to question these kinds of connections.

"It is quite true that the writers of the Bible are writing prominently from a dualistic, relative sense (from mans finite perspective) and therefore see 'God' as a wholly seperate, holy Being from themselves. I do not deny this view because its part of the realm of perspective, but it is limited to the finite senses. So on this plane of perception...sure God seems like Hes 'out there' as a seperate being, person or entity. This is duality."
The problem with this notion, Paul, is that the perception of God's difference as "sheer" is intuitive and spiritual, not sensual. This perception, assuming it's true, seems to me unrelated to the senses, insofar as it's revelatory and spiritual. Sheerness is part of prescriptive vitality, and as intuited meaning, lies beyond the realm of sense.

This raises the substance of the differences I inferred in my first post: the Gnostic says on the one hand that truth lies above and beyond that sheerness, that the real truth puts to rest this distinction. Here's where I think division is necessary. If the difference between man and God is truly sheer, then Gnostic pantheism is most likely false, or at least highly illusory [containing a high 'false' content], and is proper to reject and avoid. If Gnostic 'familial parity' is true, the testimony of those who envision the difference between God and man as sheer is likely false, or at least terribly illusory. My problem is that my own experience supports the former. I can't rule out the possiblity that I and those whose experience agree with mine are mistaken...but I haven't yet found it reasonable to suppose that this is the case. Thus, my explorations along these lines....

[quote]"It comes down to the souls light and its own revelation as far as ones seperation or union with God."

Maybe. But is it possible that the Gnostic rejects a great deal of reason because reason tends to lead ultimately to paths which deny their view? Might not the illumination of the Gnostic itself be delusion? What is the proper deciding factor, experience or tradition? I beleive my experience supports tradition, mostly; the Gnostic's believes his rises above it. How do we know which is right?

[David Ben-Ariel]

Man is NOT inherently divine. We are entirely mortal. However, we are offered the incredible human potential to become divine, to be transformed at the First Resurrection into the literal Kingdom-Family of God.

In order to be born again at the resurrection, to attain the divinity offered, we must REPENT of going against God and His Kingdom of Righteousness, His royal law of love and liberty (love for God and love for neighbor as for ourselves) and believe the Good News of the Kingdom-Family of God.

We must repent of living in wrong ways contrary to that Kingdom's spirit and purpose, accept the blood of the Passover Lamb (not Easter bunny) who's got us covered, and increasingly go and sin no more, partaking of the divine nature, tasting of the powers of the world to come by exercising the Holy Spirit to subdue sin in our lives, receiving the pardon and THE POWER, and receiving (it's not inherent) the finishing touch to our conversion process at the resurrection that is simultaneous with Christ's return to reign in Jerusalem.

Just What Do You Mean...the Kingdom of God? (http://www.cog21.org/site/cog_archives/booklets/Just%20What%20Do%20You%20Mean___%20KINGDOM%20OF%20GOD.htm) makes this truth plain, so help us God to understand and respond and receive the GIFT of eternal life (it's not inherent within you).

[Krusader]

[QUOTE=David Ben-Ariel]Man is NOT inherently divine. We are entirely mortal. However, we are offered the incredible human potential to become divine, to be transformed at the First Resurrection into the literal Kingdom-Family of God.

QUOTE]

Gee, Herbert W. Armstrong couldn't have said it any better.

[Hitch]

Perhaps someone could clue teh Gerbs into where David is coming from exactly.
Is he Mormon or what?Armstrongist. Ya take a little mormon, a little JW a dash of Seventh Day Adventism and about six cups of personality cult mix em up and leave it on Funk&Wagnal's porch for six weeks you get the World Wide Church Of God and Ambassador College.

[freelight]

Hi Paul,

Maybe. But is it possible that the Gnostic rejects a great deal of reason because reason tends to lead ultimately to paths which deny their view? Might not the illumination of the Gnostic itself be delusion? What is the proper deciding factor, experience or tradition? I beleive my experience supports tradition, mostly; the Gnostic's believes his rises above it. How do we know which is right?

Hi Bernie,

Reason certainly has its place in the ethicology of spiritual discernment...and in the processing of gnosis. True unveiling of gnosis if inspired from Truth cannot be delusionary, althought the human filter can taint such transmissions.

In the experience of God/Truth........experience is ultimately that which the soul comes to personally realize/taste/touch/validate for himself - if tradition is concordant with such experience...then there is no contention by harmony between the two. In spiritual priority......experience or living gnosis merits higher than tradition as the former is dynamic and latter primarily formal/historic/convention. We ultimately know what is right or proper/helpful to our spiritual journey by the fruit/experience/reality of what we come to know which will resonate with universal truth within and without. If Jesus says the Spirit of Reality will lead, guide and teach...and John says the Spirit is truth/reality....then only the Spirit of truth can give/convey/translate truth to the soul. Truth is its own witness. Truth in its primal dynamicy is a living thing while other forms/conceptions of truth or its communications can be more intellections of such. Truth must speak for itself - our reception is a factor in its translation.

Truth as what is Actual/Real must be Self-evident by being. Jesus was a living radtiation of divine truth....as such he offered no explanation to Pontius Pilate when asked 'what is truth?'. An aprocyphal gospel records Jesus as saying 'truth is from heaven' which is to say that truth can only be understood/seen/realized in 'God' or divine Reality.

When asking 'what is truth'....one must surrender to the Truth that IS. - only then can one come upon that which IS....and let It speak for Itself. We can come to know truth or 'God' only because we exist in God and have no existence apart from Him. We 'are' because God 'IS'....and could not 'be' otherwise.









paul

[Timothy Leary]

Converted from carnal to divine? Transformed from fallen human to heavenly being? What exactly is the end result of our conversion process? What are we literally destined to become?

We are God-beings in the making! (http://www.religionandspiritualityforum.com/view.php?StoryID=20051127-024852-4822r)




David ben Ariel, Tafsik lezyen basehel

[Bernie]

Hi Paul,
"Reason certainly has its place in the ethicology of spiritual discernment...and in the processing of gnosis. True unveiling of gnosis if inspired from Truth cannot be delusionary, althought the human filter can taint such transmissions.

In the experience of God/Truth........experience is ultimately that which the soul comes to personally realize/taste/touch/validate for himself - if tradition is concordant with such experience...then there is no contention by harmony between the two. In spiritual priority......experience or living gnosis merits higher than tradition as the former is dynamic and latter primarily formal/historic/convention. We ultimately know what is right or proper/helpful to our spiritual journey by the fruit/experience/reality of what we come to know which will resonate with universal truth within and without. If Jesus says the Spirit of Reality will lead, guide and teach...and John says the Spirit is truth/reality....then only the Spirit of truth can give/convey/translate truth to the soul. Truth is its own witness. Truth in its primal dynamicy is a living thing while other forms/conceptions of truth or its communications can be more intellections of such. Truth must speak for itself - our reception is a factor in its translation.

Truth as what is Actual/Real must be Self-evident by being. Jesus was a living radtiation of divine truth....as such he offered no explanation to Pontius Pilate when asked 'what is truth?'. An aprocyphal gospel records Jesus as saying 'truth is from heaven' which is to say that truth can only be understood/seen/realized in 'God' or divine Reality.

When asking 'what is truth'....one must surrender to the Truth that IS. - only then can one come upon that which IS....and let It speak for Itself. We can come to know truth or 'God' only because we exist in God and have no existence apart from Him. We 'are' because God 'IS'....and could not 'be' otherwise."

I agree with all the principles you contend for here, but the question remains begged.

If truth is its own witness [truth possessed in created intellect is in unity and agreement with the Truth which is it's own Being--God], and if we can agree that falsity as the antithesis of truth naturally raises tension and resistance [T&R] when the two interact, then where two views of prescriptive reality clash, this tension and resistance can be seen in reason.

For instance...and I don't pretend to be making a comparison of yours, my or any other individual's views, here....compare the following generalizations from fundamentalist and mystic points of view:

Jesus was born of a virgin and was Himself God *** Jesus was only a very wise man; there was no virgin birth

The Bible is in some real sense the inerrant word of God *** The Bible is a book of wisdom written by wise humans and is only 'of God' where its teachings are in harmony with a higher truth

Man possesses an inherently evil nature, from which the intellectual operation is infected; thus, moral systems should be compared with known and established truths and tests of truth should be suspect to the extent they fail these tests *** truth is mostly subjective, is not the same for all, and everyone should trust only his or her subjetive experience to establish personal moral truth

This presents a very basic comparison of some of the areas tension and resistance arise between the two views. The more subjective and mystical the view, the more it seems that fundamental truths are rejected. Both see deception in various degrees in the view of the other.

As to our becoming "God-beings", if by this one means becoming the same as God, distinct from merely possessing some of the attributes of God as a final result, as in perfection, then T&R is raised in light of passages like Isa 14:12-14, which seem to stand in sheer opposition to the 'same-as' doctrine.

You seem to be saying that in the final analysis, we're all trapped in our subjective minds while here on earth, and just have to do the best we can, individually. I see a lot of truth here, but we have to keep having discussions like this, have to keep digging for buried truth anway, would you agree? How can one not?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

I find a bit more room for common ground, David Ben-Ariel, in your making the distinction that we are not now God-beings but will (or can?) be. Many mystics I've discussed theology with take the view that we're God now, but we just don't realize it; we haven't yet awakened from the deceived dream that we're evil.

I read some of Armstrong's stuff some 20+ years ago, in late 70's, I think, but recall very little of it today. Will try to read some more from your link if I can get time.

[freelight]

Hi Paul,


I agree with all the principles you contend for here, but the question remains begged.

If truth is its own witness [truth possessed in created intellect is in unity and agreement with the Truth which is it's own Being--God], and if we can agree that falsity as the antithesis of truth naturally raises tension and resistance [T&R] when the two interact, then where two views of prescriptive reality clash, this tension and resistance can be seen in reason.

For instance...and I don't pretend to be making a comparison of yours, my or any other individual's views, here....compare the following generalizations from fundamentalist and mystic points of view:

Jesus was born of a virgin and was Himself God *** Jesus was only a very wise man; there was no virgin birth

The Bible is in some real sense the inerrant word of God *** The Bible is a book of wisdom written by wise humans and is only 'of God' where its teachings are in harmony with a higher truth

Man possesses an inherently evil nature, from which the intellectual operation is infected; thus, moral systems should be compared with known and established truths and tests of truth should be suspect to the extent they fail these tests *** truth is mostly subjective, is not the same for all, and everyone should trust only his or her subjetive experience to establish personal moral truth

This presents a very basic comparison of some of the areas tension and resistance arise between the two views. The more subjective and mystical the view, the more it seems that fundamental truths are rejected. Both see deception in various degrees in the view of the other.


Hi Bernie,

I see your analysis but dont necessarily believe the above 'underlined' is the majority case because Truth is universal in essence/ethic/principle - so it will be generally consistent on both collective and individual planes of perception - however, there are some uniquities of course reflective in individual experience of 'God' but such peculiarities never compromise/violate essential fundamental truths - if they did...such would be questionable of course. Even your own 'esoteric fundamentalism' in my my view holds to the essentiality of both fundamental(universal/objective) and esoteric(particular individual experience/subjective) dimensions of Truth/Reality. In this sense I would be considered an esoteric fundamentalist actually by sentiments of my own understanding of the term :smile: - although our theosophy certainly bears our own unique mannerisms and logos-inflections.




As to our becoming "God-beings", if by this one means becoming the same as God, distinct from merely possessing some of the attributes of God as a final result, as in perfection, then T&R is raised in light of passages like Isa 14:12-14, which seem to stand in sheer opposition to the 'same-as' doctrine.



Originally our created being-ness is already in divine image/likeness...and in regeneration our being-ness is made more like divinity as sharing in the substance/essence of Gods very BEING. Each will perceive and experience 'God' according to their faculties at any given time...but it remains true as original and generational that divine Will/Love intends for Man to become a partaker of divine nature and fulfill/perfect, wholly experience the latent potential in his own being whose source and perfection is God. 'God-Being' is in fact the Only Being being as absolute, original and eternal.




You seem to be saying that in the final analysis, we're all trapped in our subjective minds while here on earth, and just have to do the best we can, individually. I see a lot of truth here, but we have to keep having discussions like this, have to keep digging for buried truth anway, would you agree? How can one not?



I would say that we can only realize/intuit/perceive what we are able at any given time in our spiritual evolution resonant with our level of consciousness. And absolutely.....discourse, discussion, dialogue is essential for expanding consciousness and the unfolding of Truth for what better or more original purpose does mind exist? As you may note in our more substancial dialogues my theosophy is explorational and by no means conclusionary(although some postulates may shared as being true to present understanding)...because intelligence is ever dynamic. We will forever be mining as long as more light/truth/gnosis exists in the infinite frontier of MIND. - vast fields of wealth and divine treasures await us. As far as our very existence is concerned there is no greater Truth/Reality/engagement/enterprise or occupation but a true and living theology because our being is rooted in Theos. Theos is All. There is only One divine Being wherein all sentient existence inheres - there is no 'other'! This must be realized on the original absolute plane of Existence where there is only ONE. All dualities/pluralities seem to appear only in relativity in the space/time dimensions of creation...where T&R(tension and resistence) naturally appears in relativity. Otherwise in the Absolute there is no duality or division whatsoever. Deity is One Absolute Whole,...Being supreme, Entire, Total, Singular. (this is another subject perhaps explored in another thread - the non-dual and dual aspects of existence - I remember you have your own view on 'duality' - I have been looking into the more non-dual understanding of Theos relative to familiar schools).


Remember that all truth must at last or finally be realized subjectively if it is to ever be experienced by invidividual consciousness. Truth ultimately has no object or subject but simply IS. - our denominations of what is objective or subjective are at one point versatilly irrelevant. You will also note that T&R only exists in relativity/duality and not in non-duality, the Absolute......for the Absolute is perfect LIFE and PEACE. There is absolutely no T&R in perfect LOVE.

just some food for thought :smile: I thorougly enjoy dialogue with other great minds who are pioneering new dimensions in the fields of Light.
















paul

[David Ben-Ariel]

Armstrongist.

Oh, is that what they call Bible-believers today? You can call true Christians all the names you want, but you clearly can't refute the plain truth of the Bible that Herbert Armstrong courageously taught, even some biblical truths recognized by few others (now if they and everybody else would just come out of traditional Babylon all the way).